Item 9 - Policy for Semi-Rural and Urban Street Standards including Parking LotsCOUNCIL MEMBERS:
aoB EMERY, Mayor
MARY SHEPARDSON, Deputy Mayor
LINDA ORAVEC
CLYDE REXRODE
BRUM. TARZY
CITY OF P.owA'
AGENDA _ REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:. James L. Bowersox, City Menay 1�
INITIATED BY: Ray, J. Berryman, City Engineer
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ABSTRACT
April 27, 1982-
Policy for Semi -rural and Urban Street Standards,
Including Parking Lots
The proposed policy for dedicated and non -dedicated semi -rural and urban street.
standards wouldgive consistent guidance to developers for the design of sub-
divisions that meet optimum traffic safety, fire truck access, and roadway
maintenance needs.
BACKGROUND:
Due to requests by developers to provide lesser roadway standards for semi -rural
and urban streets within subdivisions and the extreme topography in ;many of these
subdivisions, the City Engineer has developed a Policy for Semi -Rural and Urban
Street Standards- for City Council consideration (Exhibit A) This Policy would
provide consistent criteria for each developer to follow, rather than each sub-
division following
ub-division.'°`following criteria that has been developed solely on the basis of least.
costand ,optimum .number of lots.. These standards have been prepared to provide
the lowest ultimate costs to the residents of the subdivisions and the City of
Poway. This matter was discussed at the March 16 and April 6, 1982 Council
meetings and referred back to staff for•further research.:
FINDINGS:
The proposed standards will provide sufficient, informationfor the design and
construction of streets in the City and yet allow flexibility for modifications._
The proposed standards have not only considered the initial costs for street
and parking lot installation, but the future maintenance costs and safety,
keeping inmind the various reasons for having an adequate system of roads
and parking lots..' Specific questions were raised at the previous Council
meetings on this subject and each has been addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Counciladopt resolution (Exhibit B) establishing
policy for dedicated and non-dedicatedsemi-rural and urban street standards,
including parking lots,and rescinding Resolution No.. 167.
JLB:RIB:pw
Attachments:.` Exhibit A -- Policy for Semi -rural and Urban Street Standards
Exhibit B Resolution
Administrative Offices Located at 13325 C
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 785, Poway, California 92064 - P,R .2 7, 19€92; , IT E M 9
CRITERIA FOR SEMI -RURAL AND URBAN STREET STANDARDS, INCLUDING PARKING LOTS
1.
An urban street shall serve residential areas with lot sizes less than a I/'2
acre or densities more than 2 units per acre.
2..
A semi -rural street shall serve residential areas with lot sizes from a 1/2
acre to 1 -acre or densities of 1 unit to 2 units per acre.
3.
All streets -shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the'City of Poway and the San Diego County Regional
Standard Plans, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer:
4.
Designspeed shall be 25 miles per hour and the maximum street grade
is
shall be sixteen percent, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Street alignment and profile shall comply with the criteria for safe
stopping sight distance in, conformance with the California State Highway
Design Manual unless special situations allow for modifications and such
modifications are approved by the City Engineer.
5.
Non -dedicated streets should not be aligned between two dedicated streets
so that the non -dedicated streetwould act as a "'shortcut" between the
streets.
6.''
Structural sections shall be determined by the -State of California GrI el
6
Equivalent Hveem Stabilometer Method, using the R -value of the native soil`
and traffic indices established by the City. The minimum section hall be'
3" A.C, over ea`ther 4" class II A.B.:or 511 class III base. If the R -value`
of the existing native soil is 5 or greater, a minimi section of 4'° A.C.
over compacted sub -base -may be substituted.
A
7.
Non -dedicated streets shall provide.a-Paved travel way incorporating a
Pedestrian circulati.ori system approved by the City Engineer. -
S.
Entry gates into non-dedicated.tracts shall.be set back from the near curb
4
_
line of any public street to providea.mnimum storage of 75 feet for entering
vehicles to stack without interfering with through traffic..
9.
Streets shall intersect at right angles wherever possible and shall not be
f
greater than -150 skew to a right angle.
10.3
Four -legged intersections should be avoided except at (future) « signalized or
lThe
controlled -locations or where median -islands -are on the through street.
minimum distance between intersections shall be 150 feet.
11.
Street widths, geometric criteria, and structural section shall conform to
a.
Exhibit B:.
12.
Local roads serve as primary access roadways to residential units and do not
exceed the daily traffic shown on Exhibit B. Local collector roads service
_.
local road traffic by providing routes.to the circulation -system roads. Daily,
traffic should not exceed the amount indicated on Exhibit B.
13.
Streets with grades over 10 percent..may be required to be: constructed of
Portland cement concrete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:(minimum
thickness shall be 6") when necessitated by .specific field conditions.
,14.
The dedication requirements of Resolution No. 154 shall apply to these
k
Provisions."
EXHIBIT A TO AGENDA REPORT APR 2 7 1982 ITEM 9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY` COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR
DEDICATED AND NON -DEDICATED SEMI -RURAL AND URBAN
STREET STANDARDS INCLUDING PARKING LOTS
AND -RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 167
WHEREAS, it is the City Council' s . desire to establish standards for
the development of streets within City limit lines as noted, on the adopted
General Plan ' for the City of Poway; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of
the citizens relative to their health, safety, and general welfare that
roads and parking lots should be improved to definite standards established
by the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Poway finds as follows:
Section 'l: Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Semi -Rural and Urban Standards
. , All dedicated and non -dedicated semi rural andurban
streets within the City limit lines, as noted on.
the adopted General. Plan for the City of Poway,,
shall be developed to the criteria set forth in
Exhibit A, provided, however, that this provisign
may be waived under appropriate circumstances.
Section 2: Dedicated and Non -Dedicated -Semi-Rural and Urban Standards
and Parking Lots
A. Al]. dedicated and non-dedicat d s mi -rural and urban
streets and parking lots ith City limit lines,
as noted on the adopted General. Plan for the City of
Poway, shall, be constructed in accordance with speci-
fications set forth in Exhibit B, provided, however,
that this provision may be waived under appropriate
circumstances.
Section 3: Rescind Resolution No. 167
The foregoing street standards include the provisions
of Resolution. No. 167. Said Resolution is therefore
null and void and is hereby rescinded.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
California, at a regular meeting thereof this 27th day of April, 1982.
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
EXHIBIT B TO AGENDA REPORT
Robert C. 'Emery, Mayor
APR 27 1982 ITEM
CRITERI:FOR. SEMI -RURAL AND URBAN STREET STANDARDS, INCLUDING PARKING LOTS
1.
An urban street shall serve'residential areas with lot sizes less than a-1/3
acre or densities more than 2 units ,per acre.
2.
A semi -rural street shall serve residential areas with lot sizes from a 1/2
acre to 1 acre or densities of T unit to 2 units per acre'..
3.
All streets; shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the:;City of Poway and the San Diego County Regional
Standard Plans, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. r
4
Design speed shall be 25 miles per hour and the maximum street grade
shall be sixteen percent, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Street alignment and profile: shall comply with the criteria for safe
stopping sighttdistancein conformance with the California State Highway
Design Manual unless special situations allow for modifications and'such,
modifications are approved by the City Engineer.
5.
Non -dedicated streets should not be aligned between two dedicated streets
so that the non -dedicated street would act as a "shortcut" -between the -
streets. .
6.,
Structural sections shall be determined by the State of California Gravel,
Equivalent -Hveem Stabilometer Method;, using the R -value of the: native soil.
and. traffic indices established by the City.` The minimum' section shall be,
3'° A.C.: over either 40- class II A.B. or 5.11class III base. If the R -value
=
of.the;existing native soil is.50 or'greater, a minimum section. of 4" A. C.,
over compacted sub base may be substituted.
7.
Non -dedicated streets shall provide a paved travel way incorporating,a
pedestrian circulation system approved by the City Engineer.
8.
Entry gates into non -dedicated tracts shall be set back from the near curb.
line of any public street to provide a minimum storage of 75 feet for entering
vehicles to stack without interfering with through traffic.
9.'
Streets shall intersect at right angles wherever possible and shall not be
greater than 150'skew to a right angle.
10.
Four -legged intersections should be avoided except at (future) signalized or
controlled locations or;where median islands are on the through street.. The
=
minimum distance between intersections shall be 150 feet.
11.
-i
Street widths,, geometric,criteria, and structural section shall conform to F
Exhibit B.
12.
Local roads serve as primary access roadways to residential units and do not
exceed the daily traffic shown on Exhibit B. Local collector roads service
local.road'traffic by providing routes to the circulation 'system roads. Daily
traffic should not exceed the amount indicated on Exhibit B.
13.
a
Streets with grades over 10 percent may be required to be constructed of
Portland cement concrete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (minimum
thickness shall be 6") when necessitated by specific field conditions.- -=-
..14.
The dedication requirements of Resolution No. 184 shall apply to these
provisions.
7
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTIONAPR 2 7 1982 ITEM �.� 1
I 9
URBAN ROADS
(Dedicated & Non -dedicated)
Local Collector:
(1200 vpd to 2400 vpd)
Local
(up to 1200 vpd)
SEMI -RURAL ROADS
(Dedicated .&.Non -dedicated)
Local Collector
(1200 vpd to 2400 vpd)
Local
(up to 1200 vpd)
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ROADS
(Non -dedicated)
PARKING LOTS
Commercial
Industrial
*NOTES:
1. Sidewalks maybeeliminated on non -dedicated streets. if an approved Pedestrian circulation system is incorporated.
2. Curb heightmay be increased if needed to control drainage. Rolled curb may be installed on semi -rural local
streets or other streets when approved by City Engineer.
3. On non -dedicated streets, Irrevocable Offers of Dedication. (10D) may be required along the non -dedicated street
alignment in conformance with the above right-of-way requirements for public streets.
4. Variations ingeometric design may be considered in special situations because of physical. conditions (such as
hillsides and streams) .
5. Streets with grades Over 10 percent may be required"ta be constructed of P.C.C. concrete (6" min. thick) In
special situations, local streets maximum grade may be increased to 20% as approved by City Engineer.
6. Five inches of class III' base may be substituted for 4" of class Il A.B. If R -value of the existing native soil
is 50 or greater,- the minimum of 4" of A.C.. over compacted sub -base may be substituted.
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
SEMI -RURAL AND UBBAN STREETSTANDARDS INCLUDING PARKING LOTS
R/W
or I.O.D.*3
Sidewalk
SPyopr T 4rt4h *4
Pavinc3
Min_ Strnmtnrat Semina
Paved Area
Shoulder
Pre
c&c
13a1ri.+nin
Grade-
60'
rads
60' 4:°' *1 40' 3" AC/4" AB *6 6"C.F.*2 10%
54''
4$'
36' 3" AC/4" AB *6 6"C.F.*2 16% *5
56' 4+1 *1 40' 3"`AC/4"AB *6
(One side
may)
50' None' 36' 3" AC/4" AB *6
None °Le.approved 24 to 28' 3" AC/4" AB *6
Minimum*
3" AC/4" AB *6'
3" AC/6" AS
(drives):;
3" AC/6" AB
3" AC/8" AB
(drives)
i
6"C.F.* ' 10c
6"C.F.*2 16t.:*.5
6"C.F. 16% *5 .?
EXHIBIT'B TO RESOLUTION
APR 2 7 1982 ITEM
April 23, 1982
City Council
City of Poway
P.O. Box 785
Poway, CA 92064
Reference: Structural Street Section, Twin Peaks Road
Tract #3864 - Culebra Hills
Gentlemen:
It is requested that I, be permitted to address the subject matter as an item under
Public Oral Communications at your meeting of Tuesday,. April 26, 1982. I intro-
cused this same item under Oral Communications at the March 16, 1982 meeting and
was told by the addressees to resolve the matter with the City Engineer, as it.
was considered a technical matter. I have` tried, as evidenced. by the attached
correspondence. I now wish.. to appeal your engineers decision to place 3" of
AC over 5" -DG on Twin Peaks Road based on these facts:
1. Our Tract #3864 - Culebra Hills is an approved finalmap, and a "page
line" subdivision when the City of Poway was incorporated.
2. We have had a County of San Diego approved street structural section.of.'
2" AC over 4" DG for Twin Peaks Road. since October 27, 1981. .
3• The other streets in this subdivision which would have had a "contrdLversial"
structural section, in the opinion of your engineer, have already been
paved and we have concluded+hewill be acceptedby your engineer. Any
possibility of non-acceptance has not been raised by your engineer to
date. These later streets are Carnitas, Carson and Kalapana (all ap-
proved for 2" 'AC over 4" DG) .
4 Your engineer's decision to enforce a 3" AC over 5"..DG,for Twin Peaks
Road will cause us a financial loss of- $11,435.55 ($0.21/SF additional
cost for 1" of AC per our contractual documents.with V.R. Dennis
Construction Company).
Respectfully,,
CH +TE, INC.
tw1
David P. Cunn
Vice. Presider
2160 Fletcher Parkway, Suite F, El Cajon, California 92020 Phone (714) 448-9550
"Et'0.1, .e
COUNCIL MEMBERS-
BOB EMERY, Mayor:
ARY SHEPARDSON. Deputy Mayor
& INDA °RAVEc
CLYDE REXRODE
BRUCE TARZI
`March 24, 1982
CITY -OF
Chilcote
2160 Fletcher Parkway.
Suite F
El Cajon, CA. 92020
Attention: Mr. David P Cunning
Subject::
Structural Section Rquireinents for Twin Peaks Road,_
Poway, California --Tract 3864 Culebra Hills
Gentlemen
We have reviewed the information you provided us regarding recommendations
for the structural : section for Twin: Peaks Road.
The. City has determined that Twin Peaks R
(class 3 base) over a compacted sub -base
view of—the high "R9' values on Twin Peaks
alternative pavementsection consisting.o
base (top 9" compacted to 95% relative) .
in . areas wherethe sub -base "R" value ex •
Sincerely,
PUBLIC AVICES DEPARTMENT
Ray erryman
City gineer
RJB:
-d will require 3" ACG over 6" DG
thickcompacted to 95%. In
-•ad, the City will accept. an
4" AC oncompactednative sub=
This alternative will be acceptable
eds 50.
ft
Administrative Offices Located at -13325 Civic Centel Drive
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 785, Poway, California 92064 (714) 748-6600, (714) 6954400
-'WiisonJoneS
9ld•Pd
ANTED Ed U.S.A.P
March 22, 1982
Mr. Joe Goldhammer
Materials Engineer
Dept. of Public Works
County of San Diego
Bldg. ,#5, 5555 Overland Ave.
San Diego, CA 92123
Re: Structural Section Requirements for Twin Peaks Road, County of San. Diego
Tract 3864 (Culebra. Rills) , TM 3864-1
This is written, as we agreed, to confirm the results of our meeting of.March March 19th
relative to the referenced matter.
Based on your review, you should have shown a 4.5 TI value inyour letter of
June. 8, 1981 to Shepardson Engineering Assoc., Ind. (S.E.A.) in lieu of a 5.0 TI
for Twin Peaks Road (a residential collector street). S.E.A. used the 5.0 TI
guidance as the basis for recommending the 3" AC on 6" DG . structural section for
Twin Peaks Road in their letter of'October 15, 198f. Of Course, your letter of
October 27, 1981 corrected the matter by your approving a 2" AC on 4", which
corrected the matter' as that was the minimum- section for a TI of 4.5.
There has been some confusion relative to what was the -County's policy on
structuralsections for Residential Collectors (60' R.W. with 40' of . road bed),‘
now and in the past. The. County's policy which had been in effect for many years
before Ocotber 20, 1982, for Residential Collectors was as follows:
(1) The assignment of either a TI of either 4.5 or 5.0 to a particular
street, based on the estimated traffic volume and estimated heavy
truck traffic. Your standard drawing 3103 shows a traffic volume
range of 150 to 700 dwelling units for Residential Collectors.
(2) The assignment of a minimum. 2" AC on 4" DG for a TI of 4.5 and
3" AC. on 6" DG for TI of 5.0, with "R" values of 42+. _
Twin Peaks. Road,east of Espola Road will have traffic volume only from the new
63 single family► lots in Tract 3864 and from approximately 50 existing dwelling
units tothe east of- Tract 3864. These 113+ dwelling units are far below even
the lowest traffic volume range (150) of your criteria for a Residential Collector.
2160 Fletcher Parkway, Suite F, E[ Cajon, California 92020 Phone (714) 448-9550
n.�
?larch 22,•1982
Page 2.of 2
-the County's "new pjticy" which was approved on October 20, 1981 by the. Director
of Public Works changed Residential Collectors to a TI -of 5.0 and maintains the
minimum, structural sectiion. of 2" AC on 4" DG with an. " R"value of 42 or greater.-
Considering the fact that the structural section is determined by you'utiiizing
thecriteria-that is in effect a the time that the rough grading is complete
and the "R" values are determined ("R" value of 80 for Twin Peaks Road in this
case), a structural section- of 2" AC on 4" DG is required. This section is the
minimum for Twin Peaks . Road under both the "old" and the "new" policies of. the
County for Residential Collector Streets.
Pleaseaccept our appreciation for the time that Phil Pressnall of your staff
and yourself have expended in reviewing the subject matter.
Kindly call me; at 448-9550 if I have in anyway mis-stated the conclusions of
our meeting.
Very truly yours,
TE,, IRC -
David: P. Cunning -`
Vice President
c:: Shepardson Engineering Assoc.., Inc.
Ray :Barriman, City Engineer, City of Poway
DPC/sp
k
� PSL
SO IL AD FO U!"DATION: EERS ASSOCIPTITON
ENGINEERS.
1300 DOVE STREET, 2ND. FLOOR • NEWPORT: BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 • 833=2942
(714)
Apri T 205. '1982
JOHN HENEGHANti:
E D .
PRESIDENT
Cityof Poway
4
JAMES E L/KiNS
Engineering Department
APPI8
VICE PRESIDENT
Post Office Box 785
i�
RICHARD GOMM'
sECRETARY
Poway, Cal forni a 92064
CITY OF`AWAY
CITY CLERIVS OFFICE
DUGALD- CAMPBELL
xi
TREASURER
Attention.- Mr. Ray' Berryman
SHELLY PRAGER
PAST PRESIDENT
CHARLES ctiRisttAN
SUBJECT: Policy for Street Standards .and Parking Lots, City
a`
DIRECTOR
of Poway".
R. CEONARO'ALLEN
.
DIRECTOR
I
THOMAS WALLACE
Gentlemen:
DIRECTOR
Z.`- ofHao D SHORT'In
response to the proposed. street standards for the- 'C.ty of
Poway as outlined in the Aprii 6 1982 agenda report, sev-
eral geotechnical engineers representing member firms, of the,
MARIANNE BIENDUGA
Sol l and Found.ati on Engineers Association ( SAFER) met to
ADM: ASSISTANT
discuss these- standards. ` It was the consensus: of those
present that with `regard to pavement thickness` design,.these
standard's ` wi l I in many cases, be excessive and not al] ow
for variations in- geologic conditions and traffic loadings.
In consideration of this,' the SAFEA members have prepared
al:ternative recommendations (standards). which: we- hope the
City counri 1 w,111 study; recognizing our vast experi ence in
the Poway area and:, the unbi ased nature of our organization..
It is our opinionthat the previously mentioned agenda
report MAI I not present any data which justifies increasing:
the current minimum. aspha.Tt concrete pavement. thickness of 2
inches to the proposed 3 inches.. Since much of the Poway
City of Poway April 20, 1982 Rage
p
area. is, underlain by residual soils os ng
p sessirelatively high: 'design.
parameters, the use of a 3, inch, minimum pavement standard would undul=y
penalize those pavement areas with excel lent subgrade so%ls. Based on our
attendance at previous City Council meetin s, where the proposed- 9 p posed Standards
were discussed,. it appears that the staff engineers are recommend.ing,. a
minimum threeinch- asphalt concrete (A. C. pavement to reduce future
maintenance costs due to excessive. "alligator" crackings wh.i clr have devei
oiled: on several. City streets. It is our, experience that "a11ig ator'"
cracking is usual" y the result of thepavement surface becomingbritt 1'
due to the loss of volatiles or oxidation of the A.C.Th.i:s. voiat.il"e: Toss
or oxidationis generally a result of the regional cl:i'matic conditions "and.
not a function of the A. C. thickness..Providing a seal coat:.to the A.0
pavement approximately six months after the pavement has been installed "
and. every, 5 years. thereafter should be more effective in: limit%ng the;:loss
Of' volatiles. In" our op -inion, providing proper -action. Within this
sub ,rade",, base and
9 pavi"ng material's and establishing positive surface
drai nage away from, the pavement edge wi l T also reduce pavement distress;
--
and maintenance costs. -
F#
We. generally agree with the department's choice of pavement design prose -
duce, i.e., CaTifor.nia Test 301} however, we feel" that the use of the CBR
(California Bearing Ratio.) test should also, be permitted for these streets=
with a: Traffic Index of 6.0 or less or for any, parking lot. We, believe'
this to be in the City's best, interest since, 1} -the "R" VaTue test. was.
_
developed-, primarily for highway type pavement design which is subjected to,
substantially different traffic conditions than would occur for resides-
tial streets, public or private parking lots and,, 2) =a greater number of
Tabor"atori"es are equippedi to. perform. the CBR test. than the. "R" Value. test.
;
In 1 leu of determining pavement standards by some arbitrary means, we
recommend that minimum standards be set which are in conformance with good
engineering practice. It is, our opinion th.at the criteria for a private
�
T
I
City of PowayApri 1 20, 1982 Page 3
parking Tot, which_ will be subjected to only an occassional car loading,
be different than the standards for a, heavi 1y used street. We suggest..,
therefore, that consideration be given: to adopting the attached "Minimum
Pavement Design; Standards"'..
We. further recommend that all pavements including parking: lots ,be designed(
by a Registered' Civi 1 Eng neer, experienced in pavement design, with the
actual A.C. or base thickness .to be reflective of the various. types: of
anticipated traffic.. In addition,; the assigned Traffic Indexes `TI `for
any proposed street should be based, upon actual traffic conditions and: not
be arbitrari 1y assigned..
Regarding the. necessity of using a concrete pavement for al.l raa,dways with
grades : in. excess of 10%, we be eve a more effec.ti�ve `measure=: would b� to
i`n.crease the minimum A CR thickness by 1I2. inch per 2 gr. ode beyond. 10%_to'
a .maximum of 15%. Above 15% a concrete pavement may then be necessary,
SAFER is hopef. u1 that:the City Counci sand staff engineers 1`11 find our
input usefu 11 in, their deci sion making process. Shou 1d you require ; any
additional A`nfor. motion, . please, contact the undersigned at: (714j. 280"-4321-
at you. convenience.:
Respectfully submitted,. a i
SOIL &'FOUNDATION ENGINEERS: ASSOCIATION
i
Charles 4W ` Christian, _P.E..
Director, +
:.
CHC. mw
cc City Council Members
t-
MINIMUM PAVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
TRAFFLC
4.0
4.5
5.0
5r, 5
At
INDEX
STREET
ALLEY
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
LOCAL
CLASSIFICATION.-
b. CUL-DE-SAC
OR, RURAL
STREET OF
COLLECTOR
STREET-
HIGHER VOLUME
STREET
R -VALUE
CBR
A.C. D,G._
A,,C Dr
A.C= O -.G.
A.:C.
D: G,
'
5
1
2: 9!.,5, J
2 11.5
2` 13.5
3
13.. J
-
10
2
2 9
2 10..5
Z. 12.;5:
3
T2.0
2 10..0
2
11..0
E.
20
3
2 7.5
2 9".0
2
3
J
F
r
2.5
4
2 6.5
2 8.0
Z 9.5.
3.
9-.0
¢r
5
7.0
2. 8.,'S
3.
8..0
5.,5'
2 T.S
3
7.Q
4a
9
2' 4.'S
2 " 5.5`
Z
45:
1:I
2 4-0 0
2 4..5
2 5.,5
3.
5014
2 4.0
2 4.0`
2 4.5:
'
-- 3.
6..0
.
' y
55
18:
2 440
2 4...0
2 4.0
6.0:
60
23
2 4.0
2 4.0
2 4..Q:3
6.rQ
-"-65
30
2 4.0
2 4.072
4.0
3
6.0
70
3'
2 4 0
2 4.0
2 4.0
3.
6.0
y ik.
Parka na
Pots. shout d be, des:i caned for a minimum section: of 2 : nches:- of A..G.
on 4
Inch-D.G. base
or: 2: inches A.C. on
subgrade- prori,ded
the "R:" value
,of the sub-
.
grade, , is t h excess of 60.. The actual pavement design for a parking lot should
consider the actual traffic; conditions and drainage
characteristics.
�-
D..G is
disintegrated, granite conforming to Section 400-2.3 of the.
Standard
Spec.ifi:cations 'of
Public: Works Cons;tructi"on
TI's to
be based upon actual ADT`s(Average
Dai?
Traffic) and not
be arbitrarily r;F
asss geed.
z;
19
April. 26,1982
CAL IF IA LAND Sit RelE RS. ASSOCTION
CENTRAL OFFICE: P.O. BOX 9098, SANTA. RC SA, CA 9.5405-9990
TEL (707) 539-3633
City Council
City of Poway
P.O. Box 785
Poway, California 92064
Nesse Address Reply To:
Gary M. Szytel
935 West Mission Ave. Suite H ,
Escondido, California 92025
EGETVED
Apia
2? 198
CITY OF PO:I'vtry
CITY Y CLERKrS OFFICE
SUBJECT: Agenda Item - April 27,1982:
Policy for Semi -Rural and Urban, Street Standards., Including Parking;
Lots
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:.
We have reviewed the subject standards and have met with your City .Engineer,.
Mr.. Ray Berryman to discuss our concerns.. We sincerely appreciated the
opportunity to meet with him; and some of our objections have been addressed.'
However,. several major issues must be resolved.. A brief summary of these
issues is as follows:
1) STRUCTURAL SECTION REQUIREMENTS:
Under the proposed standards, there is a requirement for a minimum of
3 inches of A.C. over either 4 inches of class II ` A.B. or 5. inchesof
class. III base. This minimum will be required regardless of the
results of soils tests. Since this minimum: will be excessive 'ice. _
many cases., a more equitable approach would be to have structural
sections designed in each individual case to accomodate the under-
lying soil. Parking lots and private roads especially (since they
do; not require City, maintenance) should be allowed to use this
reasonable approach.
2). PAVING: WIDTHS
The widths proposed for Semi -Rural roads are thesame as those
proposed for Urban roads--£ Obviously, wider roads are necessary in
urban areas to provide for on -street parking. However,, in, semi -rural
areas, lots are -large and more on -lot parking is utilized. Subsequently
the excessive widths are not necessary. In addition, semi -rural areas
are generally more hilly, and wider roads will require increased grading
causing, more fi"unsighly" semi -rural developments. Provisions should
be made in the standards to allow private roads for these developments
Institutional Affiliate of American Congress on Surveying; and Mapping
APR 27198 ITEEVI
p