X. Assignment of Proceeding

Paul Clanon is the Assigned Examiner in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. A notice of the filing of the application appeared in the Daily Calendar on February 10, 2004.

2. There were no protests to this application.

3. A hearing is not required.

4. Kenwood must either relocate four poles located on the west side of Highway 12, Post Mile 27.8, in the vicinity of Kenwood's driveway, by 4 to 12 feet; or replace them with approximately 950 feet of underground electric and communication facilities along this section of the highway.

5. On July 21, 2003, Kenwood Inn and Spa on behalf of PG&E requested authorization to permanently relocate these four existing joint utilities poles.

6. In a letter dated August 11, 2003, SCWA did not consent to the relocation of electric lines within their easement.

7. On August 22, 2003, SCWA verbally agreed to allow the four power poles to temporarily move into their easement (subject to SCWA's board approval), but with an obligation to replace the poles with underground facilities either at the very edge of their easement, or outside of it, within 5 years.

8. Kenwood, SCWA, and PG&E have been working on the terms and conditions of the easement agreement since August 22, 2003.

9. On September 18, 2003, the Commission evaluated and granted Kenwood's request by Resolution E-3842.

10. On or about October 15, 2003, Kenwood also learned that Mr. Darius Anderson was unwilling to grant an easement for a guy wire, which was necessary to relocate the power poles above ground.

11. On October 15, 2003, Kenwood Inn and Spa proposed to remove the four poles and underground the electric and communication facilities along the same section of the highway; and to bore under the highway and permanently install a new riser pole on the other (eastern) side of Highway 12.

12. On December 5, 2003, Kunde Vineyard objected to this proposal based on aesthetical effect of the new pole on the highway adjacent to their property, but granted PG&E the necessary easements from Highway 12 to an existing power pole within the vineyard, and to erect a new riser pole next to this power pole at no expense to Kenwood Inn and Spa.

13. By a Petition of Modification dated January 29, 2004, Kenwood Inn and Spa on behalf of PG&E requested authority to modify Resolution E-3842 to reflect these developments.

14. Kenwood now requests the option to underground overhead facilities along Highway 04-SON-12, Post Mile 27.8, in the vicinity of the Kenwood Inn's driveway, despite the exemption from undergrounding that the Commission granted Kenwood in Resolution E-3842.

15. Kenwood secondly requests deviation from California Public Utilities Code section 320 to either install a new power pole or to construct a concrete transformer pad on Kunde Vineyard's property approximately 205 feet from the eastern right of way of the highway.

16. On March 4, 2004, the Resource Management Department of the County of Sonoma and PG&E indicated no objection to the new riser pole, transformer pad, and overhead conversion proposals.

17. It is unsafe for an underground service to terminate on a power pole with a pole-mounted transformer.

18. There would be little or no adverse impact on visibility and aesthetics of the highway based on the photographs and project drawings submitted by Kenwood of the single proposed riser pole or concrete pad located some 200 feet off the highway.

19. The utility costs alone, to place electric and telephone lines underground would exceed the overhead cost by more than 5:1, and the cost of the project as a whole would be doubled.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Commission administers Section 320 of the Public Utilities (PU) Code requiring undergrounding of utilities lines long designed Scenic Highways and accept letter requests for deviations.

2. The applicant must show that undergounding would not be economically feasible, technically possible, or would be inconsistent with sound environmental planning.

3. The Commission should approve and grant this application to modify Resolution E-3842, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, to reflect changed circumstances since it was signed.

4. Applicants showing of the technical requirement for a new riser pole, and of neighbors' and local agency's concerns warrants the exemption for the new riser pole and modification of Resolution E-3842.

5. Because of substantial ongoing costs to petitioner Kenwood and of the public interest in visibility and aesthetics of scenic highways, the following order should be effective immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Resolution E-3842 shall be modified as follow:

2. This proceeding is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated April 1, 2004, at San Francisco, California.

Kenwood Inn and Spa submitted the following information related to pole relocation, and overhead conversion with a new riser pole or a new padmount transformer.

Options

Kenwood Inn and Spa Cost

Electric Related Cost

Telephone1 Related Cost

Combined Electric and Telephone Costs

Total Cost

Overhead Relocation

$104,820

$ 74,797.92

$2,800

$77,597.92

$182,417.9

Underground with New Riser Pole

$104,820

$416,806.21

$5,500

$422,306.21

$527,126.21

Underground with Padmount Transformer

$104,820

$456,806.21

$5,500

$462,306.21

$567,126.21

________________________

1 Since the telephone lines would be put in the same trench as the electric lines, the cost estimate to underground telephone lines and equipment does not include trenching.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page