Design Guidlelines for the City of Vallejo

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Design Guidlelines for the City of Vallejo REINTERPRETING CITY ALLEYS Design Guidelines for the City of Vallejo Karlo Antonio Manalang Felix City and Regional Planning Department College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo December 2013 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Reinterpreting City Alleys: Design Guidelines for the City of Vallejo by Karlo Antonio Manalang Felix Senior Project City and Regional Planning Department College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo 2013 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Approval Page Title: Reinterpreting City Alleys: Design Guidelines for the City of Vallejo Author: Karlo Antonio Manalang Felix Date Submitted: December 2013 Vicente del Rio, PhD Senior Project Advisor Signature Date Hemalata Dandekar, PhD Department Head Signature Date INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Document Structure ..................................................................................................................... 2 2 City Form and Alleys .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Historical Overview of Alleys ....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Alleys and City Form.................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Design Principles ....................................................................................................................... 10 3 Case Studies ...................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Selection and Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................... 11 3.2 San Francisco ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 Sacramento ................................................................................................................................ 15 3.4 Baltimore ................................................................................................................................... 17 3.5 Austin ......................................................................................................................................... 19 3.6 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................................ 21 4 The City of Vallejo and its Alleys ...................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................ 23 4.2 Historical Overview ................................................................................................................... 25 4.3 Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 27 4.4 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 30 4.5 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................. 35 4.6 Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................................. 38 5 Reintepreting Vallejo’s Alleys ........................................................................................................... 39 5.1 Vision for Vallejo’s Alleys ........................................................................................................... 39 5.4 Private Realm Design Guidlines ................................................................................................ 43 5.5 Public Realm Design Guidelines ................................................................................................ 45 5.6 Alley Programs .......................................................................................................................... 49 6 Implementation ................................................................................................................................. 51 6.1 Planning Context ........................................................................................................................ 51 6.2 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 52 6.3 Regulatory Review Process ........................................................................................................ 53 i 6.4 Financing Strategies .................................................................................................................. 53 6.5 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................. 54 References ............................................................................................................................................. 55 Figures Figure 3.1: San Francisco Context ........................................................................................................ 13 Figure 3.2: Belden Place Figure-Ground ............................................................................................. 14 Figure 3.3: Sacramento Context ........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3.4: Liestal Row Figure-Ground ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.5: Baltimore Context .............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 3.6: Glover-Luzerne Alley Figure-Ground ................................................................................ 18 Figure 3.7: Austin Context .................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3.8: Alley #111 Figure-Ground ................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4.1: Regional Context ............................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4.2: Project Area ....................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 4.3 Project Alleys ...................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 4.4: Amenities ........................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4.5: Block Figure-Ground ........................................................................................................ 32 Figure 4.6: Building Figure-Ground ................................................................................................... 33 Figure 4.7: Circulation System ............................................................................................................ 34 Figure 4.8: Zoning ............................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 4.9: Regulatory Districts ........................................................................................................... 37 Figure 5.1 Alley Districts ...................................................................................................................... 42 Tables Table 3.1: San Francisco at a Glance .................................................................................................... 13 Table 3.2: Belden Place Summary ........................................................................................................ 14 Table 3.3: Sacramento at a Glance ....................................................................................................... 15 Table 3.4: Liestal Row Survey .............................................................................................................. 16 ii Table 3.5: Baltimore at a Glance .......................................................................................................... 17 Table 3.6: Glover-Luzerne Alley Survey .............................................................................................. 18 Table 3.7: Austin at a Glance ................................................................................................................ 19 Table 3.8: Alley #111 Survey ................................................................................................................ 20 Table 4.1: Vallejo at a Glance ...............................................................................................................24 iii INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction This document analyzes a specific topic, a single piece of the urban fabric – the alley. Designed as a means to access the rear of properties, its function has given way to its reputation
Recommended publications
  • Meeting Agenda 4:30
    MEETING AGENDA 4:30 – 5:30 p.m., STA Board Workshop 6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday, June 8, 2016 Suisun City Hall Council Chambers 701 Civic Center Drive Suisun City, CA 94585 Mission Statement: To improve the quality of life in Solano County by delivering transportation system projects to ensure mobility, travel safety, and economic vitality. Public Comment: Pursuant to the Brown Act, the public has an opportunity to speak on any matter on the agenda or, for matters not on the agenda, issues within the subject matter jurisdiction of the agency. Comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes per speaker unless modified by the Board Chair, Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a). By law, no action may be taken on any item raised during the public comment period although informational answers to questions may be given and matters may be referred to staff for placement on a future agenda of the agency. Speaker cards are required in order to provide public comment. Speaker cards are on the table at the entry in the meeting room and should be handed to the STA Clerk of the Board. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes or less. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This agenda is available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Govt. Code §54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation should contact Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board, at (707) 424-6008 during regular business hours at least 24 hours prior to the time of the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Countywide Transportation Model
    ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL PLAN BAY AREA 2040 UPDATE Draft Documentation Report January, 2019 Alameda Countywide Travel Model Project #: 19752 January 10, 2019 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Alameda Countywide Transportation Model .......................................................................... i Plan Bay Area 2040 Update.................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. v Summary ................................................................................................................................. vii Key Features ......................................................................................................................................................... vii Key Updates .......................................................................................................................................................... ix Selected Consistency Results ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Appendix U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Maintenance
    APPENDIX U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA, CA 7/21/15 PROJECT NAME: OAKLAND HARBOR, CA OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Oakland Harbor is a high-use, deep-draft harbor located in Alameda County, California. The Port of Oakland is the major container facility in San Francisco Bay and is a National Strategic Port. The project was recently deepened from -45’ to 50-feet’ It is the third largest container port on the West coast and the fifth largest in the nation. The project includes annual maintenance dredging the Inner and Outer Harbors to a depth of -50 feet MLLW and provides for inspection and maintenance of parallel rubble-mound jetties that form the entrance to Oakland Inner Harbor, monitoring the Sonoma Baylands Wetland Demonstration Site, and for payment to Alameda County for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge. AUTHORIZATION: River and Harbor Acts of 1910, 1917, 1922, 1928, 1930, 1945, and 1962, Water Resource Development Acts of 1986 and 1999 FISCAL YEAR 2013 ACTUAL: $20,903,212 FISCAL YEAR 2014 ALLOCATION: $21,848,310 . CONFERENCE AMOUNT FOR FY 2015: $21,970,000 BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR FY 2016: M: $14,725,000 O: $275,000 T: $15,000,000 1/ DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR FY 2016: N: $15,000,000 - Funding will be used for annual contract maintenance dredging of the Inner and Outer Harbor Channels to 49-feet deep. Amount also includes annual operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge. PROJECT NAME: REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Redwood City Harbor is located on San Francisco Bay in San Mateo County.
    [Show full text]
  • SOLANO COUNTY TRANSIT ("Soltrans") JOINT POWERS
    Original w/Legal/fo File with State FY 2010-11.33.00 Original w/Legal CC: /SF/ER/LN Binder December 1, 2010 SOLANO COUNTY TRANSIT ("SolTrans") JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement is by and among the CITY OF BENICIA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "BENICIA"), the City of Vallejo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "VALLEJO"), and the SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTIIORITY (hereafter "STA"), ajoint powers agency and the congestion management agency for Solano County (hereinafter "STA"), which public entities (collectively "Members" or "Member Agencies") have entered into this Joint Powers Agreement ("Agreement") creating Solano County Transit hereinafter "SolTrans", a joint powers agency. All Members of SolTrans are public entities organized and operating under the laws of the State of California and each is a public agency as defined in California Government Code Section 6500. RECITALS A. Government Code Sections 6500-6515 permit two or more local public agencies, by agreement, to jointly exercise any power common to them and, thereby, authorizes the Members to enter into this Agreement. B. In the performance of their essential governmental functions, Benicia and Vallejo each provide transit services within their respective municipal boundaries and to areas outside of said boundaries in order to perform or participate in intercity, regional transit services. C. Among the responsibilities and transportation functions performed by STA, said agency provides planning, funding and management of intercity transit routes and paratransit services and, further, STA is eligible to act as a transit provider. D. Public entities have the opportunity to provide transit and related services in a cooperative and coordinated manner, in order to best manage the public resources committed and necessary for delivery of such transit services.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard, DHS § 117.173
    Coast Guard, DHS § 117.173 § 117.161 Honker Cut. phone number to schedule drawspan operation. The draw of the San Joaquin County (b) The draw of the Northwestern Pa- (Eightmile Road) bridge, mile 0.3 be- cific railroad bridge, mile 10.6 at Braz- tween Empire Tract and King Island at os, shall be maintained in the fully Stockton, shall open on signal if at open position, except for the crossing least 12 hours notice is given to the of trains or for maintenance. When the San Joaquin County Department of draw is closed and visibility at the Public Works at Stockton. drawtender’s station is less than one mile, up or down the channel, the § 117.163 Islais Creek (Channel). drawtender shall sound two prolonged (a) The draw of the Illinois Street blasts every minute. When the draw is drawbridge, mile 0.3 at San Francisco, opened, the drawtender shall sound shall open on signal if at least 72 hours three short blasts. advance notice is given to the Port of [CGD 82–025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as San Francisco. amended by CGD 12–85–02, 50 FR 20758, May (b) The draw of the 3rd Street draw- 20, 1985; USCG–1999–5832, 64 FR 34712, June 29, bridge, mile 0.4 at San Francisco, shall 1999; CGD11–03–006, 69 FR 21958, Apr. 23, 2004; open on signal if at least 72 hours ad- CGD 11–05–025, 70 FR 20467, Apr. 20, 2005] vance notice is given to the San Fran- cisco Department of Public Works.
    [Show full text]
  • RM2 Public Hearing Related Documents
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee June 14, 2017 Agenda Item 3a Regional Measure 2 Program Public Hearing Subject: Conduct a public hearing to amend the Regional Measure 2 (RM2) Operating program to add $5 million in annual operating assistance to two new projects: Clipper® and Transbay Transit Center operations. Background: In March 2004, Bay Area voters approved Regional Measure 2 (RM2), a $1 bridge toll increase on the seven state-owned bridges in the Bay Area. Pursuant to Section 30914(d) of the California Streets and Highways Code, up to 38 percent of RM2 toll revenues are to be made available annually for the purpose of providing operating assistance for transit services. The current RM2 Operating program consists of 11 transportation projects intended to reduce congestion or make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors. The operating projects in good standing and meeting required RM2 performance standards are being funded at appropriate levels as prescribed by the RM2 legislation. For FY 2017-18, the total funding required by the program falls below the 38 percent limit allowed for operating assistance, leaving operating funding available for programming. MTC is holding a public hearing in advance of consideration of action to program available RM2 operating funding capacity to two new projects that are consistent with the intent of the RM2 legislation. The proposed operating assistance for the two projects totals $5 million, annually. Further discussion of the projects is below. Project 12: Clipper® Operations Staff proposes to program $2 million annually to support ongoing operation of the Clipper® program.
    [Show full text]
  • 33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–14 Edition) § 117.161
    § 117.161 33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–14 Edition) open on signal if at least 12 hours no- phone at (707) 648–4313 for drawspan op- tice is given to the San Joaquin Coun- eration. When the drawbridge operator ty Department of Public Works at is not present, mariners may contact Stockton. the City of Vallejo via the same tele- phone number to schedule drawspan § 117.161 Honker Cut. operation. The draw of the San Joaquin County (b) The draw of the Northwestern Pa- (Eightmile Road) bridge, mile 0.3 be- cific railroad bridge, mile 10.6 at Braz- tween Empire Tract and King Island at os, shall be maintained in the fully Stockton, shall open on signal if at open position, except for the crossing least 12 hours notice is given to the of trains or for maintenance. When the San Joaquin County Department of draw is closed and visibility at the Public Works at Stockton. drawtender’s station is less than one mile, up or down the channel, the § 117.163 Islais Creek (Channel). drawtender shall sound two prolonged blasts every minute. When the draw is (a) The draw of the Illinois Street opened, the drawtender shall sound drawbridge, mile 0.3 at San Francisco, three short blasts. shall open on signal if at least 72 hours advance notice is given to the Port of [CGD 82–025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as San Francisco. amended by CGD 12–85–02, 50 FR 20758, May (b) The draw of the 3rd Street draw- 20, 1985; USCG–1999–5832, 64 FR 34712, June 29, bridge, mile 0.4 at San Francisco, shall 1999; CGD11–03–006, 69 FR 21958, Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 9 & 5, Laws to Live By
    Petaluma River Mare Island Bridge Causeway Bridge Petaluma River Mar e I. Str Vallejo San Pablo ait Channel Bay eet Mare I. Carquinez thball Fl Bridge Mo Dillon Suisun Channel Carqu Pt. Selby inez Bay Pumphouse Davis Pt. Strait Benicia Rodeo Port nole Shoal Crockett Pi Chicago Avon "E"cho Benicia-Martinez Bridge Buoy Pt. Pinole San Rafael Martinez McNears Pt. San Pedro Bluff Pt. Southampton Shoal Channel Pt. San Pablo rait Pt. Simpton Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Richmond Raccoon StAngel I. "A"lpha Larkspur Buoy Red Pt. Knox Rock Long Wharf Pt. Blunt San Sausalito Francisco Rules 9 & 5 ....... Southampton Bay r Shoal Channel Harding e Tiburon t Rock Buoy San Alcatraz I. Deep Wate Westbound Lane Angel I. Traffic Lan Treasure I. Laws To Live By Sausalito Raccoon Strai astbound Lane Berkeley Pier E Blossom Golden Rock Buoy Gate Presidio Shoal Bridge Alcatraz I. Golden Yerba Buena I. Treasure I. Bay Gate San Francisco Bridge Bridge Bay Pt. Bonita San Francisco Bridge Harbor Safety Committee Mile Oakland Rock Central Bay San Francisco Alameda The Captain of the Port designates the following areas (in white) where deep draft commercial and public Francisco vessels routinely operate to be "narrow channels or Pacific Ocean fairways", for the purpose of enforcing RULE 9 (please refter to map for location of sites). OAK • Golden Gate Traffic Lanes and Golden Gate Precautionary Area Hunter's • Central Bay Traffic Lanes and Central Bay Precautionary Area Point • Oakland Harbor Bar Channel and Oakland Outer Harbor and Oakland Inner Harbor San Bruno Shoal • Alameda Naval Air Station Channel • So.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Packet Is Available for Download At
    Members of the Board BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING Thursday, June 19, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. Anthony J. Intintoli, Jr., Chair San Francisco Bay Area Jeffrey DelBono Water Emergency Transportation Authority Timothy Donovan 9 Pier, Suite 111; San Francisco The full agenda packet is available for download at www.watertransit.org. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER – BOARD CHAIR Information 2. ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Information 3. REPORT OF BOARD CHAIR Information 4. REPORTS OF DIRECTORS Information 5. REPORTS OF STAFF Information a. Executive Director’s Report b. Monthly Review of Financial Statements c. Legislative Update 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Action a. Minutes May 8, 2014 b. Approve Amendment to Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments for the Provision of Accounting Support Services c. Approve Amendment to Agreement with Solano County Transit for the Provision of Bus and Ticketing Services d. Approve Purchase of Commercial Insurance Policies 7. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH FAST FERRY Action MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF MARINE SERVICES 8. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH NOSSAMAN LLP FOR THE Action PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES 9. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH NEMATODE MEDIA, LLC Action (DBA BAY CROSSINGS) FOR ADVERTISING IN BAY CROSSINGS AND OTHER SERVICES 10. ADOPT THE 2014 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Action 11. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH LINDSAY HART, LLP FOR Action THE PROVISION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION 12. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BROAD & GUSMAN, LLP Action FOR THE PROVISION OF STATE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION Water Emergency Transportation Authority June 19, 2014 Meeting of the Board of Directors 13. AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR Action TECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR VALLEJO DREDGING PROJECT 14.
    [Show full text]
  • 9Th Annual San Francisco Bay Osprey Days
    9th San Francisco Bay Osprey Days June 25, 26 & 27, 2021 9TH ANNUAL SAN FRANCISCO BAY OSPREY DAYS Photo upper: Lee Ann Tompkins Baker, Carquinez Strait, Vallejo, CA FREE Image left: Kathleen R. Fenton * boat trips–2 hrs Even in the most trying times, nature $45 per person thrives. In our Bay, osprey still soar, Nesting Osprey have flourished dive, fish, nest, feed and fledge their in San Francisco Bay since the young. early 2000’s when the first successful nesting pair took up We hope you will join them and us, to celebrate their resilience… residence at the southernmost and ours. This year continues to be a daunting challenge for our tip of Pier 34 at the mouth of the entire team of dedicated scientists, researchers, guides, volunteers Napa River in the Mare Island and board of the Mare Island Heritage Trust. After a series of Shoreline Heritage Preserve. fires in September 2019, and after 12 years of trusted and Now, there are 56 documented protective care of the Preserve, we as a nonprofit founder, funder nests Baywide, this 2021 season. and manager of the Preserve, were dismissed by the Vallejo City HOSTED BY Manager as operating managers of the Mare Island Preserve. Still The Bay Area Osprey Coalition as confused and troubled as you are, we hold out hope for better Mare Island Heritage Trust times. Imagine, more than 8,100 fellow Preserve Users have Golden Gate Raptor Observatory signed our online petition to return the Preserve to our care. Napa Solano Audubon Society Click here to sign and share.
    [Show full text]
  • Event Advisory 9Th Annual Osprey Days Jun 25-27, 2021
    EVENT ADVISORY June 23, 2021 For immediate release Contact: Myrna Hayes, President/Executive Director, Mare Island Heritage Trust and former Volunteer Preserve Manager CELL PH: 707-249-9633 EMail: [email protected] www.sfbayospreydays.org 9th Annual San Francisco Bay Osprey Days Free public event highlights osprey nesting on San Francisco Bay with Guided Hikes, Car Caravans and Presentations Headquartered on Mare Island, Vallejo, California [VALLEJO], CA – Friday, June 25, Saturday, June 26 and Sunday, June 27, 2021 the 9th Annual San Francisco Bay Osprey Days will take place at the Mare Island Shoreline Heritage Preserve and other locations throughout Mare Island in Vallejo. There is no cost or preregistration required to attend the field trips and presentations. Two-hour guided boat trips are $45 per person and do require advanced registration. The free event features numerous car caravan and walking tours scheduled all three days led by field guides from the local Napa-Solano Audubon Society and the Golden Gate Raptor Observatory and other naturalists. Osprey have not been documented to have nested in San Francisco Bay in the 20th or 21st centuries. Interest in these newcomers grows. The latest tool for public access to osprey nesting in San Francisco Bay is the high-definition, dual camera webcam perched above the osprey nest on the whirly crane at the Richmond CA harbor. Installed just about 4 years ago, it can be viewed 24/7 at www.sfbayospreys.org It's hoped that the "SF Bay osprey cam" website will not be confused with the website for the "San Francisco Bay Osprey Days"event, www.sfbayospreydays.org .
    [Show full text]