To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND From: Katy Allen

CITY COUNCIL

Subject: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS OF Date: 11-04-03

REAL PROPERTY ON TOWERS LANE

Council District: 7

SNI: West Evergreen

REASON FOR SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO

Revisions to the PG&E requirements have indicated that the City Manager may have to guarantee a cost reimbursement provision in the Joint Use Agreement (JUA) regarding the placement of a PG&E line along Amberly Lane in addition to the other actions described in the Memo related to replacement of PG&E’s existing easement along Towers Lane.

ANALYSIS

The Joint Use Agreement between the City and PG&E requires the City to replace PG&E’s utility easement along Towers Lane. In order to provide a power source to the lines along Towers Lane it has been determined that PG&E may require a utility line, or hook-up, along Amberly Lane. While the City does not own the underlying fee to Amberly, it does have a street easement. Thus, the City can grant PG&E rights to put its hook-up under or over the street under the franchise.

However, PG&E has previously indicated that it does not want to be in a worse financial position than it is now if it moves its power lines along Towers Lane. Currently if the City requires PG&E to move its lines, the City must reimburse PG&E for the entire cost of relocation. If the new lines along Towers Lane require a hook-up through Amberly, the only way that the City can guarantee that PG&E will not be required to incur cost if the City again requires movement of their lines along Towers (or the new line along Amberly), is by agreeing that, the City will reimburse PG&E for the relocation of the Amberly Lane hook-up if the City requires such relocation.

COST IMPLICATIONS

There will be no additional costs to the City in excess of costs that would be incurred by granting an easement to PG&E. In the future, if the City were to require PG&E to move its lines along Amberly, the City would be required to pay the cost of such a move.

KATY ALLEN

Director, Public Works Department