1990-07
March 5, 1990
ADOPrED BY RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
TO: City Council and Planning Commission C - q 0 - 00'
City of Encinitas
FROM: Cardiff Community Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Adoption of Street Standards: A design sensitive
approach to circulation planning in Cardiff-by-the-Sea.
On January 12,1990, the public works department submitted to
the Cardiff CAB a draft of their proposed street standards for this
community. After two pubic hearings on the proposed standards and
a request from the CAB that the public works staff redraft their
standards to be consistent with the testimony from the first
meeting, the Cardiff CAB has decided to submit this alternative
report. This report is endorsed by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Town
Council and Chamber of Commerce.
Adoption Process for Street Improvements
The public works department developed and submitted to the
City traffic commission a "safe walk to school" program, is now
proposing citywide standards for the development of street
improvements, and proposes to return later this year with a traffic
study of the Cardiff community. This project-by-project approach
was probably viewed as a desirable division of ongoing work into
discrete tasks. Yet all three projects are only aspects of a more
organic whole -- the identification, treatment and implementation
of pathway improvements in our community.
The existence of pedestrian traffic affects the street
improvement standards. The amount of traffic that is currently
being carried and the amount of traffic that is projected with
complete buildout likewise affects the street improvement
standards. On-street parking, which occurs widely within Cardiff,
also makes its demand upon the right-of-way. However, the Cardiff
CAB strongly believes tnat both pedestrians and automobiles can be
accommodated within existing rights-of-way.
Design Approach to Street Improvements
In every case, the street standards proposed by public works
staff exceed existing rights-of-way. That the neighborhoods of
west Cardiff require street improvements that cannot be contained
wi thin the existing rights-of-way is a rebuttable presumption.
City maintained improvements within the rights-of-way now rarely
exceed twenty-six feet. Logic would seem to dictate that the City
street Standards
Page 2
should seek to improve the existing right-of-way prior to seeking
to obtain additional right-of-way.
An apparent impediment to the effective use of the existing
right-of-ways in west Cardiff is the assumption that streets must
be completely linear -- that is, the same improvements must occur
on both sides of the street for its entire length. The CAB
suggests an alternative of liberally allowing encroachments into
the parking portion of the right-of-way and prohibiting parking
along such frontage (see figure- on page_). These areas of
encroachment could be allowed where there are existing public or
private improvements, such as street lights or signs, driveways,
entrance stairs, or established trees. All other street
improvements, including sidewalks where desired, can be
accommodated in the remaining right-of-way.
This approach could not only be accomplished wi thin the
existing right-of-way, but also would have the happy effect
producing visually attractive streets. While the CAB would like to
take credit for such an innovative approach to street design, the
credit must be given to Richard Untermann, a respected design
engineer who has written extensively on the subject. This approach
would require discretion at the community level and the Cardiff CAB
feels this decision would best be delegated to the CAB.
Proposed street Standards for Existing Subdivisions:
All of the standards proposed are for improvements within
existing rights-of-way. The 40 feet standards are meant for
existing 40 feet rights-of-way; similarly the 50 feet standards are
for existing 50 feet rights-of-way. No improvement standards in
excess of 50 feet are proposed, though there are existing 60 feet
rights-of-way in Cardiff. The CAB sees no justification for a 60
feet right-of-way in a residential neighborhood.
There are no provisions for curbs or gutters in any of the
street improvement standards for west Cardiff. This is a semi-arid
climate and the historical drainage patterns in the community
approximate the natural run-off patterns. The alignment and
grading for the original street system occurred without much regard
for drainage. Lining existing streets with curbs and gutters would
have a limited effect. Also, collecting and concentrating run-off
flows through a system of curbs, gutters, culverts and storm drains
is both environmentally insensitive and very expensive. This CAB
emphasizes the on-site retention of runoff during the design review
process and assumes that the planning and public works staff does
likewise for projects that do not require CAB approval. The
Cardiff CAB recommends that curbs and gutters be excluded for any
proposed street standards for west Cardiff. The exception being
the use of a curb next to a walkway to separate automobile and
pedestrian traffic.
street Standards
Page 3
A. Two-way traffic/parking on both sides/40 feet øf right-of-way
This is the proposed standard for the majority of residential
streets in Cardiff. The standard provides for two ten-feet
traffic lanes and two eight-feet parking lanes with no curbs,
gutters or sidewalks. Two feet of unpaved right-of-way would
exist on each side to allow room for above ground
improvements.
B. Two-way traffic/parking on both sides/one sidewalk/40 feet of
right-of-way
This proposed standard is for two-way streets with parking on
both sides and with a sidewalk designated in the "safe walk
to school" program. The standard includes two ten-feet
traffic lanes, two eight-feet parking lanes and one four-feet
sidewalk. Above ground improvements would be accommodated
within the eight-feet parking lanes, as needed (see
implementation 'guidelines.)
B.' Two-way traffic/parking on both sides/one sidewalk/50 feet of
right-of-way
This proposed standard is for two-way streets with parking on
both sides and with a sidewalk designated in the "safe walk
to school" program. The standard includes two ten-feet
traffic lanes, two eight-feet parking lanes and one five-feet
sidewalk.
C. One-way traffic/parking on both sides/one sidewalk/one bike
path/40 feet of right-of-way
This is the proposed standard for one-way streets with parking
on both sides, one sidewalk and one bike path, all within 40
feet of right-of-way.
D. Two way traffic/no parking either side/no sidewalks/20 feet of
right-of-way
This proposed standard would apply to the two existing narrow
"paths" in west Cardiff, Schubert's Path and Stafford near its
intersection with Montgomery.
E. Two way traffic/no parking either side/sidewalk one side/50
feet of right-of-way
This proposed standard applies to Birmingham. The CAB does
not see proposals to increase the right-of-way width nor the
addition of a center turn lane for Birmingham as an
improvement for the west Cardiff Community.
street Standards
Page 4
F. Alley standard: two way traffic/no parking/15 feet of right-
of-way
Alleys in west are to be improved within their existing 15
feet of right of way. The center concrete gutter is deleted
from the design section and improvements are to be designed so
that run-off water is to be retained on site, not collected
and concentrated in a public drainage system.
Implementation Approach
In the above discussion several references have been made to
street improvements. For the community to view these proposed
changes to the existing streets as improvements they must confer
some benefit to residents of the community and create a minimum
disruption of daily life.
The Cardiff Advisory Board recommends that the City Council
adopt standards for improvements wi thin the existing rights-of-way.
Later, if additional rights-of-way are deemed advisable, the City
Council may initiate the process of eminent domain. Since the
community of west Cardiff is virtually built out, widening a street
cannot be justified as being required by the generation of traffic
from the construction of a single family dwelling. Street
widening could only be justified as a benefit to those who reside
outside Cardiff and who use neighborhood streets as a convenient
shortcut. That benefit cannot be conferred without detriment to
Cardiff neighborhoods.
The CAB recognizes that "nexus" is a term of art for the legal
profession and we cannot make an authoritative recommendation
regarding the legality of requiring an "irrevocable offer of
dedication" (IOD) of frontage property as a condition for obtaining
a building permit. However, the testimony given in two public
hearings clearly indicates there is no political support for IOD's
in Cardiff. The Cardiff CAB recommends that the process of
requiring IOD's be terminated immediately and any IOD's accepted by
the City be returned to property owners without application fee or
other processing requirements.
The CAB realizes that street improvement are not inexpensive
and that many of the proposed standards will not be achieved in the
near future. Therefore, short term solutions to problems perceived
by the community that do not require major expenditures should be
viewed favorably. Parking within the traffic lanes of existing
Cardiff streets is widely recognized as a problem. An inexpensive
method of clearing traffic lanes is to stripe the outside of the
traffic lanes and enforce a prohibition of parking wi thin the
parking lanes. Where people need parking spaces in front of their
homes, they will be inclined to create them.
street Standards
Page 5
The public works staff could become facilitators for private
property owners in the improvement of their lots by providing
clearly written descriptions of acceptable standards for improving
the parking portion of their frontage. Since retaining walls are
frequently required, some information about construction methods
and materials would be very helpful. An emphasis should be placed
on flexibility in the materials that can be used that will
encourage the diversity that Cardiff residents treasure. The CAB
would gladly participate in the process of generating these
standards.
This report with Street Standard Illustrations (See Attachment
"A") is PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of February, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Crosthwaite, MacManus, Barker, err, McCabe
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
&:«,ve -
Craig R. Olson
Assista~t Planner
A \T Þ<:.~~~ ~,.- II A"
-,
.
. 1 I r-."-
j , .
I ~ I POLES OR SERVICES
. I ~ .
I
j
II
II j CENTER STRIPING
I! i . EDGE STRIPING
" I 'I OPTIONAL PARKING
) ¡
I I
' !
i .
'!.
-Ì- -1__1___- ~---- i --1---1 P l A N
~' ~ ~-
< <
a.. w w a..
z z
>-...J < < ...J >-
< < ...J ...J < c(
:> Z Z :>
:> 0 W W 0:>
~ - > > - ~
II: I- - I- ~
< a.. ~ ~ a.. <
a.. 0 Ceo a..
21 81 101 j 10' 8' ~
r .r
. I j
I., I j . _¡SECTION
A TWO-WAY TRAFFIC/PARKING on BOTH SIDES
40 FEET of R.O. W.
.
PENINGS AT CORNERS
1,- --
I
'
I .
ÇJ' [)'ELETE PARKING FOR
UTILITY AND SERVICES
I
-.- ._~-~. CENTER STRIPING
- EDGE STRIPING
(:--..-- -'-.,---.--------.-. --""-""" ....- OPTIONAL PARKING
1--- DELETE .PARKING FOR
LANDSCAPING AND
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
(!) PLAN
z
a: '- _/ -
a:
c( c(
Q.. W W Q..
~ ..J Z Z ..J
..J c( c( c( c(
c( Z ..J ..J Z
.~ 0 w w 0
w - > > -
.... - - ....
C Q.. a: a: Q..
(f) 0 c c 0
8' 10' t 10' 8'
,
I I
. 1
I
.
1 ~, SECTION
B TWO-WAY TRAFFIC/PARKING on BOTH SIDES
40 FEET of R.O.W. ONE SIDEWALK
OPENINGS AT CORNERS
' . r-
.
.
,
.
f-LDELETE PARKING FOR UTILITY
I AND SERVICES
.
DELETE -PARKING FQ~
LANDSCAPING AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS
EDGE STRIPING
OPTIONAL PARKING
C) C)
Z z LAN
a: a: -
< <
a.. w a..
~ ...J Z ...J J:
...J < < c( ....
< Z ...J Z <
:: 0 w 0 a..
,w .... > .... w
¡9 - ~
a.. a: a..
I(/) 0 0 0 m
,
,
i !
: 5',' 8' 1.4' I 8' 5'
, t
I I
I I
. t
I j SECTION
\. ,.
C ONE-WAY TRAFFIC/PARKING on BOTH. SIDES
40 FEET of R.O.W. ONE SIDEWALK
ONE BIKE PATH
I I '
¡ I
20' WIDE OPENINGS AT CORNERS
,
'-.. "1. I r¡
' ,-
¡
¡ i \
. .'
I '
,
,
I i
.
, :
!
i .
i .
j
: ¡ ¡
:
: CENTER STRIPING
! I 'EDGE STRIPING
:
I
I
, ,
.
PLAN
-'
-
w w
z ' z
cC cC
-' -'
w w
> >
- -
a: a:
c c
10' t '10'
i } t- I
. I .
I, SECTION
DTWO.WAY TRAFFIC/NO PARKING EITHER SIDE
20 FEET of R.O. W.
! ' 0 26' WIDA~ ~'O~~~~~
;
-
.....O] . .-
.
.
.
. f
....
. -
~.~ .S
.
CENTER STRIPING
". ..
~ -,
. 0:
.,
ro"
a
.",
'.l _J
.
< 0
~.
LAN
w
.... ....
.... w w ....
::) z z ::)
> ~ (!) c( c( '(!) ~ >
-oJ ...J
< < oð -oJ ...J oð c( ,C(
3: ~ w w en ~ ~
~ w en > > w ~
a: a: a: c a:
c -
< ::) a: a: ::> - <
c.. C/) U C C U C/) a..
51 51 151 t 151 51 51
. ,
I I I
~.
.
Ì'~I I' S~ECTION
II . J ~ r
:
E TWO.WAY TRAFFIC/NO PARKING EITHER SIDE
50 FEET of R.O.W. ONE or TWO SIDEWALK
.
...---- .-
,
.
I
, I ,
I
!
. I
:
1 FULLY PAVED with ASPHALT
I
,
¡ , PLAN
i t t
, I
l i I ,SECTION
F PAVED ALLEYWAY NO GUTTER
15 FEET 0,' R.O.W.