Mr Lee,

Thank you very much for your prompt answer. I guess, the Rule 20B is
our best chance to see something done, even though not very promising if
it requires 100% of the owners' approval.

I will do some more research with the PUC.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my concern.

Sincerely

JP Pascal

Brian Lee wrote:
> Mr. Pascal,
>
> The State Public Utility Commission (PUC) has three rules related to
> undergrounding of utilities.
>
> Rule 20A provides that the utility will underground facilities at its
> own expense. This option uses funds that are allocated to each city
> and county by the utility as provided by the PUC. The city or county
> does not receive the funds directly but the allocation is used to
> offset PG&Es costs associated with a Rule 20A underground district.
>
> Section A1a of Rule 20A specifies the conditions that have to be met
> with regards to appropriate projects. These conditions include
> requiring the local agency (city or county) to make a determination
> prior to the formation of the underground district that it is in the
> general public interest to underground utilities:
>
> 1) to avoid unusually heavy concentration of overhead distribution
> faculties; or
>
> 2) if the street is heavily used by the general public; or
>
> 3) if the street adjoins or passes through a civic area or public
> recreation area or scenic area.
>
> Examples of projects where the County has used Rule 20A funds to
> underground utilities is the Alameda de las Pulgas in West Menlo Park
> and near Redwood City, and Middlefield Road and Fifth Avenue in the
> North Fair Oaks Area. There is a cost to the property owner for
> converting their service to accept underground service and to insure
> there circuit box meets current building codes. The estimated costs
> can range from $1,500 to $5,000 for a normal residential service.
>
> Rule 20B is used in other situations besides Rule 20A, and also
> requires the local agency to form an underground district. Section
> B1a. requires all property owners to agree in writing to underground
> their services. The cost of undergrounding would be a cost to the
> property owner and PG&E has used $250 per foot (2001 estimate) as an
> order of magnitude cost for undergrounding its facilities. This is in
> addition to the conversion costs as described under Rule 20A above.
> Levying the charge on the adjacent property owners would probably
> require an assessment district, which is subject to Article XIIID of
> the State Constitution (Proposition 218). Article XIIID requires an
> election of those being assessed; and the Constitution does not allow
> the local agency to overrule a majority protest of those being assessed.
>
> Rule 20C requires the mutual agreement of the utility and the
> applicant and is usually used in conjunction with new subdivision
> development.
>
> The County currently has a backlog of Rule 20A underground districts
> as PG&E had suspended all underground work in 2001 and has only
> recently begun to process backlogged projects. The following
> underground utility districts have been formed by the Board of
> Supervisors which are still awaiting action by PG&E:
>
> * Middlefield Road - Fifth Avenue to the Redwood City limits
> * Old County Road - Belmont city limits to the San Carlos city limits
> * El Camino Real - Daly City City limits to the Town of Colma
> city limits
> * Mirada Road - Medio Avenue to the Alameda in the MidCoast area
> of the County.
>
> In addition, there have been discussions with members of the Board of
> Supervisors involving the formation of underground districts along
> Highway 1 north of Half Moon Bay, on Hillside Boulevard adjacent to
> Daly City and on El Camino Real in conjunction with the City of
> Redwood City.
>
> In closing, I do not believe, given the existing projects to be
> completed and the list of candidate projects, that Valparaiso Avenue
> would be considered in the near term for the undergrounding of
> utilities using Rule 20A funding. Utilities could be undergrounded on
> Valparaiso Avenue using PUC Rule 20B. However, this places the burden
> of financing on the adjacent property owners and we do not believe
> that this is a viable option, as all owners would have to agree to pay
> for the installation and, to my knowledge, long-term government
> financing is not available.
>
>
> ---
> Brian C. Lee, P.E.
> Deputy Director of Public Works
> County of San Mateo
> BLee@Co.SanMateo.CA.US <mailto:BLee@Co.SanMateo.CA.US>
> 555 County Center, 5th Floor
> Redwood City, CA 94063
> (650) 599-1497; Fax: (650) 361-8220
>
>
>
> >>> "J.P. Pascal" <_ jp.pascal@gmail.com <mailto:jp.pascal@gmail.com>_
> > 12/27/06 6:44:42 PM >>>
> To whom it may concern
>
> I wrote the e-mail below in April 2002 to the City Council as well as to
> PG&E and San Mateo County officials. I never received a satisfactory
> answer, so I am asking again:
> what would it take to finally get all of our services underground?
>
> It is not just a matter of aesthetics but a matter of safety. With all
> the trees that make Menlo Park special; the fact is that any time there
> is a bit of a storm, we have power and cable failure.
>
> Today December 27th, again, we had to close our business (Crepes Cafe)
> at our lunch peak hour due to a power failure that lasted some 4 hours!
> The weather was not even that bad, just a bit of wind.
>
> We live on Valparaiso Ave. where the paving is being redone -- again --
> for the 3rd or 4th time in 10 or 15 years? Has anyone thought of using
> that opportunity to consult the neighborhood to get the wires
> underground. When are we going to join the 21^st century?
>
> I am not alone in my concern. Please let us know what it would take to
> get this problem addressed.
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> Sincerely
> J.P. Pascal
> 1828 Valparaiso Av.
> Menlo Park, CA 94025
> 650-323-5007
> _jp.pascsal@gmail.com <mailto:jp.pascsal@gmail.com>_
>
>
>
> Subj: *telephone posts*
> Date: 2/4/02
> To: _CITY.COUNCIL@menlopark.org <mailto:CITY.COUNCIL@menlopark.org>_
> <_ mailto:CITY.COUNCIL@menlopark.org_ >
>
> I have been resident of Menlo Park for over 15 years and our family has
> owned property here for the last 40 years.
>
> We love Menlo Park, but one thing always shocks us when we come back
> from our business assignments in Europe is the safety hazard and massive
> visual pollution of the telephone poles and wires hanging in most of the
> older subdivisions of Menlo Park and Atherton. The safety hazard is what
> concerns us most -- especially during any type of storm.
>
> Is there any way to get all these wires under ground?
> Is this something that is part of a future plan for Menlo Park/Atherton?
> How can I help?
>
> We are in the middle of the most sophisticated technology centers in the
> world and the wealthiest county in the world. Yet our power and
> communication structures are antiquated, hazardous and often inefficient.
> Thanks for your time and looking forward to your answer.
> Sincerely,
>
> JP Pascal
> 1828 Valparaiso Av
> Menlo Park
> 94025
> Tel: 650 323 5007
> Fax: 650 321 7830
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> BEGIN:VCARD
> VERSION:2.1
> X-GWTYPE:USER
> FN:Lee, Brian
> TEL;WORK:650-599-1497
> ORG:;Public Works
> TEL;PREF;FAX:650-361-8220
> EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:blee@co.sanmateo.ca.us
> N:Lee;Brian
> END:VCARD
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 3 04:16:25 2007