REVIEWED RESUB 1-BLD2022-1329+Utility Pole+9.20.2023_9.37.40_AM+37934899/18/23, 8:52 AM Collaborative Communities Mail - 310 Daley I Utility Pole Location
M� Craig Pontius <cpontius@collaborativeco.com>
310 Daley I Utility Pole Location
Haack, Karl <KJHaack@snopud.com> Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 7:55 AM
To: Craig Pontius <cpontius@collaborativeco.com>
Cc: Isaac Greenetz<igreenetz@collaborativeco.com>, Jacob Young <jyoungCCvcoiiaboraiiveco.com--
BLD2022-1325 - 308 DALEY - LOT B
Good morning, BLD2022-1326 - 310 DALEY - LOT C
BLD2022-1327 - 312 DALEY - LOT D
BLD2022-1329 - 306 DALEY - LOT A
The District facilities on the pole in question, PLI (Pole Location Indicator) 2258-i 8, service 4 separate addresses, with
multiple units on each property. We have discussed that relocating the pole to private property could create one or
multiple utility trespasses that could be avoided if the pole remains in the right of way. Otherwise, each parcel owner
would have to consent to the trespass, and sign and notarize a corresponding easement agreement.
Undergrounding the service to the new project at 310 Daley St can be accomplished by either utilizing the existing
secondary access vault on site, or installing a new vault and having a riser conduit come down the pole, though as
discussed each option would have to be carefully evaluated, since there is already a secondary riser on that pole.
Typically, District standards do not permit more than 1 secondary riser of like voltage on the same pole. However,
undergrounding the entire service by eliminating the pole would be an immense undertaking by the contractor, as they
would have to rebuild and reconfigure each individual service, performing all trenching and possibly acquiring additional
easements if any utility runs trespass into neighboring parcels. This in addition to paying all associated District costs to
underground a primary span and install all necessary equipment.
The proposed location that was discussed on site (that being near the subject's southerly property line) tentatively
appears to be workable for the District. Space will be a bit confined but overall the District should have room to operate
it's machinery with a minimum 10' working space. The exact location will still have to confirmed of course, but locating the
pole in such a way that it mitigates any utility trespasses, in addition to locating it near to existing underground secondary
facilities, is the most desirable design.
At this time, an exact design and pole location have not been determined or approved, but the current proposal appears
to meet District criteria.
Let me know if this is what you were looking for.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
BLD2022-1329
Karl Haack
Designer, Lynnwood Engineering
RESUB
Sep 21 2023
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
kjhaack@snopud.com
https://mail.goog le.com/mai I/u/0/?ik=16c3c2cde7&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1777387606189474609&simpl=msg-f:1777387606189474609 1 /3