20020917_m

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Department of Public Works

DATE:

August 28, 2002

BOARD MEETING DATE:

September 17, 2002

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT:

Alameda de las Pulgas Streetscape Plan -- West Menlo Park Area

Recommendation

Determine:

If losing parking spaces as a result of constructing driveways that meet County standards is a special circumstance that warrants modifying the driveway standards for a business; or

if no special circumstances exist requiring modification of the driveway standards.

if driveway locations and widths should be modified to accommodate tree locations; or

if tree locations should be established after driveway openings meeting County standards are determined.

if side street curb returns should be minimized to further reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians; or

if side street curb returns should be maximized when using minimum road standard widths, to facilitate turning movements by vehicles entering or exiting the Alameda de las Pulgas (Alameda).

if street tree locations at intersections should be subject to the approval of the Commission on Disabilities.

if provisions should be made to install medians near Ashton and near Harkins Avenues with provisions for the installation of street trees; or

if median islands should be deferred until development of the adjoining property eliminates driveways and possible conflicting driveway turning movements.

if left turn movements off of Avy Avenue should be made from the same lane as through traffic; or

if a separate left turn lane and phase should be provided on Avy Avenue (Avy) with the timing reduced for the other traffic movements to accommodate the separate phases; or

if a "lead" left turn phase should be provided on Avy with the timing reduced for the other traffic movements to accommodate the separate phases; or

if left turns should be prohibited from Avy onto the Alameda.

if bulbouts should be installed at the southeast and northwest corners of the Alameda and Avy; or

if curb returns should be uniform at all corners of the Alameda and Avy.

if London Plane Trees should be used as the street tree in this area; or

if more than one species of tree should be used.

if the cost of removing and replanting existing trees should:

be a cost to the County; or

be a cost to the proposed assessment district.

10.

if an irrigation system should be installed in conjunction with proposed tree planting; or

if irrigation should be a cost to a proposed assessment district.

11.

if the existing sidewalk on the west side of the Alameda south of Avy Avenue should be reconstructed and widened.

Adopt a Resolution:

authorizing the use of the City of Menlo Park's standards for the size of parking stalls on private property;

providing a "credit" for the number of parking stalls that will need to be removed as a result of the construction of streetscape improvements or the planting of trees as may be approved by your Board, for the purpose of calculating parking available in conjunction with future construction on adjacent property in the streetscape area; and

directing the Planning Division of Environmental Services to develop Amendments to the C-1/WMP zoning district regulations:

establishing a 2-foot minimum set back for structures on property adjacent to the Alameda within the streetscape area (Section 6254.4.2); and

deleting the requirement of pedestrian connections between properties (Section 6254.4.13).

Adopt a resolution directing the Director of Public Works to proceed with developing construction plans to implement your Board's previous direction with regards to reconfiguring the Alameda de las Pulgas between Ashton Avenue and Harkins Avenue which incorporates the decisions as determined in A. above.

Previous Board Action

Directed the Department of Public Works to:

develop schematic plans for the permanent lane change of the Alameda de las Pulgas, which will implement the Streetscape Task Force's proposal as drawn in the Nelson/Nygaard (Nygaard) Report where possible, and meet County standards without requiring the acquisition of adjacent private property;

revise the signal timing at the Alameda and Avy Avenue intersection to increase the minimum green times for northbound and southbound Alameda signals and increase the "delay time" on Avy Avenue (i.e. the time between when a vehicle is "sensed" on the side street and when the signal changes);

re-stripe Avy Avenue to the west of the Alameda to create a dedicated left-turn lane and a through/right turn lane;

complete the necessary environmental review process;

review the schematic plans mentioned in Item (1) with the property owners, residents, Alameda Streetscape Task Force and Commission on Disabilities and incorporate their comments as much as possible into the plans prior to reporting back to your Board with the proposed schematic plans;

develop a funding strategy to finance all the improvements including those charges normally assessed to the adjacent property owners with the Road Fund and ½ Cent Transportation Funds including the sidewalks and the installation of street trees;

include street trees in the schematic plans, with the contingency to install street trees only if an Assessment District for tree maintenance is established;

coordinate with the Planning Division concerning allowable deviations from County Standards for private improvements, including parking stall dimensions and alignments.

Key Facts

Supervisor Gordon has been meeting with the various groups that have competing needs for this section of the Alameda to develop a consensus of what improvements should be constructed.

The different groups have recommended additions to the previous cross section configuration approved by your Board (i.e. sidewalks, bike lanes, travel and two way left turn lane). However, there are conflicting recommended additions or additions that do not conform to County standards in some instances, and we believe that the various groups see these conditions as impacting what is important to them (i.e. ambiance, pedestrian safety, viability of a business, vehicular traffic, diverting traffic).

Your Board's direction is necessary to bring closure on these issues if staff is to proceed with developing construction plans to meet your Board's original direction for revising the section of the Alameda de las Pulgas, as we have been unable to have the groups reach an overall consensus.

Discussion

Board Direction

Your Board directed the Department to slurry seal and restripe the Alameda to a three-lane facility with bike lanes, and wider sidewalks depicted by additional striping in order to allow the public to visualize the proposed changes and to evaluate the impacts that this road configuration would have on traffic. The work was done and left in place for approximately five (5) months; and the traffic impacts were evaluated by a traffic consultant and reported to your Board at your regular meeting of March 27, 2001. Your Board considered the traffic impacts as reported in the traffic study and heard public testimony presented at that meeting. You then provided direction to the Department of Public Works to move forward with the development of plans for the reconfiguring of the Alameda de las Pulgas (Alameda) between Ashton and Harkins Avenues.

Supervisor Gordon has, since your March 27^th meeting, been meeting with the property owners, representatives of the Alameda Streetscape Task Force (Task Force), residents that use the Alameda, and Public Works in an effort to reach consensus on what should be constructed. In addition, we met with the Commission on Disabilities' ADA Subcommittee to review disabled accessibility, and constructed a prototype access ramp that representatives from each of the groups were invited to review.

We incorporated the comments and suggestions received by the various groups using your Board 's directive to maximize the implementation of the streetscape plan as depicted in the Nygaard Report (see Exhibit 1) using county standards. However, differences of opinions still remain with regards to what are special circumstances, and representatives of the Task Force have recommended additional changes that were not in the drawings submitted with the original Nygaard Report. The following are discussions of the issues that we are asking for your Board's determination and direction:

A1.

Are there special circumstances for businesses in the area that warrant modifying the driveway standards? (Exhibit A1)

We laid out driveways for the adjoining properties based on the County standard and Supervisor Gordon invited the property owners to meet with him to discuss the driveways and the impacts on the parking for the businesses that occupy the properties. Not all property owners accepted Supervisor Gordon's offer. Attached is a summary of the parking for each property that we believe can be reasonably be accommodated for each site; the net loss in parking spaces over what currently exists; if the property owner availed themselves to meet with Supervisor Gordon; and if property owners are currently using parking in the public right of way as part of their overall parking arrangements.

John and Daniel Beltramo - owners of 3559 and 3590 Alameda - submitted parking plans that meet our driveway standards and have indicated that they will not object to the construction in front of their properties as long as they are given credit for the lost parking spaces in any future development that they may want to propose on their property.

Mr. Robinson - owner of the 3537 through 3555 Alameda - is objecting to losing parking spaces on his property although at least one space is very close to the proposed curb return on the southeast corner of Avy, and his property has additional parking on both the side and the back of his structures. His parcel, as with other parcels, currently does not provide the minimum amount of parking as required by the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Tevis states that he cannot lose any parking in front of his property at 3520/3530 Alameda as his lease with his tenant commits him to eight (8) spaces.

Lutikens Delicatessen at 3535 Alameda does not have sufficient parking for the floor area occupied or the use. He currently uses the public right of way on Gordon Avenue for all but four parking spaces for his business.

Mr. Jankord's property at 3537 Alameda will lose two (2) spaces on the Alameda but he does have on street parking available to his property on the side street.

The McQuarrie's own two duplex units at 3627/3629 and will also lose the use of two off-street parking spaces.

The Nygaard report recommended rolled curbs in some locations which allows the full use of the frontage for driveway and parking. However, the Nygaard Report does not meet the "using current standard" direction previously given by your Board. We believe that the rolled curb would present pedestrians with the same conflict with vehicles crossing the sidewalk area to park on the adjacent parking as currently exists.

We also believe that maximum driveway opening with a modification to the transition area allows the businesses the maximum utilization of the front of their property for parking without compromising the pedestrians' competing use of the sidewalk area that the driveway traverses.

A2.

Should driveway standard widths and locations be modified to accommodate trees or should tree locations be accommodated in areas where driveways are not proposed? (Exhibit A2)

We laid out the driveways based on County standards, input from the discussions with the property owners who met with Supervisor Gordon, and to allow access to the maximum number of existing off street parking spaces commensurate with the standards. The standards specify the separation distance between driveways, minimum distances from property lines and from curb returns and the width as allowed as a percentage of the frontage of a parcel. The standard driveway layouts provide for approximately the same number of trees as the Nygaard Report but not at the same locations. The standard layout does not include the same amount of trees as the subsequent submittals by Task Force representatives. However both the Nygaard Report and the subsequent submittals do not meet the "using current standards" direction previously given by your Board. Additional trees can be installed at a later date if subsequent development eliminates the need for driveways along the Alameda.

A3.

Should side street curb returns be minimized or maximized? (Exhibit A3)

We laid out the curb returns on Ashton and Gordon Avenues using the minimum road width adopted by your Board (22'), while keeping the improvements within the public right of way. This allows for 15 foot radius curb returns. The Nygaard Report drawings indicated curb returns that matched the then existing 32 to36 foot wide side streets at the curb returns that were built in 1986, and also requires the acquisition of right-of-way. Subsequent submittals by Task Force members held the 22-foot width but reduced the curb returns to 10-foot radii. Smaller radius returns will make it more difficult for motorists to make the turns and may result in impacts to the flow of traffic on the Alameda, or cause motorists to enter the on coming lane when making a turn, or result in motorists using other streets that they find more convenient to access. The 15 foot radius curb returns meets the intent as depicted in the drawings in the Nygaard Report.

A4.

Should street tree locations at intersections be subject to the approval of the Commission on Disabilities ADA Subcommittee (ADA Committee)? (Exhibit A4)

Staff met with the ADA Committee and with Task Force members and developed a prototype curb return access ramp that has been approved by the Commission on Disabilities. The ADA Committee represents different groups within the disabled community (primarily physically and visually disabled) which may have different and sometimes competing needs. No definitive policy was established with respect to locating trees near an intersection as the ADA Committee is cognizant of the fact that a myriad of parameters can impact an intersection design (i.e. utility location, drainage, the grade of the side street, et al.). Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate to refer proposed tree locations near the intersection to the ADA Committee after a plan is developed based on the direction given by your Board.

A5.

Should medians with provisions for trees be installed near Ashton and Harkins Avenues? (Exhibit A5)

The Nygaard drawings indicate a median only at the Harkins Avenue end of the project but did not take into consideration turning movements. Subsequent submittals by Task Force members indicate medians with trees at both locations. We do not recommend a median at Ashton Avenue as it will impact turning movements into and out of driveways or onto Ashton Avenue. A small median can be placed adjacent to Mr. Robinson's property at 3555 Alameda on the assumption that the most southerly portion of the driveway will be used for ingress only; or medians can be installed in the future if conflicts with turning movements are eliminated by the removal of driveways in conjunction with the redevelopment of the adjoining properties.

A6.

Should the traffic lanes and traffic movements on Avy be reconfigured? (Exhibit A6)

The Nygaard Drawings did not indicate traffic lanes or movements at Avy and your Board directed that a separate dedicated left turn lane be provided for east bound Avy traffic. We investigated a separate left turn phase for both east and west bound traffic based on the complaints received from motorists using this intersection. However, a separate left turn phase would require some additional time delay on the Alameda, as the minimum time for straight through traffic on Avy also needs to provide sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the Alameda.

Another option is a "lead left turn" phase which is currently used in Redwood City at Brewster and Veterans Boulevard. This option can provide for protected left turn movements but also would require some additional delay on the Alameda. Subsequent submittals from Task Force members recommended a right turn only lane from west bound Avy with the west bound through and left turn movements combined into one lane, and the east bound lanes remaining as directed by your Board (separate left turn lane with right and through movement combined) as they believe the amount of traffic making left turns does not warrant an additional left turn phase.

Another option is to prohibit left turns off of Avy onto the Alameda. This reduces conflicts with pedestrians crossing the street and allows separate lanes for right turn and through traffic in both directions. Motorists wanting to go north on the Alameda from Avy could turn left on Cloud and then return to the Alameda on another street (Gordon north to Valparaiso); and motorists wanting to go south could turn south on Cloud and then turn left on the Alameda at Sharon. A schematic indicating the composite flow of traffic to Sharon and Cloud is attached. This option has the least impact on Alameda traffic and can improve the movement of traffic on Avy through this intersection. This option may inconvenience some motorists and can lead to some complaints from residents on Cloud Avenue objecting to increased traffic. However, we believe the capacity of the other streets can accommodate any diverted traffic.

A7.

Should bulbouts be installed at the southeast and northwest corners of the Alameda/Avy intersection? (Exhibit A7)

The Nygaard drawings indicate bulbouts at all four corners of the Alameda/Avy intersection. However, as stated in A6. above, the Nygaard drawings did not indicate traffic lanes or movements on Avy. The northeast and southwest bulbouts were eliminated to allow for the right turn movements that occur at this intersection. Determining if bulbouts should be installed on the southeast and northwest corners will be affected by your Board's direction in A6. above, as well as your determination if you wish to facilitate right turn movements off the Alameda onto Avy. We eliminated the bulbouts on the presumption that through traffic on Avy would be using the far right hand lanes and would be transitioning into the travel lanes on the opposite side of the intersection.

Subsequent submittals by Task Force members recommended the bulbouts to reduce the distance that pedestrians have to cross the street. However, the Beltramo's, who own the property on the northwest corner are concerned that the bulbout will complicate the problem with motorists wanting to parallel park in the first parking space on the north side of Avy west of the Alameda. Parking near the corner will be prohibited as ADA ramps will be constructed at all curb returns and it is illegal to park adjacent to these ramps. In addition, pedestrian traffic crossing the Alameda will be protected as a traffic signal will continue to be located at this intersection.

We also evaluated bus turn movements and we believe buses will either have to drive over the curb if the bulbouts are installed or swing out into the oncoming lane to make the turn.

Prohibiting left turns from Avy onto the Alameda will move the through traffic to the left lanes near the center of the street and preclude the need for a transition across the intersection. However bulbouts will continue to make turning right onto Avy more difficult.

A8.

Should London Plane trees or more than one species of tree be used as the street tree(s) for the area? (Exhibit A8)

The Nygaard Drawings did not identify a species that should be exclusively used as the street tree for the area. Subsequent correspondence from members of the Task Force recommended the use of London Plane trees as the species of choice. We do not agree that this is the best choice for a street tree in a confined area. We also believe that this species of tree may eventually interfere with property redevelopment in the area if the set back is reduced to 0-3 feet, as the London Plane tree has a canopy spread (40 feet) which could put the canopy into the building envelope or over a structure proposed to be built with the revised setbacks. In addition, the landscaping in an area can be decimated if only one species is used and the species becomes susceptible to disease or infestation. We used three different species of trees on the Middlefield Road Project that included Ornamental Pear (currently planted at some locations on the Alameda), European Hornbeam and the Chinese Hackberry, and these could also be used for the remaining areas on the Alameda.

A9.

Should existing trees be removed and replanted with one species and should the cost of removing and replanting said trees be a County cost or a cost to the proposed assessment district? (Exhibit A9)

The direction provided by your Board was for Public Works to develop a funding strategy based on the County paying for all improvements including those charges normally assessed to the local property owner (i.e. sidewalk and the installation of street trees). A representative of the Task Force in a subsequent submittal requested that trees planted by two property owners be removed and replaced for uniformity. We do not recommend using only one tree type as landscaping in an area can be decimated if only one species is used and the species becomes susceptible to disease or infestation. We also do not believe that this should be a cost born by the County as tree planting in other areas has been paid through property owner assessments (Capistrano Road in El Granada), County Service Area charges (Middlefield Road in North Fair Oaks), by the developer as part of the subdivision improvements (San Mateo Highlands), or with State or Federal Grants (Nevin Way in Colma).

A10.

Should an irrigation system be installed in conjunction with proposed tree planting or should it be a cost of the proposed assessment district? (No Exhibit)

Your Board's policy on tree planting in the public right of way in other areas of the County (North Fair Oaks and Sequoia Tract) provides that the property owner is responsible for the installation and maintenance of trees. Irrigation is generally a cost of maintenance and we therefore believe that either an irrigation system or the cost of irrigating any trees installed should be paid for by the assessment district.

A11.

Should the sidewalk on the west side of the Alameda south of Avy be reconstructed and widened? (Exhibit A11)

The Nygaard drawing indicates an 8 foot sidewalk in front of the ARCO Station at 3600 the Alameda as well as in front of the apartment complex just south of the ARCO Station. There is currently a wide sidewalk in this area and reconstructing the sidewalk in front of the apartment complex would require the removal of landscaping as well as the construction of a retaining wall. Subsequent submittals by Task Force members recommended reconstructing the sidewalk in front of the ARCO station for the purpose of narrowing the road in the area to provide a standard parking area and the installation of street trees. Reconstruction of the sidewalk can be accomplished but will add approximately $10,000 to $20,000 to the project costs. We do not recommend installing trees in the area in front of the apartment complex as the trees would restrict the sidewalk area to less than a width that is required for ADA access.

A SamTrans bus stop is also located adjacent to the ARCO Station in this area. We used a template for a 40 foot bus as recommended by SamTrans, which indicates that the proximity of the bulbout together with the sidewalk widening may not allow enough distance for the buses to smoothly transition into the bus stop and the back portion of the bus may protrude into the travel lane creating a hazard and possibly backing up south bound traffic.

Other Issues

Realign the southwest curb return at the Alameda/ Avy Avenue (See Exhibit A6).

The curb return and sidewalk at the southwest corner of the Alameda and Avy Avenue was constructed as part of the development of the adjacent property when it was proposed that the Alameda would be wider. The Nygaard report included extending the curb return into the street to reduce the width of the Alameda at this location to have the width of the road and the curb returns "line up." Your Board has received letters and petitions from residents objecting to the proposed new configuration as they are concerned with making the right turn movement onto the Alameda. However, extending the curb return into the street provides the same amount of turning area as is proposed on the northeast corner of the Alameda/Avy intersection. Leaving the return "as is" continues the situation of the crosswalk at this location being offset. The right turn movements could be facilitated by prohibiting left turn movements off of Avy and reconfiguring the lanes as proposed in A6. above. This would provide separate through and right turn lanes on Avy.

Accident History

Accidents in the area have increased since the area was restriped. There were an average of 3.75 accidents per year in the four years preceding the restriping (4 in 1997, 2 in 1998, 4 in 1999 and 5 in 2000, one prior to the restriping and 4 after the restriping). Twenty-three accidents occurred in 2001 with eight (8) involving bicyclists. One bicycle related accident was equipment failure - the cyclist's wheel fell off - and the others involved improper turns by motorists. The other accidents were sideswipes (4 ), rear ends (6 ) and broadsides (5). Some of these accidents were undoubtedly caused by drivers attempting to maneuver around the cones and markings that simulated the proposed improvements. We assume that the number of these types of accidents may decrease once improvements are constructed. Vehicle/ bicycle accidents will only be reduced when there is a greater awareness by both motorists and bicyclists that they have to share the roadway facilities.

Planning Issues

Your Board also directed staff to coordinate with the Planning Division concerning allowed deviations from County Standards for private improvements including parking dimensions and alignments. We have worked with Planning on the following issues:

Parking Standards (Exhibit B1)

The current County Parking standards require parking spaces that are 9' wide and 19' long. The Menlo Park Standard provides at a minimum, a parking space that is 8.5' wide and 16.5' long. We are recommending that the minimum parking size standard for this area be revised to be compatible with the Menlo Park Standard as it provides the property owner with more flexibility in meeting the parking requirements. We also believe it is justified as the area is within the sphere of influence of the City of Menlo Park.

Credit for the Eliminated Parking Spaces (No Exhibit)

Some existing parking spaces will be eliminated if sidewalks and driveways are constructed as proposed and depending how street trees are located. The Beltramo's have requested that property owners be allowed to "count" parking spaces lost, due to the project as may be approved by your Board, and use these "lost" spaces in the event they want to remodel or change the property use. We believe that this is an appropriate compromise as long as parking remains in front of the building. Credit for the "counted" spaces would not apply if remodeling or redevelopment eliminates the remaining or other spaces on the Alameda side of the properties.

B3a

Structure Set Backs (Exhibit B3a)

Planning staff contacted John and Daniel Beltramo as they offered to try to gain consensus on a preferred set back for the area. The Beltramo's reported that a clear consensus could not be reached due to the varied opinions of the property owners. However, they expressed their opinion that reducing the front set back to 0 to 3 feet could encourage redevelopment of the properties. The cross section approved by your Board includes a 7 foot sidewalk with at least a one foot clearance from the back of walk to the property line. A 2 foot set back from the property line would allow for 10 feet of clearance (7' + 1' clearance + 2' setback) which we believe would provide sufficient sight lines, a conform area for future improvements and remove the pedestrian/vehicle conflicts due to vehicles having to access off street parking in front of the existing structures across the sidewalk area. This setback would also provide an area for shrubbery or other landscaping amenities.

B3b

Eliminate Pedestrian Connections (No Exhibit)

The Beltramo's have also recommended that the C-1/WMP zoning district regulations (Section 6254.4.13) requiring pedestrian connections between properties also be deleted as the proposed improvements will provide a continuous sidewalk for the length of the project. Staff concurs.

Environmental Compliance

We believe the proposed work including the options we are asking your Board to give direction on is exempt from the requirements for preparation of an EIR under Section 15301 (C) Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act. We will file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk once direction by your Board has been given.

Vision Alignment

We believe our recommendation is consistent with the Shared Commitment to be a "responsive, effective and collaborative government" and Goal Number 20 "government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain," as the direction provided by your Board will determine the long term uses of both this section of the Alameda as well as the use and potential redevelopment of the adjacent properties.

Fiscal Impact

We believe the estimated cost to make the various improvements to this area is approximately $500,000. However a more definite estimate will be established as plans reflecting the direction given by your Board are developed. Reconstructing the sidewalk south of Avy is estimated to cost an additional $10,000 to $20,000 depending on the limits determined by your Board.

The percentage split between Road Funds and 1/2 Cent Transportation Funds will also be determined as plans reflecting the direction given by your Board are developed. The amount to be assessed for the maintenance of any trees that may be planted will also depend on the size of the district proposed and the amount to be assessed. We will also provide estimates of these costs based on the directions given by your Board. The cost of financing an assessment district was initially estimated at $5,000 for a fairly straight forward assessment district as originally required by the State Constitution. However, we believe the costs will increase as a result of additional requirements by the State Legislature which includes a sealed ballot election and determining a method of assessment that assures that assessments are in proportion to the benefit received by the individual properties. The size of the proposed assessment district is unknown at this time and can also impact the total cost of conducting the assessment process. We can have an estimate prepared once we know the size of the district and the method of assessment. We also assume funds to finance the cost of conducting the assessment district election will be advanced by the property owners in the area.

There is no impact to the General Fund.

We will prepare forms of resolutions approved by County Counsel to memorialize the directions given by your Board.

Other Agencies Contacted

Copies of the staff report have been sent to the Emergency Service providers (Menlo Park Fire Protection District, California Highway Patrol, Sheriff, Menlo Park Police Department), the City of Menlo Park, the property owners with property adjacent to this section of the Alameda, to Task Force members, a representative of the Sharon Heights Homeowners Association and to other citizens that have previously written the Department regarding the streetscape project. We have also sent a copy of our report to the Country Almanac, the San Mateo County Times and the Palo Alto Weekly and placed copies at the businesses on the Alameda that agreed to make copies available for reading by the public. We will report on any comments that we receive.