Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-01-02; City Council; 2260; Proposed Policy- Relocation of Utility FacilitiesTHE.rITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Agenda Bill NO. &&(*£> ' Date _ Jan. 2 , 1974 Referred To: ^^° Subject: '. '. Subml tted By: Proposed Council Policy on Relocation Acting Public of Utility Facilities Director ^ Statement of the Matter ' . . This item is being submitted to Council at the request of the San Diego Gas and Electric Co. The San Diego Gas and Electric Co., 'as a franchise holder with the City of Carlsbad, is requesting the. City Council to adopt a policy on relocation of utility facilities. The proposed policy appears to be consistent with the policy of the County of San Diego (see Exhibit A) and other cities of San Diego County. Exhibit A. letter from SDG&E dated November 27, 1973 B. Council Policy No. 1 8 Staff Recommendations to City Manager Adopt a motion approving Council Policy No. 18 No. ' . Date: Jan. 2 , 1974 City Manager's Recommendation The recommended policy is now what is essentially in existence but in unwritten form. All cities .have been requested to adopt this poTicy. At the time of this writing, information is not available on the status of its adoption by other c i t i e s . It.is suggested that the Council approve the policy as suggested. Council Action 1-2-74 Co.uncil Policy #18 regarding relocation of utility facilities was adopted. • ' SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92U2' / Jft>| November 27 , 1973 FILE NO. LNB 200 OV8SWD HO AJ.!0~ f:.T^Jiana,san &6i SSAONActing City Engineer City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue |1 Carlsbad, California 92008 ^ Dear Mr. Flanagan: This is in reference to our recent discussions requesting that the City implement a procedure which would apprise private developers, prior to construction, of their financial responsibility relative to the relocation of this Company's facilities caused by private improvements. The reason for the request is we have experienced some problems concerning relocation costs. The arguments against paying the cost are (1) the municipality is the one requiring the street to be improved, and (2) the utility company is on franchise and, therefore, has a contractual obligation to relocate at its own expense for the franchise grantor. In reply to these two arguments, they have been informed that (l) the private improvements are for the developer's personal gain, regardless of the City's requirements, and (2) the franchise specifically states that the utility's contractual obligation to relocate is only for city-initiated improvements that are financed with public funds. To eliminate this confusion and to support our position, we respectfully request that you implement whatever procedure you feel would be effective to clearly define the financial responsibility of private developers in the city of Carlsbad. Our primary concern is to remove the burden of relocation cost from those individuals who now receive little, if any, financial benefit from these improvements and place responsibility where it properly belongs, on the individuals who mostly benefit from them. To be consistent with our in-house policy, we would request that both R-l and R-2 improvements be exempted. Also, we would request that you include in this category all non-profit organizations such as schools, churches, hospitals, etc. Attached is a copy of the policy with the County of San Diego. Sificerely, G. G. Dyer GGD/JSE:ldr Right of Way Agent Phone: 232-1*252, Ext. IIOU Enclosures INVESTOR-OWNED BY MORE THAN 35,000 STOCKHOLDERS a ^ i'lf Sijijiii lilir'mi ^^^11 . / ;. Y/. COLQUIIOUH Dor-Aclm.n. OFFICE OF Till-: COUNTY ENGINEER n. J.MASSMAN o«p.«'iun A T.UU, J. W. SETTLES D«^OpofQi..).is DAVID K. SPECn BW«- *2- Counly Opctoliono C.nl.r, 5555 OvorlonJ Avrnv* ;. p. MULCRCW Do».-Tfch Opn». .Count/ Eti<jin»«r . Son Dicqo, Cot.locn»9 9212J Phon»« 278-9200 J. J. CILSH1AN Pvp-Dl«Jy Inup. O' November 27, 1968 Honorable Board of Supervisors Son Diego County Administration Center 1600 Pacific Highway . San Diego, California 92101 Gentlemen: Subject: Policy Regarding Relocation of Utility Facilities At the present time there is no clearly defined policy regarding financial responsibility for relocation of utility facilities caused by the various types of road improvement projects. We have experienced exceptionally fine cooperation from both the San Diego Gas and Electric Company and the Pacific Telephone Company but, due to the increasing amount of development created by the current economic expansion in San Diego County, the questions are becoming more and more prevalent as to who should bear the costs of the necessary relocations - primarily in regard to poles, and overhead facilities. • In order to clarify these questions it now appears necessary to. define a policy. It is, therefore, my - .' RECOMMENDATION: That your Board Adopt the following policy regarding relocation of utilities caused by improvements to county streets and roads: 1. On all road improvement projects financed by public funds for the benefit of the public, including Road Improvement Districts formed under assessment act procedures, or where such improvements are financed by a non-profit organization for the benefit of that organization, the utility agency shall bear the costs of the nec- essary utility relocations. The above shall not apply where the existing utilities are located within property owned by the utility agency or within a utility e.-iscmcnt which is prior in time and/or right to the County's right of way.©On all road improvement projects in conjunction with private property developments - such as land subdivisions, lot splits, commercial or industrial developments, trailer parks, or speculative residential developments - the developer shall bear the cost of the necessary o of Supervisors O 27, 1%S utility relocations. In this cose, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to contact the utility agencies, advise them of the proposed improvements, nnd moke direct arrangements for the reloca- tion of any conflicting utilities, evidence of such completed arrangement in the form of a clearance by the public utility shall be presented by the developer prior to final approval of the develop- ment's plans by the County or issuance of any permit to construct. DISCUSSION: There has been very little question from any utility agency regarding the requirement that they relocate their facilities which are within a county road when such installations conflict with improvements undertaken by the County and financed with public funds. In fact, according to County Counsel, California courts have consistently held that the right to con- struct public utility facilities in streets and highways amounts only to a franchise subject to an obligation to relocate its facilities at its own expense when necessary to make way for a proper governmental use of the streets. In many cases in the past some agencies have gratuitously extended this free relocation policy to street widenings in conjunction with private developments. Over a period of time, however, the number and cost of such relocations has gradually increased to the point where the cumula- tive yearly cost involved has reached large proportions. Since the improvements in question are being made by private enterprise with a profit motive, the utility companies and their rate payers have, in effect, been subsidizing the developer's operations. Although it is conceded that there is a substantial benefit to the public from such street improvements, we feel that the preponderance of the benefit accrues to the adjacent property being developed. In addition, unlike the usual county project which generally widens a sizeable length of roadway, the privately sponsored projects arc primarily small, areas causing piecemeal relocations which are relatively expensive, particu- larly in regard to overhead facilities. This department feels that the policy as suggested is fair and equitable. O Very truly yours, D. K. SPEER County Engineer H. M. VAYLOK Assistant County Engineer IIMT:JLS:ls cc: San Diego Gas and Electric Company (Mr. DcVorc); Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (Mr. Whiting). 3*(1) It is recommended that the City adopt the following policy regarding relocation of utilities caused by improvements to city streets: A. San Diego Gas & Electric Company The San Diego Gas & Electric Company will bear the cost of relocating its facilities for the following circumstances: 1. All street improvement projects financed by public funds for the benefit of the public. 2. Street improvement districts formed under assessment act procedures. f 3. Improvements financed by non-profit organizations. h. Improvements limited to benefiting up to two single family dwelling units. ..EXCEPTION: The above shall not apply where the existing utilities are located within property owned by the San Diego Gas & .Electric Company or within a utility easement which is prior in time and/or right to the City's right of way. (2) On all street improvement projects in conjunction with private property developments—such as land subdivisions, lot splits, commercial or industrial developments, trailer parks or speculative residential developments—the developer shall bear the cost of the necessary utility relocations. In this case, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to contact the San Diego-Gas & Electric Company, advise them of the proposed improvements, and make direct arrangements for the -2- relocation of any conflicting utilities. Evidence of such completed arrangement in the form of a clearance by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall be presented by the developer prior to final approval of the development's plans by the City or issuance of any permit to construct.