Recommend Evergreen Ave. sidewalk, travel and parking lane improvements

From: charlessands@aol.com
Date: July 15, 2010 10:15:42 AM PDT
To: sschneider@co.marin.ca.us
Cc: bbeaumont@co.marin.ca.us, skinsey@co.marin.ca.us
Subject: Recommend Evergreen Ave. sidewalk, travel and parking lane improvements

If we must have a sidewalk on Evergreen Ave. let's do the job properly and correct all elements of Evergreen Ave. includinf repaving to comply with all Title 24 ordinances to safely accomodate the more than 100% increase in its traffic volume that has been attributed to Marin Horizon School as documented by Marin Horizon School's trafic consultants

It makes no sense to provide a sidewalk for ssafety reasons and not correct the unsafe width of Evergeen Ave.

It is seriously doubtful that Marin Horizon School children will willingly use the proposed sidewalk.

Being human they will prefer to walk abreast on the street as their groups are too large for a 4/6' sidewalk.

Coming or going it is not conveniently accessible from the school, as children have to deliberately cross across Evergreen Ave. to walk along it to Linden Ave or Miller Ave. or the reverse.

To more easily access the proposed Evergreen Ave. sidewalk why not develop a side walk along the west side of Melrose Ave. to a future cross walk across Melrose Ave. to connect with the proposed westerly end of the Evergreen Ave. sidewalk?

To soften the negative impact of an urban sidewalk on the streets semi-rural character why not use integral colored exposed aggregate concrete. The cost is minimal in terms of total construction cost and the visual environmental benefit seems to be worth the added cost.

Per Marin Horizon Schools traffic consultants and its 2005 Environmental Impact Study:
a) MHS’ existing 2004 generated traffic volume between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM accounted for approximately: 29 % of the traffic volume on Montford Ave.; 48% of the traffic volume on Melrose Ave. and 42 % of the traffic volume on Evergreen Ave. and;
b) MHS’ expansion to 300 students will increase MHS generated traffic volume between 08:00 and 18:00 hours (which increased from MHS 382 vehicles in 2004 to MHS 485 vehicles) to approximately: 37 % of the traffic volume on Montford Ave.; 55 of the traffic volume on Melrose Ave. and 53 % of the traffic volume on Evergreen Ave.
c) The existing travel and parking width of Evergreen Avenue is inconsistent with Title 24 Section 24.04.030 Road Classifications given the undocumented total ADTs not included by MHS' traffic consultants . Evergreen's future ADTs are projected to be or exceed 1114 ADTs . See d) .

Title 24 Section 24.04.030 Road Classifications states: “The design criteria for a road shall be based on the classifications defined below. Use figures (i.e., units served and ADT) shall be based on the ultimate development of the area served by the road as defined by the Marin countywide plan and/or any general, specific or community plan applicable to the area.
"Arterial road" means all arterial roads as specified in the countywide plan or the Marin county annual road list, and other major roads with an actual or projected ADT over two thousand.
"Industrial commercial road" means a road providing access to, or through, an industrial or commercial zone or an area of high truck and/or other large vehicle traffic.
"Collector road" means a road with an actual or projected ADT from one thousand to two thousand.
"Residential road" means a road providing access to a generally residential area and which serves or may serve twenty or more dwelling units, and a maximum potential ADT of one thousand.
"Minor residential road" means a road providing access to a generally residential area and which serves or may serve seven to nineteen dwelling units, and a maximum potential ADT of five hundred.
"Limited residential road" means a road which serves two to six dwelling units, and a maximum potential ADT of one hundred fifty.”
(Ord. 3181 § 5 (part), 1994)

Title 24 Section 24.04.110 Width states: a) The following (Table 1.) sets forth the minimum widths for the improved section measured from face of curb to face of curb. Where no curb or berm is proposed the paved width shall be one foot greater than that listed to allow for edge striping and pavement edge raveling.

MC Road Classification and Minimum Paved Width

Road Classification
Minimum Paved Width
Limited residential road (LR)
20' with shoulders

24' with curbs
Minor residential road (MR)
28'
Residential road (RR)
36'
Collector road (CR)
40'
Arterial and industrial/commercial (IR)
As required
(b) Additional width may be required for left turn storage, intersection widening, bus lanes and multipurpose pathways.
(c) Shoulders shall be provided on each side of all roads. Shoulders shall normally be four feet wide although wider shoulders may be required as deemed appropriate by the agency.
(Ord. 3181 § 5 (part), 1994)

d) It is recommended that DPW make the necessary Evergreen Ave. travel lane and parking lane widths to accommodate MHS' generated traffic volume 100% increase traffic volume on Evergreen Ave. It makes little traffic engineering sense to build a new sidewalk safety reasons and not at the same time correct the substandard unsafe width of Evergreen Ave.'s travel and parking surface width.

MHS’ projected traffic impact on road classification and road width.

Road Name
R.O.W.
(1)
Exist’g paved travel surface (2)
Exist’g total trips 08:00 to 18:00 hrs.
(3)
Projected
MHS after expansion trips 08:00 to 18:00 hrs.
(4)
.
Projected total trips
after MHS expansion 08:00 to 18:00 hrs.
(5)
Probable
ADTs
after MHS expansion
(6)
HV ADTs
with out MHS
expansion trips

Minimum
paved width
with MHS expansion
trips
Min.
paved width
with out
MHS expansion
trips.

Montford Ave.

50’
+/- 22’
1320
485
1423
1375
1450
40’
(CR)
40’
(CR)
Melrose Ave,

50’
+/- 29.5’

890
485
1345
1508
860
40’
(CR)
36’
(RR)
Evergreen Ave.

50’
+/- 27’-30’
910
485
1141
1528
1043
40’
(CR)
40’
(CR)

Footnotes:
1). Right of Way width from MC Assessor’s Maps.
2). Pavement width based on field measurements.
3). Existing total trips from MHS’ E.I.S. Section VI Traffic/Circulation.
4). Projected trips based on MHS enrollment expansion from 250 to 300 students..
5).Projected total trips based on adding 103 MHS additional expansion trips.
6). Assumed probable ADTs = approximately 500 00:00 to 08:00 hr. trips plus existing total 08:00 – 18:00 hrs trips minus existing 2004 MHS 382 total trips plus 500 18:00 to 24:00 hrs trips.

e) DPW should establish existing and future ADTs on Evergreen Ave in conformance with current traffic engineering industry standards and improve its travel and parking lane widths to conform to all Title 24 ordinance requirements.

f) Evergreen Ave. as the primary entry to Homestead Valley should be landscaped with street trees to enhance its visual character.

Best regards,

Charles D. Sands, Architect Urban Designer
Sandsconsult Architects
12 Madrone Park Circle
Mill Valley, CA 94941

Bcc: Homestead Valley Concerned Citizens and Madrone Park Circle Groups