Loading...
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.