My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
031709
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2009 11:58:06 AM
Creation date
3/12/2009 10:04:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/17/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
At that meeting, the scope of work for undergrounding the utilities was explained to the <br />public. The improvements would be broken up into two phases, with the first phase <br />being the undergrounding efforts and the second phase being the roadway <br />improvements. Since the overhead utilities would most likely be placed underground <br />below the roadway section, this would be the first order of work to be completed prior to <br />the start of the roadway improvements. The work to be performed by a licensed <br />electrical contractor would include the undergrounding of electrical, telephone, and <br />cable TV wires in conduit. The location of conduit feeds from the public roadway to the <br />adjacent private buildings would need to be coordinated with the adjacent property <br />owners and would become the responsibility of the private property owners. The project <br />would also require approval from the respective utility companies for those portions of <br />the project that are public, and approval from the City's Building Department for the <br />onsite private improvements in compliance with the local building and electrical codes. <br />Cooperative agreements and right of entries would need to be obtained from all affected <br />property owners to investigate existing conditions and prepare design plans for the <br />utility conversions. Cooperative agreements to perform work on behalf of the private <br />property owners on private property would also be needed. Upon completion of the <br />electrical and cable system, PG&E would then energize the electrical system and <br />remove the existing power poles. <br />Once the power poles have been removed by PG&E, the City would then award a <br />separate contract (Phase II) for the street improvement project for the remainder of the <br />work. Since the completion of the underground utility work would be dependent on <br />PG&E and its crews to complete, staff has decided to divide the work into two separate <br />projects to avoid any potential delay claims from the contractor that could arise if the <br />project were to incur delays. <br />DISCUSSION <br />Timeline Implications <br />The undergrounding of public utilities would require the formation of an underground <br />utility district, additional design work and permitting approvals from affected utility <br />companies, and execution of a right-of-entry and cooperative agreements with affected <br />property owners. As a consequence, the project completion would be extended out at <br />least another two years and incur an increase in project costs for the construction <br />portion of the project. The exact costs for the construction portion of undergrounding <br />the overhead utilities will not be known until the final design is completed, advertised <br />and bid. Based on the City's previous experience for the First Street Underground <br />Utility District ($5 million cost to the City), the construction portion of the project is <br />estimated to be between $2.5 and $3 million dollars or 50-60% of the First Street <br />project. <br />As part of the formation of the underground utility district, it is also recommended that <br />City Council subsidize the potential costs up to $8000 per property to be consistent with <br />past practices for previous districts, and these costs are included in the $2.5 to $3 <br />million. By subsidizing the private property costs, the City will increase its span of <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.