The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/15/1992 B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Pcterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith Staff: Jack Hardisty AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 15, 1992 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. 12:30 pm Oil Well Ordinance 2. 1:30 pm Subdivision Ordinance - PG&E 3. Pushcar~t Vendors 4. Rollerblades on Bike Path 5. Set Next Meeting BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM July 1, 1992 TO' J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ANDREA L. BRITT, ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE ' SUBJECT: ROLLERBLADES ON THE BIKE PATH I received two telephone calls yesterday regarding the enforcement of Municipal Code Section 10.80.050 A. {Kern River Bicycle Trail - Pedestrian Uses Prohibited or Restricted): "It is unlawful for any person to ride or operate roller skates, skateboards, scooters, or other similar nonmotorized equipment on the bicycle trail." One 'phone call was anonymous. The other call was from Kerry Ryan of Action Sports who had received information that signs were being put up around the bike path to prohibit rollerblades. Mr. Ryan rents and sells rollerblades for bike path use and was quite concerned that this enforcement would cause a significant reduction in his business. .alb Attachment cc: Lt. Blackburn - BPD Traffic NOTE: Fabr±cat±on of signs has been stopped. I recomend Ordinance be changed unless this would jeopardize future State funding. ~~.. 7-/-~.~ 10.76.130--t0.80.050 item from a parade trait or line of march, B. The "Kern River Bicycle Trail between B. If sample~ of items or candy or materials Stockdale Highway mad Manor Street" refers m are to be given awayto the crowd alon$ the line of that area ~n the city, more particularly delineated mm-ch, those items shall be handled to members mad des~bed as a bicycle trail ia the Alignment of the crowd on the side of the line of march. Plat dated Alm110, 1975, as amended, identified (Prior code § I 1.16.120). as 6=lla CaLSt. Bak. Col. M-l, l~eld Book 1004, Page 1, on file ia the offices of the county sur- 10.76.130 Violafio)--Pe~alty. veyor of Kern County, Califoram, h~ Any person who wilfuily violates, or who referred to as the Kern River Bicycle Trail. (Ord. wilfully fail.~ or refuses to comply with any of the3113 § l, 1987; prior code § 11.20.040). provisions of this c~, or who wilfully coun- se~ aid~ or abets amy such violatioms or failure 10.~0.020 Who m~y u.~ to comply, shall be guilty ora misdemeanor and The Kern .River Bicycle Trail shall be used upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not exclusively by those- members of the public rid- exeee~nE thx~ hundred dollars or by imlmson- lng bicycles, except as otherwise provided in meatmthecouatyjallforninetydaysorbyboth chapter. (Ord. 3113 § 2, 1987: prior code § such fine and imprisonment. (Prior code § 11.20.030). 11.16.130). 10.80.030 Motor vehicles Im)hibited. It is tmlawfial for any person to operate any C]~l)ter 10.80 motorized vehicle, incluctiag but not limited to. any motor vehicle, motorized cycle, or ~ RIYER BICYCLK TRAIL motorized off-road vehicle, on the Kern River Bicycle Trail. (Ord, 3113 § 3, 1987: prior code § Section-~: I 1.20.0~0). 10.80.010 De~mitions. I0~0.020 Who may use tx~ls. .10.80.(MO Horseback ridi~ nnd cermi~ other 10.80.030 Motor vehicles prohibited. ~ by ~ prohibited. 10~0.040 I-Io~baek riding and cermi~ It is unlawful for any person to ride any horse o~e, ~mes by ~ or other ammal, or to drive, lead or release any prohibited, hoxse or any other equine animal or any bovine 10.80.050 Pedestrian u~s Drohibited or ammak or to operate any vehicle or equilmaent res~cted, drawn or pro~lled by aa animal, on the Kern 10.80.060 Exceptions. River Bicycle Trail. (Ord. 3113 §§ 4, $.(pan), 10.80.070 ¥[olatioa~Pemalty. 1987: prior code § 11.20.060). 10.80.010 Definitions. I0.80.0~0 Pedestrian uses prohibited or For purposes of this chapter, the following restricted. words shall have the meanings as set forth in this A. It is unlawful for any person to r/de or sect/on: operate roUer skates, skateboards, scooters, or A. "Bicycle" means a device upon which any other similar nonmotonzed equipment on the person may ride, propelled exclusively by human bicycle waft. power through a bell chain or gears and having B. Every pedesman walking, jogg/ng or run- either two or three robber-clad wheeLs in a tan- nin8 upon the bicycle wail shall yield the right-of- dem or tricycle arrangement, way to all bicycles upon the bicycie .trail so near TRAFF I C MEMORANDUM TO: FRED KL.OEPPER, ASSISTaNT,PUBLIC WORKS DIreCTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, ~RAFFIC ENGINEER ~. ~ DATE: JULY 1, 1992 SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITIONS - SIGNS ON BIKE PATH The Kern River Bicycle Trail zs built to be a Class I Bikeway per State of California stanoards for bikeways. A Class I Bikeway is a trail or path for the exclusive use of bicyclists and peOestrians. Over the past year, I have received 3 or 4 inquiries from bicyclists regarding what uses are allowed on the Kern River Bicycle Trail. I have informed them of the Municipal Code's list of uses and prohibitions. Those inquiring have also asked that we consider posting a sign with the prohibitions listed to better inform the public of the "rules" of the bike path. These inquir.les and requests have been of an informal nature and' I did not keep written records. I did promise we would consider installing such signs in the future. About a mon%h ago We received a request from a user of the bike DaSh to install a sign informing the public of the Municipal Code requirement for dogs to be on a leash. They had b~n involved in unpleasant encounters with unleashed dogs on the path. Since we were planning to accomodate the request, I directed my engineers to design a sign that would also list the bike path restictions per the Municipal Code and combine it on one sign. A work order was sent on June 18, 1992, to General Services to fabricate and install the signs. With the interest in possibly changing the law to allow roller skating on the path, work on fabricating the signs has been stopped. Since'the definition of "pedestrian" in the California Vehicle Code does not appear to'include persons on roller skates, we may have to drop the Class I Bikeway designation of the trail if skating is allowed. This may also eliminate funding by the State for future bikeway improvements. cc: City Manager Pub£1c Works memo file Traffic File BIKE PATH R STRICTIONS THE FOLLOWING ARE PROHIBITED:"..~.s · MOTOR VEHICLES M.C.10.80.030 " · HORSEBACK RIDING M.C.10.80.040 ~'" · HORSE DRAWN VEHICLES M.C.10.80.040 . ' ROLLERSKATES M.C.10.80.050 ' SKATEBOARDS M.C.10.80.050 ' SCOOTERS M.C.10.80.050 DOGS MUST BE KEPT ON LEASH M.C.6.04.200 IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION KERN DIVISION GAS AND ELECTRIC OPERATIONS July 15, 1992 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Design Standards Summary The utility business moving forward into the new decade is one of increased technology. PG&E is continuously searching for new opportunities to improve our business while providing excellent service at a reasonable cost to our customers. The New Design Standards support this commitment. 1. What are the New Design Standards? PG&E is instituting New Design Standards which are not unlike those already utilized outside of PG&E territory. Some of these New Design Standards address efficiencies in the installation, maintenance and operation costs for electrical underground facilities. 2. How will the New Design Standards affect residential development? Two Design Standards which will affect residential development are transformers and conduits. The new standards were created using an approach that examined alternatives using five criteria: 1) Safety, 2) Reliability, 3) Operability, 4) Initial Cost, 5) Annual Maintenance Transformers: PG&E has identified padmounted transformers as the best installation in new electric underground facilities. · This procedure is consistent with present commercial installations and is the standard installation for most utilities in California. · Should a developer request the installation of subsurface transformers rather than padmounted transformers, a recent California Public Utilities Commission decision effective April 30, 1992, places the responsibility of the cost differential to be borne by the developer. This includes the circumstance where the sub- surface transformers are t~ be installed because of the requirements of a local ordinance. Conduit: Again, using the five criteria, PG&E has determined that conduit will be standard for all underground installations. In the past, PG&E generally used all-in- one cable-in-conduit or direct-buried cable. This change benefits both builders and customers in the following ways: · Most important to public agencies is that conduit provides a path to replace electrical cable limiting excavation in streets, sidewalks, and landscaped areas. · Conduit provides mechanical protection for both the cable and the public, against accidental dig-ins. · The installation of conduit allows the builder more control and coor- dination over a project. · Conduit provides flexibility in responding to future load groWth, faster outage repair and reduced power outages. Message to Community Officials Today, as with all public and private entities, utilities are faced with ever rising costs of doing business. These rising costs result in pressure to increase rates. PG&E has committed itself to continuously search for ways to reduce this pressure and at the same time provide safe, reliable service while enhancing the quality of these services to our customers. The New Design Standards, described below, are but one of many efforts directed toward that commitment. PAl)MOUNTS 1. Padmount transformers are the best installation based on a review of practices using a five point criteria of Safety, Reliability, Operability, Initial Cost and Annual Maintenance. Additionally, the padmount transformer has been confirmed by the California Public Utilities Commission Decision No. 92-03-065 on March 31, 1992. 2. The use ofpadmounts is consistent with other utilities in California. 3. The cost of subsurface transformers will no longer be passed on to the ratepayer but must be paid by the developer if requested, or if required by local ordinance. An ordinance requiring subsurface transformers would impact developers. 4. Allowing the developer the option to choose can affect housing affordability. 5.Additional cost ora subsurface transformer is approximately $5,500 to the developer. A transformer will serve approximately twelve to fifteen 2,000 sq. ft. homes. 6. The choice to install subsurface transformers should be left to the developer. The goal is to capture savings, not to transfer the costs from the ratepayer to the developer and ultimately to the new homeowner. 7. The changes will have a positive long-term benefit to the community. 8. PG&E will continually work together with the city/county to find mutually agreeable sites for transformers. CONDUITS 1. Conduit is the best installation based on a review of practices using a five point criteria of Safety, Reliability, Operability, Initial Cost and Annual Maintenance. 2. Conduit improves coordination and control of a project by the developer. Additionally, imported backfill material (sand) can be reduced. 3. Conduit results in less excavation of streets, sidewalks and landscaping. 4. California Public Utilities Commission Rule 15.1 has always provided for conduit when required by the utility. PG&E will continuallY work in strengthening our relationship with applicants/customers as we proceed with implementation of the New Design Standards. We understand that further ques- tions may arise during the course of this process, we are here to help. Please contact us at PG&E. Contact: M. Linda Quinones-Vaughan Public Affairs Manager 321-4407 ALJ/FJ0/j ac ........ 3 11 2 Decision 92-03-065 March 31, 1992 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COF2~.ISSION OF THE STATE 'OF CALIFORNIA I~vestigation on the Commission's ) own motion /n=o the tariff schedules,) . rates, rules, charges, operations, ) Case 8209 practices, contracts, sezwtce and ) (Filed June 22, .1965) aesthetics and economics of ) (Petitions for l~odification · actltttes of all electric and )' filed August 24, 1990 and communication public utilities in ) June 21, 1991) ld' e State of California. ) (Subsurface v. Padmount ) Transformers. ) · Stephen Z. Pickett, F~ank J. Cooley, and · . Carol A. ~chmid-Fraze~, Attorneys ak " Law, Xor Southern California Ed/son Company; ~etth W. Melv$~le and Non/ca Sorensen, Attorneys at Law, for San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Rooer Peters and Y~rk R. Huffman, Attorneys. a: Law, for Pacific Gas and ~lectr£c ......... Company; respondents. - * * John W.*.Witt,' San Diego City Attorney, by:. *-*'- ._. .. ~ill~am $. Shaffran and Deborah ~erger, ~ for ~he City of San Diego; Jesse A. - Schwarz and ~ohn L. ~unter, for ~he Building Indus:r~Associa=ton of ..... Southern California; and James $cueri, Attorney at Law, for himself,. interested par:ies. Julian AJello and Kerrie Evans, for ~he Division of Ratepayer Advocates. .OPINIQN Petitions for modification of DecSston (D.) 76394 were filed by Sou=hem California E~ison Company (Edison) on August 24, ~990 and Pacific Gas and Eiec=ric Company (PG&E) on June 21, 1991. The pe:itions request =ha% the Commission modify D.76394 ~o authorize them to charge developers =he difference in cos= be=ween subsurface and padmoun:ed transformers within residential W~bdtvisions when the installation of subsurface transformers is requested by the developer. The petitions are protested by the Builders Industry Association of-Southern California (BIA). Public hearing was held before Admin/strative Law Judge O'Learyon September 19, 1991 at.LosAngeles. The matter was subm/tted subject to the filing of concurrent briefs which were filed by all appearances except the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) on November 2, 1991. D.76394 was issued on November 4, Case (C.) 8209, which was an investigation into electric and commun/cation utilities, line extensionrules. D.76394 (70 CPUC 339) established ~ar£ffrules for the'respondent u~-tltt~es for underg~.'und ex~ensions within new xes£den~ial subd~v£sions. In D.7~394 we stated: "We will not permit the difference cost charges for subsurface transformers since it would probably retard :he development of full underground systems. We recognize ~hat an -' immediate requirement for ~he'e~clustve use 'of - ~_.u~,~urface_tr~nsf0.z~..ers is not practicable Kaz expec: =ne uni~ities :o make rapid progress in fur~her/mproving =he aesthetics and operations of underground systems..' Posit~ons of the Pam-tie~ ~dison Edison contends T-hat ~he primary reason f~- :he /nstallation of subsurface ~ransformers in residen~ial subdivisions is for aesthetic enhancement. The wast majority of ratepayers do no:benefit from this enhancement. The only real beneficiaries are :he people living in the subdivision. Therefore, :he excess cost cf the subsurface %ransformer should be borne by the developer requesting the installa=ion of the subsurface =ransformer or by nhe l~eople living in the subdivision. Ratepayers should not be reTatred :o continue =o subsidize the installation of subsurface -2- transformers since padmounted transformers provide adequate service. Edison also plans to charge the cost differential between subsurface-and padmounted ~ransformers to developers /n cases where physical constraint requ£res installation of subsurface ' ~ransformers as well as in cases where their use is requested for aesthetic enhancement. Edison cites three-cases /n:erpreting its Tariff Rule 15.! wherein the Commission has adopted a polic~ that Edison's ratepayers should not be required to pay for certain underground facilities associated with extensions of s~rvice to new residential subdivisions when such costs benefit onl~ a few xatepayers. The f/rs: case ~o coffsider =his issue was Rane¥ Development So- v.. Southern California Edison ~omDan¥ (D.88613 /n C.10313, /.978 ~nrepor=ed]. In =he Bane~ case, a complainant, =he developer of a subdivision in Edison's service territory, alleged :hat i: should not be required :o provide feeder conduit =o be used for Edison's · future expansion. In that decision, the .Commission. stated =ha:: 'If [Edison] As required to bear the cost of ~he e e-opmen:s, rna: cost wall become par~ of [Edison's] ra:e base. [Edison's] ratepayers, only a fraction of whom will benefit from :he installation, will pay a return on :his inve s :me n t." The second case, Villa Building. ~o. v. Southe.r~.. California Edison Comoany, (D.89908 in C.10454, 1979 unreported) tn~erpre:lng Rule 15.1 also concerned whether a developer is required to furnish and install a feeder conduit backbone system =o interconnect the service =o :he developer's subdivision with service ko subsequent developments Outside the subdivision. In ~he ~ case, the Cor~nission stated: 'We are also persuaded by Edison's argument that our adop:ion of Villa's position would result in a gross inequity to Edison's existing ra=epayers." - 3- ~ The Commission .specifically concluded that developers should be ... required to pay for feeder conduit to provide for the potential growth in this area. The Lhird case £n.~erpreting Rule 15.1 was Andreas ~alms ' Deve~gpment ~orD. v. ~outhern California ~dison compan~ (D.83-10-042 in C.83-05-04, 1983 unreported). In X~ha: case, the developer Contended :hat Edison should implemen= a plan ~o~/~rge fu:ure developers a pro rata share of backbone system costs . ~ncurred by ~-he firs: de.veloper. The Comm~ssion held t. hat any slight inequity of requiring t. he first developer to bear l~he aost of the conduit backbone sys=em does not Justify burdening the - ratepayers with =he cost of the recordkeeping and o~her cos:s . . associated wi~h implement~ng such a plan. ~he Edison con:ends =ha= in each of ~.he X~hree cited_cases, Commission has required developers, rather ~han Edison's ra=epayers, =o pay for feeder conduit and/or backbone systems associated with =he development of residential subdivisions. Because only a ver~ small fraction of Edison's ratepayers residing /ri'the new subdiVisionS or adjacent new subdivisions benefit from' '' · .?- ~he /ms,alia:ion of such underground syszems, =he Commission cannot -~ Justify /reposing these costs on all of ~he ra=e~ayers. Edison. fur:her con:ends =ha= charging developers, rather than ~dison's ra=epayers, .for subsurface ~ransformers in new res£den:ial subdivisions is a logical extension of the Co=mission,s policy to require developers ~o pay for feeder conduit and/or back/~'~c . systems in new residential subdivisions. PG&E's pe=ition ks very similar to the one filed by Edison. I= contends there is no need to modify Rule 15.1 since D.76394, rather than the language of Rule 15.1, requires the use of subsurface trams formers. PG&E recommends =hat padmounted transformers be made :he s%andard in residen=ial subdivisions and developments. This wDuld -4 - r~sult in consistent application of electric rules without regard to customer type or classification. PG&E points out that currentl]~, neighborhood shopping centers served under Electric Rule 15.2 or residential customers served under Electric Rule 16 would have padmounted transformers as their standard insCallations (Ex. 3, PG&E/Dunlap, pp. 4-5). Modifying D.76394 to provide =hat padmounted transformers are the s~andard /nstallation for new residentS, al subdivisions and developments would, therefore, provide for consistent treatment for all types and classifications. PG&E requests ~hat D.76394 be modified to require developers to pay the difference in cost between padmounted ~Lransformers and subsurface transformers, as special facilities costs, when subsurface ~ransformers are installed /n new residential subdivisions and developments, unless subsurface l~ransformers are required for engineering reasons. SDG&E requests thau any rul/ng allowing u=ility charges' for subsurface transformers in Underground Residential Distribution Sys:ems should apply only to the 'petitiOners and not' to SDG&E. SDG&E does not offer the option of subsurface 'transformers. to residential developers. Compelling SDG&E to use subsurface Transformers would /mpose an unreasonable burden on its financial and personnel resources. ]BIA It is the position of the BIA that the cumulative force of fees and regulatory costs has a significant negative /mpact on the affordability of housing in Southern California. It alleges =hat ~his position is supported by a r~cent repor~ prepared by a special Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Co~mntssion on barriers to affordable housing. It further alleges that HUD estimates :hat from $15,000 =o $30,000 is added to the cost of an average new home as a result of these fees and regulations. It requests that the pe:ttion of Edison be denied. pisc~ssion . At the time D.76394'was issued the difference in cost was (" not'substantial; however, s~nce the issuance of D.76394'the cost differential between padmounted and subsurface transformers has increased significan:ly. A/so, as Edison points out, since ~he issuance of D.76394 the Commission has developed a policy to avoid charging costs of underground systems associated with residential subdivisions :o all ratepayers when only a small fraction of :hose ratepayers benefit. We agree with PG&E that there is no need t0 modify Rule 15.1. ~admounted and subsurface~ransformers are considered components of underground distribution systems. It is only ' necessary that we specifywhat is the standard whichwehave done in Ordering Paragraph 1. We will grant :he petitions of Edison and PG&E ~ot_he extent that the differential cost be=ween :he installation of padm~unted andsubsurface ~ransformers shall be borne by the developer in those instances where padmounted 1uransformers could be tnstalledbut, subsurface transformers are requested.. This includes, of course, T. he circumstance where the subsurface ~_ =ransfcrmers are to be installed because of :he requiremen:s of a local ordinance. It would be inappropriate to require developers to bear the differential c-os=s between ?_he installation of padmounted and subsurface transformers when the. ~:ter are required because of a utility engineering specification. ~o=ments to the Proposed DecisiOn The ALJ's revised proposed decision was filed and mai/ed to ~he par~ies on February 13, 1992. Comments on the proposed decision were filed by Edison and PG&E.- No other appearances filed co=men=s nor were any replies to the comments filed. The comments of Edison suggest that the proposed decision be clarified to indicate that ratepayers should be required to pay the differential cost of subsurface transformer installation only - 6- when required by the. utility's engineering specification. Edison suggests that =he language on page ? Just prior to Findings of Fact be modified to specify that the engineering spectficatio, n referred to is that of the utility rather than a th/rd party. The comments of PG&E suggest ~hat ~he proposed decision be clarified to indicate that ratepayers should not be required pa]~ the differential of subsurface ~ransformer installation when · he request for .subsurface ~ransformers is a result of a local ordinance. The comments of both Edison and PG&E also reques.t that ~he proposed decision be changed so ~hat Rule 15.! is not ~odified. Ed/son cites three.valid reasons wh~ Ru'le 15.! should not be mod/f/ed as follows: 1. Uttlit~ customers .ordinarily pay T. he differential cost ~etween non-standard equipment and standard equipment as an added facilities charge; 2. Any revision 'of Rule 15.1 must meet requirements of Sec:ion 783 of T-he l~ubl£c _Utilities. Code;. 3. Since Appendix A to D.76394 was developed _. An 1969, there have been a number of modifications to Edison's Rule 15.! therefore the proposed change set ~or~h in the proposed decision could not be made verbatim to Edison's existing rule. Edison suggests the elimination of Ordering Paragraph 2 and that the following be added as =he first sentence of Ordering Paragraph l: "The utilit~'s standard Lransformer equipment in a residential subdivision is a padmounted transformer unless due =he utility's engineering consideration a padmounted Transformer is not feasible. - PG&E also requests the e!imina=ion of Ordering Paragraph 2 for similar reasons. It suggests that Ordering Paragraph 1 be revised to provide the fnstallation of subsurface - 7 - 1mfansformers when not required from the utility's engineering consideration be =reared as a special facilities cost to be borne by the 'developer. We agree with the comments of both Edison and PG&E. This' decision incozl~ora=es the suggested changes to =he ALJ's revised proposed decision. '~indings of Fact 1. D.76394 does not authorize utilities, to assess developers · he cost differential between padmounted and subsurface Transformers. 2. At the time of :he issuance of D.76394 the cost differential between.padmounted and subsurface transformers was not substan:ial. 3. TodaY the cost to £nstall a subsurface ~ransformer is subs:ant£ally____ more than the cost of a padmoun:ed ~ransfo~mer. 4. ~ere-are instances when subsurface transformers are preferred merely because of aesthetics. 5. There are Othe-r-~/ns:ances when subsurface'Transformers rather than padmounted 'transformers must be /ns=alled because of · he utility's engineering specification. ,~onclusion of ?_~_= The pe=itions of Edison and PG&E should be granted to =he extent set for=h in the ensuing order. IT IS ORDERED=ha=: Decision (D.) 76394 is modified to provide that: "The utility's s~andard transformer equipment in a residential subdivision is a padmoun~ed transformer unless due to the utility's engineering consideration a padmounted ~ransformer is not feasible. In the event a developer requests the £ns:allation of subsurface transformers rather than padmounted ~ransformers when padmoun=ed transformers are - 8- feasible from the utility,s engineering perspective the cost different/al between subsurface transformers and padmounted ,transformers shall be trea=ed as special facilities cost to be borne by the develOper. .In no event shall the cost differential between ' padmounted and subsurface T-fan, formers be passed on to the developer when subsurface transformers are required because of the u~-tlity's engineering consideration. - .2. To ~he extent not granted herein Zhe petitions for . modification of D.76394 filed by Southern Californ/a Edison Company on Augus: 24, 1990 and by Pacific Gas and Electric Company on June 21, 199! are den/ed. 3. The Execut£ve Director sba1! ser~e a copy of thts dec/s/on *on all respondents providing elec~tc service wl~.hln '~he state /n addition to :he aRR~arances herein. ~ / This order becomes effective 30 days from today. Da=ed March-"31, 1992, at San Francisco, California. //- DANIEL Wm. FESSLER Pres 1dent JOH~ B. OHANIAN PATRICIA ~. ECKERT . /qOR-KAN D. S..~%TMWA¥ Com~tssioners : 2' ~ PactflcGasandE~¢Compa~. Revised c~,' /'L'c' ~et.~b. 11360-~ · ; " SanFranc~co. Cal~br'nta C~tcelltug Revised Ct~l P. LiC 3'beet \b 9290-- ~' ~E 15 1 UNDERGROUND EXT ,r · ' -- ENSIONS ~.THIN NEW RESIDENT[AL SUBDIVISIONS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Extension of underground distribution lines at available standard voltages necessary to furnish permanent electric service within a new single-family and/or multi-family residential subdivision of five or more lots {subdivi- sion) and in a new residential development consisting of five or more dwelling units in two or mor~buildings located on a sin . (develo merit w' . . . gle parcel of land ~ for P ) ~ll be made by PG&E ~n advance of receipt of applications ~ service in accordance with the following provisions: A. GENERAL: PG&E will construct, own, operate, and maintain underground lines only along public streets, roads, and highways which PG&E has the legal right to occupy, and on public lands and private property across which rights-of-way and easements satisfactory to PG&E may be :. obtained without cost or condemnation by PG&E. · B. INSTALLATION: 1. The developer of the subdivision or development will perform all necessary trenching and backfilling, including furnishing of any imported backfill material required, and will fur~ish, install and deed to PG&E any necessary distribution and f~eder conduit :" :Z':'.-. .... '- .required ...................... -.. _ .(~ '' 2. The developer may elect one of the following options: '- a. That PG&E complete the extension under its system average cost set.forth in Section C below; or b. Competitive bidding for completion of the extension, with PG&E as one of the competitive bidders. A PG&E job-specific cost estimate shall be provided only when the'developer opts for the competitive bidding optic,,. Once the option has been selected by the developer of either system average cost under Section B.2.a, or competitive bidding under Section B.2.b., the selection is final. Completion of the installation by PG&E under the competitive bidding option would ~ require a developer advance based on PG&E's job-specific estimated-installed cost. ~ (Continued) Ad~ffCe £etter No. 13'09-E Issued b)' Date Filed Jul y 25, lggo Decision ,VD. Gordon R. Smith Ef~ectit'e Seot. 3, 1990 Vice President Resoltttion .VD. F£nance and gates TAR 800022 p. 21 IF~U-~-ERULE 15-1"UNDERGROUND EXTENSIONS WITHIN NEW RESIDENTIAL SUSDIVISIONh AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) B. INSTALLATION (Cont'd.) 3. PG&E or the developer of the subdivision or development under the provisions of. Section E.5 will complete: ' a. The installation of the underground distribution system within the residential subdivision or development, consist- ing of primary and secondary conductors, transformers, and associated equipment, except that excess footage within the subdivision or development will be partially at developer's expense in accordance with Section C.3. b. That portion of the supply circuit which may extend beyond' the boundaries of the subdivision or development to PG&E's existing supply facilities that is not in excess of 200 feet. c. Any necessary feeder circuits within the subdivision or development. 4. That portion of an extension to a Subdivision or development from ( PGaE's existing supply facilities in excess of 200 feet outside _. the boundaries of the subdivision or development will be made - underground in accordance with' Rule 15, except that the free , footage allowances listed in Sections B:l.a and B.l.b of Rule 15 will be reduced by 50 percent for those appliances installed within the subdivision or development. 5. Underground services will be installed and maintained as provided in Rule 16. One service will be installed to each separately metered building. 6. Street lights will be installed in accordance with the appropriate tariff schedule. 7. The distribution facilities will be installed as herein provided and will be owned, operated, and maintained by PG&E. (Continued) ~ld&¥ce Letter ,~b.1309-E Issued br Date FiledJuly 25~ 1990 Decision .VD. Gordon R. ~rnitb Efft'¢'tit.e ., Sept. 3 ~ 1990 Vice President Re'soho,ion ~Vo. Fittatt¢'e attd Rates TAR 800022 p. 22 i Pacif'~ Gas and E~c Company Rev i sed ~.~d. ? , San Franc~co. C~lEtbrnza - ~L~l~cetlit~ Revised c~l. P.t.~c. ~beet.~b. .. [ RULE 15.1--UNDERGROUND EXTENSIONS WITHIN NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) C. ADVANCES BY DEVELOPER (Cont'd.) 4. The payment of the portion of such advance as PG&E estimates would be refunded within six months under other provisions of this extension rule may be postponed for six months, provided that the developer furnishes to PG&E evidence that he has received state and local authorizations to proceed promptly with construction and that he has adequate financing, and provided further that the developer agrees in writing in his contract for the extension to pay immediately at the end of six months all amounts not previously advanced which are not then refundable. At the end of such six-month period, the developer will pay to PG&E all Such amounts not previously advanced which are n~t then refundable. S. The developer may elect to install all the necessary facilities as provided in Section E.5. In this case, PG&E's job-specific estimated-installed cost of the installation will be subject to the refundable and nonrefundable provisions of Sections C.2, C.3, and D.,_ except, that the costof PG&E inspection shall be 'nonrefundable.' ' D. REFUNDS The applicable refundable amount determined in accordance with Section C.2 or C.3 will be subject to refund as follows: 1. To determine the amount to be refunded, the total refundable amount will be divided by the total number of: (al lots within t~e subdivision, or {b) individual dwelling units within the development, then: 2. When (a)-a building has been completed on a lot withi~ the subdivision and service is supplied to the first permanent customer on that lot, or {b) service is supplied to a permanent customer in a dwelling unit in a development, that portion-Of the amount {determined in accordance with D.1 above) appropriate to said lot or dwelling unit will be refunded {or credited to the (Continued) Ad~ceLetter,Vo. 1309-E issuedby DateFiled July 25, 1990 Decision ,Vo. (7ortlon R. Srnitb Effective Sept. j, l~gu Vice President Resolution Finance and Rates TAR 800022 p. 24 ~ "~ Pa¢iJ~¢Gasa.~£~¢t~cCompun,. Revised ":'/ P"'¥ ~';'~-%" !1364-£ ~ ~ ~n?ra,,c~'co. Ca,'~6~u, ' ..~,:~h,~,~ Revised c:~ ?~ c'. ~cet.xb. 10877, i0878-E RULE 15 1--UNDERGROUND EXTENSIONS WITHIN NE~ RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) D. REFUNDS (Cont'd.) developer's account if the advance'has been postponed in accordance with Section C.4 above). 3. When (a) buildings have been completed in go percent of the total number of lots within the subdivision and service is supplied to at least one permanent customer in each of such buildings, or {b) all buildings have been completed in the development and service supplied to go percent of the dwelling units, any reminder of the amount subject to refund will be refunded. '4. All refunds will be made promptly and without interest, but not later than ninety days after eligibility for refund is established under Section D.2 or D.3 above. 5. In no case shall the Income Tax Component of Contributions {ITCC) refunded exceed the ITCC advanced. _ 6. In the event that any. portion of arefundable amount has not ........ " qualified for refund at the end of 12 months after completion of- - the underground extension, the developer will pay to PG&E its' ownership costs on that portion of the amount subject to refund - for which no refunds have been made or are eligible to be made. ~ The difference between the total amount advanced and any refunds made or eligible to be made to the developer shall serve as the basis of a monthly ownership charge in accordance with Section 1.3 of Electric Rule 2. Paym~-t of such ownership costs will normally be made by .deduction from the developer's advance, but such deduction will not reduce the amount on which the cost of ownership charge is based. 7. No payment will be made by PG&E in excess of the refundable amount advanced by the developer nor after a period of 10 years from the date PG&E is first ready to render service from the extension, and any unrefunded amount remaining at the end of the lO-year period will become the property of PG&E. / I (Continued) ~4dtrice Zetter No. I309-E l$$ued by Date Filed ~ l~)ecision .~b. Gordon R. Smith Effectit.e Sept. j, l~u bTce President Resoltttion No. Finance and ~ates TAR 800022 p. 25 Pacific Gas and £lectric Company Revised cb/ Pt'c' .~'/~c~,t.vo. 11365-E San Franc~co. CaliJ'orn~: C'~;ncelling Revised C',ll. P [' C'. .¥&,et.~b. 10878-£ BULE 15.1--UNDERGROUND EXTENSIONS WITHIN NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION~ AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) E. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. CONTRACTS Developers requesting an underground extension within a residen- tial subdivision or other residential development in advance of applications for service will be required to execute written contracts covering the terms under which PG&E or developer will install the underground extension in accordance with the provi- sions of the tariff schedules. Such written contracts shall be' in the form on file with the Public Utilities Commission as part · of PG&E's effective tariff schedules. . · 2. PERIODIC REVIEW : PG&E will review its known and estimated costs of construction.of underground line extensions annually and shall prepare a contem- plated tariff revision when such costs have changed by more than ten percent since the last revision of the costs set forth in ..... .Section C .above...Contemplated revisions-of what, in PG&E's judg ..... ment are proper and up-to-date costs shall be submitted to the Commission for review in proposed form not less than 30 days' '" '(_ prior to any contemplated filing date. 3. RULES PREVIOUSLY IN EFFECT Amounts advanced under the conditions established by a rule ~ previously in effect will be refunded in accordance with the requirements of such rule. 4. EXCEPTIONAL CASES .. In unusual circumstances, when the application of these rules appears impractical or unjust to either party, PG&E or developer may refer the matter to the Public Utilities Con~ission for special ruling or for the approval of special conditions which may Ue' mutually agreed upon, prior to commencing construction. ,..- (Continued) ~dt~ceLetterNo. 1309-E lssuedby DctteFiled July.2$~ 1990 I Decision No. Gordon R. Smtti$ Effective Sept. 3~ 1990 ', Vice President Resolution No. ; Finance and Rates TAR 800022 o. i/ -. " ~" '~ P,:u:~c Gas aha E~a~¢ Company Revised C~I.P. LLC. Sheet.~b. 11366-E ¢ ~ $. San Franc~co. Cal~orn~ O~ncelling Revised CNl. P.L'tO3'heet,~b. 10878, 9293-E BULE 15.1--UNDERGROUND EXTENSIONS WITHIN NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION,; OND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ' (Continued) E. SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Cont'd.) 5. APPLICANT INSTALLATION Subject to the refund and free footage provisions of this rule, an extension may be ins%ailed by an applicant,s qualified con- tractor/subcontractor in accordance with PG&E s desin and speci- fications. Upon acceptance by PG&E, ownership of al~ such facil- ities will transfer to PG&E. 'The applicant shall pay to PG&E, subject to refund, any PG&E costs associated with the extension, including the estimated costs of design, administration, and installation'of any additional facilities and labor necessar to ~:mplete the extension. PG&E's total estimated tnstallation~cost subject to' the refund and free footage provisions of this rule. The applicant shall pay to PG&E, as a nonrefundable amount, the cost of inspection. Only duly authorized employees of PG&E are allowed to connect to, disconnect from, or perform , any work upon PG&E's facilities. .'.".. : An .applicant's Qualified Contractor/Subcontractor .(QC/S) shall-be as defined in Rule 1, Definitions. · 7'"_. Further, an applicant for service who intends to employ a QC/S should consider whether the QC/S: .a. Is technically competent. b. Has access to proper equipment. c. DemonstFates financial responsibility con~nensurate with'the scope of the contract. d.Has adequate insurance coverage {workers' compensation, liability, property damage). e.Is able to furnish surety bond for performance of contract, if required. Advice Letter No. 1309-E Issued blt Date Filed ~ DecL~ion No. Gordon R. ~mitb Effective Sept. 3, 1~90 Vice President Resolution No. Finance and Rates TAR 800022 O. 27