E 571 Interference of Existing Improvements

In processing projects involving the realignment and widening of improved streets, it will be found that if some of the existing improvements are left in place or not modified in some manner, they may interfere with construction or with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The types of existing improvements usually involved are either publicly or privately owned and may be located on the public right-of-way or on private property. Public property, “public” being used in a broad sense, may be divided into two categories: public facilities and public utilities. Public facilities include pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveway approaches, etc. The removal and reconstruction of the pavement has been presented in Section E 560 Remodeling Improved Streets. The remaining facilities have been covered under their respective titles elsewhere in this Part of the Manual. 

The removal and relocation of public utilities, such as power and telephone poles, cables, and gas, oil, and water lines have in part been covered under Subsection E 052.31, Prior Rights. The procedures for their removal are covered under Sections E 810, Assessment Act Projects (Street Improvements Under 1911 Act and 1941 Ordinances) and E 820, Capital Improvement Projects (C.I.P.), and the other criteria for their removal and relocation under Subsection E 571.1, Public Improvements Within the Street or Alley.¹ The City’s policies covering removal of private improvements on public streets and on private property are discussed under Sections E 140, Fundamentals of Real Property for Street Design Purposes, and E 230, Street Improvement Policies, and procedurally under Sections E 810 and E 820, as stated above.¹ Other related material is covered elsewhere in this Part of the Manual and in Subsections E  571.2 and E  571.3.  Special reference in connection with all removals is made in the Standard Specifications — 1970 Edition. See Section E 020B.

In some cases, the removal or relocation of existing public utilities or private improvements may be contemplated. These utilities or improvements may be on private property or may encroach on the public way. In such cases, the criteria outlined under Standard Specifications — 1970 Edition and the material in this Part of the Manual should be used as a guide. If, in the design supervisor’s opinion, the location or encroachment does not materially affect the construction or the design and does not create any unsafe conditions with possible consequent liability of the City, the improvement may remain in place. This is true particularly where a relatively major improvement is involved.

E 571.1 Public Improvements Within the Street or Alley

In general, the removal and relocation of utilities are due to realignment or grade changes in streets and alleys. Particularly where utility companies have prior rights, it should be recognized that the cost of the relocation and removal may have to be borne directly by the assessment district on assessment projects and by the taxpayers on capital improvement projects.

The street designer will be concerned primarily with the interference and removal or relocation or surface utilities. Existing manholes, transformers, vaults, water meters, etc., that are required to remain in the plane of the pavement are reset to grade.

Where curbs are to be realigned in streets, utility poles may not be located closer than 6 inches from the back of the top of the curb.  In alleys, the need for the removal or relocation of utility poles is determined by the width of the alley and the location of the poles with respect to the alley property line. The pole offset from the nearest property line is the distance measured from the farthermost face of the pole to the property line. Utility poles in an alley 15 feet wide or less should be relocated when the distance to which they extend into the alley is greater than 18 inches. Poles in alleys more than 15 feet wide should be relocated when the distance to which they extend into the alley is greater than 10 percent of the alley width. In no case should they extend more than 2 feet.

E 571.2 Private Improvements Within the Street or Alley

Where encroaching private improvements extend into an alley more than 3 inches, it is a general policy to remove them in the case of pavement or to relocate them to the property line in the case of fences. Concrete slabs in good condition, or relatively new or substantial fences, walls, structures, etc., may be permitted, at the discretion of the design supervisor, to extend more than 3 inches into the alley. However, the concrete pavement must not conflict with the proposed alley grades or cross-sections, and the width of alley (horizontal clearance) should not be materially affected in the case of the other existing improvements. An example of an impaired clearance is where two existing fences, walls, buildings, etc., are located directly across from each other in an alley, and where the two extend into the alley more than 3 inches from the property line. Refer also to Section E 652, Sidewalks. Any existing improvements, whether in a street or in an alley, may be removed, regardless of the degree of encroachment, if permitting them to remain in place would create a dangerous or unsightly condition, unduly sacrifice design standards, or result in excessive construction or maintenance costs.

If, however, the right of way agent or the coordinating designer indicates that the owners are not cooperative, or are indecisive, or that the meeting is not advisable, the designer should obtain approval from his supervising engineer for elimination of the conference. In cases where determination of the owner’s feelings is not established, the designer should discuss the conditions and problems with the right-of-way agent and any others involved to determine the best course of action. Following this, clearance for the final course of action should be obtained from the supervising engineer. In making these decisions regarding the course of action, it should be kept in mind that unless we are sure of the owner’s viewpoint, we should keep the amount of replacement minimized by replacing only those facilities necessary for the use and safety of the property, or by making replacements which are obviously desirable for aesthetic reasons.

This policy should not be construed as advocating compliance with unreasonable or illegal requests by the owner. For example, requests such as those given in the following list should be tactfully but firmly denied:

1. Replacement of an illegal-height fence in a front yard.
2. Replacements which are considerably greater in magnitude than the original facilities.
3. Replacements which are not in accord with the overall aesthetic appearance of the project, even though they may be like the existing facilities in construction or materials.

Some of the design and other criteria for the alterations of existing improvements may come under the jurisdiction of other departments or agencies. Where possible, and in conformance with the above policy and procedure, it may be expedient to set the grades and alignment so that in adjusting the private improvements on private property the standards of these various offices can be met. With this in view, driveway standards to meet the Department of Building and Safety requirements have been covered under Subsection E 535.3. Some other standards for revamping existing improvements are covered in the following subsections.

E 571.3 Private Improvements on Private Property

On many projects, construction of new improvements necessitates the removal of certain existing privately owned auxiliary improvements located on private property, such as fences, garden walls, retaining walls, planters, stairways, etc. In those cases, the designer is usually confronted with many problems in deciding whether the project plans should provide for replacement and relocation of these facilities. This is because of two possible situations that may arise. 

In one case, replacement is not actually necessary to allow for the new improvements but is desired by the owner. In the other case, replacement is necessary or advisable, especially in connection with safety, access, or the usefulness of the property, and several solutions regarding location, materials, etc., are available. In such situations, the office policy should conform to the following:

1. Initially the designer should discuss the conditions and problems with the supervising engineer. Upon approval of the supervisor, a conference should be arranged to determine the owner’s attitude in this matter. Regarding these conferences, no comprehensively detailed policy will be set. However, the following rules should be adhered to:
   1. A representative of the appropriate Negotiation Division of the Bureau of Right of Way and Land should always be requested to attend and approve the conference, since these are the official negotiators for the City in such matters.
   2. Whenever special legal problems concerning acquisition may be encountered, a member of the City Attorney’s start should be requested to be present.
   3. The meeting should be coordinated by the project design engineer in the office responsible for the coordination of the project. Following these conferences, the matter should be discussed further with the supervising engineer, with a view to designing the project in accordance with the owner’s requests whenever it is reasonable to do so.

E 571.31 Walls and Fences

For the purposes of this Part of the Manual, a retaining wall is defined as a structure that serves to hold backfill or surcharge and requires the designing of these structures by a registered structural engineer. All retaining walls 4 feet in height, including the footing, or walls of any height with sloping backfill or surcharge require this design. The Bridge and Structural Design Division is the only division that has the necessary personnel for the design of walls by the Department of Public Works.

A wood or other non-masonry fence merely serves as a boundary or line of demarcation and does not necessarily require an engineered design. However, concrete or masonry fences over 6 feet in height, including the footing, or fences other than concrete or masonry over 10 feet tall require an engineered design.

It is usually necessary to secure an easement for the construction of a wall to retain and support private property adjoining a street widening project. Therefore, where a retaining wall or bulkhead is to be constructed longitudinally along a new street widening project, the responsible design office should delineate the limits of the wall or bulkhead on the right of way sketch accompanying the request for the appropriate type of right-of-way acquisition. See Section E 670, Retaining Walls and Bulkheads.

E 571.32 Housewalks and Steps

Housewalks are sidewalks generally on private property and generally perpendicular to the public sidewalk, which is located on public property. They may be constructed independently or as part of the driveway and may be of asphalt concrete or concrete pavement. Where housewalks must be reconstructed, the maximum longitudinal slope of the housewalk or ramp without handrails is 10 percent. Where this slope exceeds 10 percent but not 12.5 percent, handrails are required. Where it exceeds 12.5 percent, steps should be substituted for the ramp or housewalk. Where steps are reconstructed, the minimum width of tread should be 10 inches, the maximum riser 7.5 inches, and the minimum riser 4 inches.

For further details, such as landings and other related requirements, refer to the Municipal Code, Chapter IX, Building Regulations. See Section E 020A.

E 571.33 Side Slopes

In cases where slope easements with cuts or fills of 6 inches or more are required, the right-of-way sketch should show this information at each new temporary or permanent property corner and at the intermediate points. See Figures E 823A(1) and E 823A(2), Request to Acquire Final Right of Way — C.T.P. Street Projects Only, Sheets 1 and 2 respectively, and E  823B, Typical Final Sketch  See also Section E 681, Side Slope Design Requirements, and Subsections E 054.23, Easements, and E 823.1, Temporary  or  Permanent Rights  in  Private Property.¹

E 571.4 Tree Removals

Many hillside streets and other projects involving changes of street width, grade, and alignment may necessitate removal of trees that are on private or public property. At present, it is the City’s policy to replace all trees on public property that are removed. Plans requiring tree removal should be reviewed and approved by the City Beautification Coordinator of the Department of Public Works.  In addition, it may be well to coordinate tree removal and replacement with the Councilman of the district in which the improvement is contemplated.

If possible, minor local grading modifications should be considered to avoid tree removal. The proposed grading of slopes and its effect on adjacent trees and their root systems should be carefully evaluated. Where necessary, a representative from the Street Tree Division of the Bureau of Street Maintenance should determine whether a tree may safely remain in place. Where widening is to be on one side of the street as opposed to both sides, the designer should consider the additional cost of tree removal and replacement.

Footnote

1. This content is obsolete. Team is conducting research to identify the current equivalent reference or information.