HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 DblnBlUndrgrndUtltyDst (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 26, 1984
SUBJECT
: Dublin Boulevard Underground Utility District
EXHIBITS ATTACHED :
RECOMMENDATION[~,~.-·
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Adopted Policy of Undergrounding of Existing Overhead
gtilities
1) Agree in concept to contributing City funds to the
Dublin Boulevard Underground Project
2) Authorize Staff to contact PG&E regarding City's
position
Total Project cost estimated - $590,000-$800,000
Cost Financed under Rule 20A - $395,000
Cost required from City funds - $195,000-$405,000
DESCRIPTION : At its meeting of June 13, 1983, the City Council
adopted a policy for establishing priorities for the undergrounding of
overhead utilities within the City of Dublin (see attached policy).
Those areas within the City of Dublin which were given highest priority
were:
1. San Ramon Road - Dublin Boulevard to Martin Canyon Creek
2. Dublin Boulevard - San Ramon Road to Golden Gate Drive
3. Dublin Boulevard - Golden Gate Drive to 1-680.
At its meeting of November 13, 1984, the City Council adopted a resolution
ordering the formation of Underground Utility District Number 1, which will
provide for the undergrounding of utilities on San Ramon Road between Dublin
Boulevard and Mar~in Canyon Cree~. This project will be funded by Rule 20A
funds which the City has received and will receive until 1989.
Representanives from PG&E have also indicated a willingness to advance the
City $395,000 in Rule 20A funds for undertaking an underground utility
project on Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road to 1-680. These Rule 20A
funds would represent an advance of funds using the City's allocation
through 1994. PG&E's estimated cost of this project is $695,000_+ 15%
($590,000 - $800,000). PG&E has indicated that it would advance $395,000 to
the City provided that the City was willing to finance the remainder of the
project. The cost to the City has been estimated at $300,000 but coulC vary
with the cost of the project ($195,000 - $405,000). The City's share of
this project could be financed from tne Street Improvement Reserve.
This project would not conflict with the City street rehabilitation projecn
which is p~esen~ly underway. The undergrounding of utilities wou!c be
accomplished on the back half of the sidewalk on the north side of Dublin
B~evard This projec~ would require the acquisition of some minor righ~-
of-way to accommcdate two swinch boxes behind the sidewalk.
If the City Council agrees to contribute toward the cost of this project,
and PG&E officials approve the project on November 27, 19~4, PG&E
representasives have incicaued that the construc5ion of this project could
begin as early as June 1985.
If the Cisy does not proceed with this project at this Eime in order to wait
for additional Rule 20A fund advances, the cost of the project will
increase, it is not likely that the Rule 20A funds allocation from 1990 and
beyond will keep pace with increased cosu of construction.
Therefore, it is Staff's recommendation that the City Council agree to the
concept of conuributing City funds to the Dublin Boulevard undergrounding
project; and further authorize Staff to convey that willingness to PG&E.
ITEM NO. 6';
COPIES TO: Lou HolvecK, PG&E
Mike Carotenuto, PG&E
CITY ENCINEER's UNDERGROUND UTILITY PRIORITY REPORT
RECOMMENDED POLICY
REGARDING
pRIORITIES FOR THE UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES
Commercially fronted streets considered before residential fronted streets
because of higher visibility due to commercial setbacks and higher traffic
volumes thus affecting more people.
Streets with pole lines on two sides of the street be considered before
streets with poles on one side of street due to the greater reduction in
visual potution.
Consideration be given to projects including outside participation such as
private developers or assessment districts which would considerably lessen
the public cost of the project.
Consideration be made where a street is to be widened and the exis:ing
overhead utilities will need to be relocated.
or more of:an as
Review of priorities be
c ir c._'~,s t ant e s warrant.
made on an annual basis
RECC?!:.tE:;DED PRIORITIES
Commercial Areas
~o.o v~s~b~;tv - high traffic use
........ . C.--~ (poles both
A. San Ramon Road-Dublin Blvd to Martin Canyon
sides of s:reec a~d can match timing with widening of road~ay).
Rule 20A estimated cost $350,000 {~ota! cos~ with
B. Dublin Blvd-San Ramon Road to Golden Gate Drive (poles bo~h sides
of street and heavy downtown traffic). Rule 20A estimated cos:
$a21,000 (total cost wiCh street lights
C. Dublin B!vd-Colden Gate Drive ~o 1-680 (coles both sides
street). Rule 20A estimated c~st $]36;0~0 (total cost
street lights $372,000).
D. Dublin B~vd-Remainder between 1-680 and Doughert7 Road.
E. Dublin Bird-San Ramon Road ~o Silvergate Drive.
Y. Dublin Cour~
G. Doughercy Road
H. Village Parkway-Dublin Blvd to Amador Valley Blvd (note thac
existing overhead lines are already on street light poles).
I!. Residential Areas
Less visibLlit7 because of landscaping and Less traffic. More
peop-= undergrounding their o~n overhead services.
problems with ~
A. Villag'~ park~ay-Amador Valle'/ Blvd north to Cis'/ 1imLs line.
B. A.~:ador Valley Bird-Vii!age Park~ay to Stagecoach Road.
C. S.tn Ramoz Road-Amador Va!leT Blvd norzh to C[zlt limit Iize.