Atherton staff seeks council direction on exceptions to 1966 undergrounding rule after developers, PG&E describe technical limits

Town staff asked the council on March 5 for policy guidance on whether to create a formal exception process to a 1966 Atherton ordinance that requires utility service lines to be installed underground for new construction.

“We are concerned that the most expedient way causes impacts to the neighbors,” staff member Robert Avadia said, summarizing a set of real‑world scenarios in which developers asked to extend overhead service because the nearest PG&E pole contains transformers or the primary line cannot be brought underground without substantial work.

The code language staff cited states that “all telephone, telegraph, electrical wires and other such services to newly constructed wires shall be constructed underground” and applies to dwellings that did not have building permits issued before the ordinance’s effective date. Staff described four typical scenarios: flag lots where the nearest pole has a transformer; cul‑de‑sac poles with transformers; situations where installing a pad‑mounted transformer on the property is feasible but primary wiring distance causes voltage drop; and properties adjacent to the Atherton drainage channel where crossing the channel with underground conduit is limited by PG&E engineering.

Developers and PG&E representatives told the council that undergrounding is generally preferred but can be technically or financially infeasible in some cases. “We know it's gonna take 12 to 24 months in some cases to get power,” developer Rex Finado of Pacific Peninsula Group said, describing the timing and engineering obstacles his team has encountered on a Berry Lane project. Finado and other developers said they regularly install pad‑mounted transformers on properties but in the cited case could not reach a primary feed without constructing long, costly runs or relying on a neighbor’s infrastructure.

PG&E interim local government representative Bill Chang described two drivers for the utility’s recent preference for overhead primary lines and for placing transformers above ground rather than underground: higher cost and greater maintenance and reliability challenges for underground transformers. “Underground transformers are much more expensive to obtain and to put underground and...much more difficult to maintain,” Chang said. He also explained that underground transformers can be more susceptible to sustained high temperatures because they do not cool as readily as air‑cooled, above‑ground equipment.

Chang said PG&E accepts the principle of an exceptions process for municipal undergrounding ordinances and described existing mechanisms that can address larger‑scale undergrounding work, including Rule 20 programs and undergrounding districts (Rule 20b/20c variants) in which a jurisdiction or property owners fund undergrounding of larger segments of distribution lines.

Multiple council members expressed support for preserving the town’s undergrounding policy while giving staff a narrow, well‑specified authority to approve exceptions where visible community impacts are minimal or where no practical alternative exists. “I think the right policy decision is to discourage overhead wires as the Atherton municipal code intends to do,” Council member Degolia said, adding that an exception process should be limited to cases where the new overhead line would not be visible to neighbors.

Developers urged faster and clearer pathways that avoid repeated months‑long interactions with PG&E that can delay construction. “We also have a house ... that’s been on temporary power for over a year and a half because PG&E and the neighbor can't agree about vegetation in the easement,” Pacific Peninsula’s Jude Kierigan said, arguing the town could benefit from a structured dialogue with PG&E and a clear staff process for exceptional circumstances.

Staff told the council it would draft a policy‑level exception process with strict criteria and a recommended procedural path (staff approval vs. planning commission or council review) and return for council direction. Chang offered to follow up with technical answers about the specific Berry Lane property and to work with staff to identify whether a feasible alternative feed or a Rule 20‑type approach exists.

No code changes were made at the study session; council members generally supported the idea of a narrowly tailored exceptions process and asked staff to return with proposed criteria and procedures before the item would be considered for a formal code amendment or variance process.

The council did not take formal action during the study session; staff will prepare draft language and a decision pathway for future council consideration.