HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/08/10 Item 5, 5aCOUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~, ~ 5,5a
Meeting Date=~~~~~~~ 8/10/82
ITEM
TITLE: Public Hearing Considering a Request to Waive the
Requirement of Removing Two Utility Poles Within Chula
Vista Tract 81-7 Peppertree Estates
a) Resolution Waiving the Requirement to Relocate Two
Utility Poles Outside the Subdivision Boundary
ITTED BY: City Engineer (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
On ay 26, 1982, the Utility Company on behalf of the developers of Peppertree
Est tes, Chula Vista Tract 81-7 requested that the requirement to relocate two
pol s outside of the subdivision boundary be waived. On June 15, 1982 Council
set July 13, 1982 as the date for the public hearing required by Section
15. 7.040 of the Municipal Code. On July 13, 1982 the hearing was continued
to m y 27, 1982. It is my
REC MMENDATION: That Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing and
2. Adopt the resolution waiving the relocation of two utility poles outside
of the subdivision.
DIS USSION:
On ay 26, 1982, the Utility Company requested on behalf of the developers of
Pep ertree Estates that the requirement to relocate two utility poles outside
of he subdivision boundary be waived.
developer's request is based upon the following:
2.
Both poles would remain even if the ordinance requirement was met. The
poles would be a few feet outside the subdivision rather than a few feet
inside the subdivision as proposed. Little if any benefit would result.
San Diego Gas and Electric has been unable to obtain the necessary
easements to provide for the relocated poles. Property owners refuse to
grant the easements and SDG&E doesn't have the right to condemn for the
easements.
Section 15.32.070 of the Municipal Code allows for a waiver when all of the
follllowing facts exist:
1.
,~" ' ~
That extraordinary conditions exist to the extent that enforcement of this
subsection would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner or the
utility company.
~~y~~
Page 2, Item ~T=fsa 5,5a
Meeting Date 7~~~~ 8/10/82
2.
It
jus
req
and
the
tha
fol
dcq
In r
wou
appf
to
15.:
WAU
WPC
That such deferral will not, under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
neighborhood.
is my opinion that a waiver of the undergrounding requirement is
ified. The developer, ADMA Co., has attempted to comply with City Code
irements relative to undergrounding of overhead facilities. San Diego Gas
Electric has designed the job to comply with code requirements, however,
have been unable to obtain the necessary easements for implementation of
plan. Standard procedure for obtaining the required easements has been
owed. SDG&E has indicated they cannot use eminent domain procedures to
ire the easements they require.
onclusion, since moving the poles to a point just outside the subdivision
d not eliminate any poles and therefore not materially improve the
arance, and since the adjacent property owners refuse to give an easement
~DG&E, I believe the facts support the necessary findings of Section
2.070 required by a waiver, (See above.)
dl/EY146
0062E
e _ ~'
~ ~~_ ~~
Criuia "ri:ifl, ;.;"i'v~f~ia
Dated _~~__
~a y ~~