The Palisades Design Charrette held on November 18, 2013, gathered public feedback on design aspects for the Palisades Trailhead and access improvements project, summarizing preferences through a visual survey and comments on three conceptual plans. Key findings indicate a strong preference for minimalist designs that integrate natural features, limit environmental impact, and prioritize appropriate parking layouts. A second public meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2014, to share survey results and gather further community input on the design options.

1. THE PALISADES
Summary Design Charrette Findings

2. The Palisades Design Charrette
• On November 18th, 2013 the City of El Paso’s City
Development and Parks and Recreation Departments
held a public meeting and charrette to obtain public
feedback about various design aspects of the Palisades
trailhead and access improvements project.
• The following slides summarize the results of this
charrette, to include findings from the:
1. Visual Preference Survey
2. Comments on the Three Conceptual Plans

3. VISUAL PREFERENCE
SURVEY
Summary of Findings

4. Purpose and Methodology
• Purpose
• The purpose of the Visual Preference Survey was to obtain public feedback on
physical and aesthetic design alternatives for various elements of the Palisades
trailhead and access improvements project.
• Elements included the following:
Entryway
Furniture & Fixtures
Path
Details
Gathering Places
Signs
Along Trails
Parking
• Methodology
• Images of design alternatives for each element were posted for consideration by
meeting attendees.
• Meeting attendees were provided 12 dots and instructed to place their dots on the
images they liked best.
• The following slides summarize the top and bottom images identified within each
element.
• Top images represent the images receiving the largest number of dots, while bottom images
represent those receiving the fewest number of dots.

5. Entry Way Design Alternatives
• A total of 15 design images were provided as Entry Way alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

6. n=65
Top Choices
Entry Way
15
31%
9
14%
8
12%
11
11%
Bottom Choices
Picture Identification Tag
5
8%
13
6%
12
5%
1
5%
7
3%
6
3%
14
2%
4
2%
10
0%
3
0%
2
0%
0%
4%
7%
11%
14%
18%
21%
25%
28%
32%
35%

7. Gathering Places Design Alternatives
• A total of 10 design images were provided as Gathering Place alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

8. n=70
Top Choices
Gathering Places
6
31%
2
20%
Bottom Choices
Picture Identification Tag
4
16%
1
16%
9
4%
8
4%
10
3%
7
3%
5
1%
3
1%
0%
4%
7%
11%
14%
18%
21%
25%
28%
32%
35%

9. Furniture & Fixtures Design Alternatives
• A total of 15 design images were provided as Furniture & Fixture alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

10. n=91
Top Choices
Furniture & Fixtures
2
34%
11
16%
9
13%
8
7%
Bottom Choices
Picture Identification Tag
14
5%
12
5%
1
5%
10
4%
15
3%
5
3%
7
2%
13
0%
6
0%
4
0%
3
0%
0%
4%
7%
11%
14%
18%
21%
25%
28%
32%
35%

11. Signs Design Alternatives
• A total of 6 design images were provided as Signs alternatives.
• Each alternative was assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

12. n=43
Top Choices
Signs
6
56%
Bottom Choices
Picture Identification Tag
5
23%
3
12%
4
5%
2
2%
1
2%
0%
6%
12%
18%
24%
30%
36%
42%
48%
54%
60%

13. Path Design Alternatives
• A total of 6 design images were provided as Path/Trail alternatives.
• Each alternative was assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

14. n=51
Top Choice
Path
4
53%
Bottom Choice
Picture Identification Tag
3
16%
1
16%
5
8%
2
6%
6
2%
0%
6%
12%
18%
24%
30%
36%
42%
48%
54%
60%

15. Along Trails Design Alternatives
• A total of 12 design images were provided as Along Trails alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

16. n=79
Top Choices
Along Trails
6
23%
4
18%
12
15%
Bottom Choices
Picture Identification Tag
3
14%
7
10%
9
8%
2
6%
10
4%
5
1%
1
1%
11
0%
8
0%
0%
3%
5%
8%
10%
13%
15%
18%
20%
23%
25%

17. Details Design Alternatives
• A total of 14 design images were provided as Details alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

18. n=79
Top Choices
Details
8
19%
2
16%
5
15%
3
15%
Bottom Choices
Picture Identification Tag
7
14%
9
5%
1
5%
11
4%
14
3%
4
3%
10
1%
13
0%
12
0%
6
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%

19. Parking Design Alternatives
• A total of 5 design images were provided as Parking alternatives.
• Each alternative was assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

20. n=20
Top Choices
Parking
5
55%
Bottom Choices
Picture Identification Tag
1
40%
3
5%
4
0%
2
0%
0%
6%
12%
18%
24%
30%
36%
42%
48%
54%
60%

21. Summary of Survey Findings
• Clear preference for a minimalist approach.
• Integrate natural features and materials original to the site into
design of amenities, trails and trailhead.
• Trails and entryway should maximize scenic views.
• Design for minimum impact.
• Details, signage, etc. should blend into the scenery.

22. COMMENTS ON THREE
CONCEPTUAL PLANS
Summary of Findings

23. Purpose and Methodology
• Purpose
• The purpose of the opportunity to comment on each of the three conceptual plans
was to obtain public feedback on the various design options and their elements,
including parking location/layout, amenities, etc. This feedback is intended to serve
as a foundation for the final project design.
• Methodology
• The three conceptual plans were placed on tables and meeting attendees were
asked to answer two questions about each of the plans.
• The two questions asked were as follows:
1.
What would you change about this plan?
2.
What would you keep about this plan?
• Comments received were then compiled and organized by general theme/category.
Some these general themes include “Parking”, “Amenities”, “Security”, etc.
• The following slides summarize findings from this exercise.

24. Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C

25. • Scenarios A, B and C
Scenario Comparison
received a similar total
amount of comments at
100, 100 and 115 total
comments, respectively.
• The large majority of
comments received for
each of the three
scenarios related to items
the respondents would
change about the plan.
Scenario A
(100 comments)
21
Scenario B
(100 comments)
79
23
77
• Relative to the other
scenarios, Scenario C
received the largest share
of comments related to
plan elements
respondents would keep.
Scenario C
(115 comments)
38
0%
20%
77
40%
What Would You Keep?
60%
80%
What Would You Change?
100%

26. • The largest proportion of responses
regarding elements respondents
would change about each of the
plans were associated with parking
location/layout.
What would you change?
Traffic Circle
10
0
0
• Scenario B and C garnered similar
responses across categories.
• Nearly half of Scenario B and C
comments indicated that the
respondent would somehow change
the respective scenario’s parking
location/layout.
• Over one-fourth of Scenario A
comments indicated the respondent
would somehow change the plan’s
parking location/layout.
• The second and third most often
cited elements of Scenario A
included concern regarding the
materials used to pave the parking
lot and driveway, as well as a
concern regarding intrusion into the
natural setting.
Too Intrusive
Security
3
0
5
2
Restrooms
6
6
0
Plaza/Kiosk
8
2
23
Parking
Materials
7
• Although Scenarios A and C show
limited parking along the Billy
Rogers Arroyo Nature Preserve,
nearly half of the negative parking
comments received in each of these
cases referred specifically to a
concern for parking intrusion into
the Arroyo.
13
6
6
37
38
16
8
12
12
13
Other
0
5
10
Scenario A
15
20
Frequency
Scenario B
25
30
35
Scenario C
40

27. • When asked about which
What would you keep?
elements to keep, Scenario C
received the largest share of
comments.
• Scenario A appeared to be the
most polarizing with over onefourth of Scenario A comments
indicating that the respondent
would keep nothing about the
plan.
6
Traffic Circle
0
0
2
Parking
5
9
• For Scenario B, various plan
amenities, such as the gathering
space and kiosk, were most often
cited as elements to keep,
although, as shown in the
previous slide, a similar number of
comments were received
suggesting that these amenities
should be somehow changed.
6
Nothing
2
4
0
Minimal Intrusion
4
10
3
Generally Positive
0
5
• Relative to the other scenarios,
Scenario C was most often cited
as the least intrusive. Specifically,
minimal pavement and
development into the arroyo and
the Palisades itself were indicated
as elements to keep.
0
0
Culvert/Trail Crossing
3
2
Amenities
8
2
• Likely related, the location/layout
of Scenario C parking was
relatively more often cited as a
positive element to keep when
compared to the other two
scenarios.
2
Other
4
5
0
2
Scenario A
4
6
Scenario B
8
10
Scenario C
12

28. Summary of Conceptual Plan Comments
• The majority of comments received referred to elements about each of the
conceptual plans meeting attendees would change.
• Of the three scenarios, Scenario C received the largest share of positive
comments, although like its counterparts, a clear concern regarding parking layout
and location was communicated.
• Putting together both positive and negative comments received, the following
bullets summarize elements that should be considered and incorporated in the
final design:
• A plan that limits the impact and level of intrusion into the Palisades and negates any impact to
the Billy Rogers Arroyo Park is a priority.
• As a means of reducing the impact to the natural environment, a plan that reduces on-site
parking and employs alternative parking options should be considered.
• The use of pervious materials natural to the site, rather than concrete and asphalt, for parking
surfaces and gathering spaces should be used.
• Amenities such as an educational kiosk and gathering space at the entry may be considered, but
these amenities must blend well with the surrounding natural environment and have a minimal
impact on that environment.

29. CONCLUSIONS

30. Conclusions
• Both the Visual Preference Survey and the comments provided for each
of the three conceptual plans clearly demonstrate that minimal impact to
the natural environment is a priority.
• Trailhead elements and other access improvements ought to use materials natural
to the site and enhance its natural beauty such as its scenic views.
• Parking location/layout is a key community concern in the design of the
Palisades access improvements.
• There is a clear trend that suggests any parking or other encroachment into the Billy
Rogers Arroyo Nature Preserve is unacceptable.
• However, additional information is needed to confirm whether one of the parking
locations/layouts presented is preferred.
• Alternatively, given comments provided, other parking options, such as reducing the
number of on-site spaces need to be considered before final design is completed.
• Finally, there is evidence to suggest materials used (i.e. soft vs. hard) may influence
parking location/layout preference; the community should be given an opportunity to
comment on such options.

31. Next Steps
• Hold a second public meeting on Monday, February 17th, 2014.
• The purpose of this meeting is two-fold:
1.
Share the results of the November 18th, 2013 Palisades Design Charrette
with the community.
2.
Provide the community with a second opportunity to comment on several
alternative design options that incorporate the findings summarized in this
report.
• The second community meeting is intended to wrap-up the public
input process. Goals of this event should include:
• Finalizing parking location, layout and design materials.
• Entryway and other signage design and materials.
• Inclusion of other amenities as desired, if permitted by the budget.

32. QUESTIONS?
Contact:
Elizabeth Gibson, GibsonEK@elpasotexas.gov
Laura Kissack, KissackLF@elpasotexas.gov