CC SR 20200721 02 - 3867 Crest Road
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 07/21/2020
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Receive and file a report on the issuance of an encroachment permit to relocate certain
utility poles at 3867 Crest Road.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a report on the issuance of an encroachment permit to relocate
certain utility poles from 3867 Crest Road to across the street and onto the City
right-of-way along Crest Road to be paid for by a private property owner.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: William Wynder, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Staff illustration (page A-1)
B. Private Owner Encroachment Permit and Project Plan (page B-1)
C. HOA Written Objections dated September 30, 2019 (page C-1)
D. SCE Encroachment Permit (page D-1)
E. City Attorney’s Public Memo dated November 5, 2019 (page E-1)
F. HOA by letter dated November 6, 2019 (page F-1)
G. City Attorney’s letter dated January 15, 2020 (page G-1)
H. HOA objection letter dated May 17, 2020 (page H-1)
I. CPUC letter to HOA dated March 3, 2020 (page I-1)
J. CJPIA letter dated March 17, 2020 (page J-1)
K. City Attorney’s response letter dated May 29, 2020 (page K-1)
L. City Attorney’s response letter dated June 1, 2020 (page L-1)
M. HOA letter dated June 11, 2020 letter (Page M-3)
N. City Attorney’s response letter dated June 15, 2020 (page N-1)
O. Correspondence from the applicant received on July 13, 2020
1
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At the June 16, 2020, City Council meeting, during public comments on non-agenda items,
Ms. Kathy Campbell and Mr. Dale Spiegel, on behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates
Community Associates (“HOA”), expressed concerns regarding the City’s pending issuance
of an encroachment permit to allow the relocation of certain Southern California Edison
(“SCE”) utility poles and transmission lines from the property located at 3867 Crest Road to
across the street and within City right-of-way on Crest Road. In response, the Mayor Pro
Tem, supported by the City Council, requested this matter be placed on a future agenda for
a status report.
This project, approved by SCE, will be paid for by Mr. and Mrs. Funicello (the “Applicants”),
owners of the property on which these utility poles and power lines are presently located.
The proposed relocation of these utility poles and transmission lines is depicted on a site
map prepared by City Staff and is attached to this memorandum to visualize the existing
location and the proposed relocation of the same (Attachment A). The proposed relocation
will consist of relocating five poles and undergrounding about 270 feet of high-voltage
transmission lines, leaving only 90 feet of SCE high-voltage transmission lines above
ground, consisting of approximately 60 feet crossing Crest Road and 30 feet between three
poles. These three poles are to be relocated by SCE.
These three poles will be within 15 feet of each other and will be relocated in proximity to
the HOA entrance, but with appropriate tree clearance. The two remaining poles will be
relocated by the Applicants’ contractor further to the west. All transformers will remain on
the Applicants’ property side and no new transformer is to be added to any of the relocated
poles. There is automatic re-closure switching equipment which is to be installed by SCE
on the middle pole of three of the five relocated poles.
The City first became aware of the Applicants’ intention upwards of five years ago, but the
City had no involvement at the time. As noted, the Applicants petitioned SCE to conduct the
relocation plan, with all costs to be paid by them. After receiving approval from SCE, the
Applicants sought an encroachment permit from the City’s Public Works Department.
Encroachment permits are issued pursuant to Chapter 12.04 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (“RPVMC”). Specifically, RPVMC § 12.04.030 vests in the Director of
Public Works “all powers duties and responsibilities of the road commissioner of the county
with respect to permits, inspections, work, administration or otherwise relating to
construction, excavations or encroachments in city streets . . . are transferred to and
vested in the director of public works of the city.” (Emphasis added.)
As part of the application for the encroachment permit, the Applicants and their contractor,
CSI Services, supplied the City with the details for the relocation, provided proof of
insurance, and agreed to all the terms and conditions set by the City. The City reviewed the
relocation for compliance with the City’s rules and regulations, as well as with the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
Additionally, in reviewing this encroachment permit application, City Staff conducted a
review of the project for potential issues, such as: traffic concerns which would require a
traffic management plan; engineering concerns, such as the potential for the weakening of
2
a slope; and any other potential issues which could arise from proposed work. Further, the
application was reviewed to ensure that all required information and documents are
provided. The first encroachment permit was issued on May 6, 2019 (Attachment B).
On or about June 23, 2019, the Applicants’ contractor started work. However, the
contractor exceeded the scope of the permit, resulting in several mature pine trees being
unlawfully removed. The contractor also cut a trench in excess of the scope of the permit.
When the City was notified, Public Works issued a stop-work order, the encroachment
permit was suspended, and all work ceased on June 27, 2019. As a consequence of the
stop-work order issued by the City, SCE never commenced its portion of the relocation
work.
Subsequently, the City invoiced the contractor and collected about $6,000 to reimburse
Staff’s time regarding this incident.
On August 4, 2019, the initial encroachment permit expired according to its terms.
Commencing on September 30, 2019, representatives of the HOA submitted a series of
written objections to the issuance of a second encroachment permit (Attachment C). The
HOA alleged that the portion of Crest Road abutting the HOA was a private road, that
relocation of the SCE poles and transmission lines would take place on a private HOA
road, and that such a relocation would pose a safety concern. There followed a series of
written exchanges and meetings by and between City Staff and/or the Office of the City
Attorney and representatives of the HOA and/or the Applicants.
On October 14, 2019, SCE, on behalf of the Applicants, filed a second application for an
encroachment permit to conduct the relocation (Attachment D).
On November 5, 2019, the City Attorney’s Office issued a public memorandum responding
to the objections and confirming that the issuance of an encroachment permit would be
both lawful and consistent with City practices (Attachment E).
The City Attorney’s memorandum was objected to by the HOA by letter dated November 6,
2019 (Attachment F). The Office of the City Attorney responded to the same on January 15,
2020 (Attachment G). The HOA, in turn, responded to the Public Works Director by letter
dated May 17, 2020 (Attachment H) expressing continued concerns in the areas of safety
and property rights of the HOA.
On March 3, 2020, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sent a letter to the
HOA regarding its position with respect to the relocation project (Attachment I).
In response to the HOA’s safety concerns, on March 17, 2020, the City obtained a formal
written advisory from its insurer, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (“CJPIA”),
opining that relocation of the utility poles would enhance fire safety in this area of Crest
Road due to the partial undergrounding of high voltage lines of the relocated utilities
(Attachment J).
On or about May 20, 2020, City Staff and the City Attorney met via Zoom with Ms.
Campbell and Mr. Spiegel to discuss all of the HOA’s issues objecting to the issuance of an
encroachment permit. The City Attorney promised an independent review of those issues
and a written response to the same.
3
On May 29 and June 1, 2020, the City Attorney sent the HOA two letters reviewing all of
the issues raised in the Zoom meeting and providing a legal analysis of these issues, as
well as technical documents identifying the scope of work to be performed (Attachments K
and L).
On June 11, 2020, representatives of the HOA forwarded to the City Manager and Director
of Public Works a purported “Notice of Appeal of Any Encroachment Permit Issued ”
(Attachment M). On June 15, 2020, the City Attorney responded to the purported notice of
appeal as well as the new objections raised in the HOA’s most recent letter (Attachment N).
The City Attorney’s office has now reviewed and responded to the various HOA concerns
and objections to the issuance of a second encroachment permit. Those responses can be
summarized as follows:
1. The Right-of-Way Dedication to the City Assures that Relocation of the SCE Utility
Poles and Transmission Lines Will Not be Placed on HOA Property.
Tract Map No. 33206 is the dispositive legal instrument in delineating the scope of and
nature of right-of-way dedicated to the City. The map identifies that then-property owner,
Shapell Industries, Inc., abandoned vehicular access and dedicated easements to the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes almost around the HOA subdivision along Crest Road.
The relevant language of the right-of-way dedication provides that an easement, in
perpetuity, was granted to the City “for sanitary sewer, road maintenance, public utilities,
storm drain, and storm drain ingress and egress, and public pedestrian access purposes so
designated on said map and all uses incident thereto including the right to make
connections therewith from any adjoining properties.” Also, the City undertook its
survey, which confirmed that the relevant portion of Crest Road for which the
encroachment easement is sought is dedicated as a City public right-of-way and is not on
any HOA property.
The language of the dedication is itself, clear and specific. The City has the legal authority
to authorize “connections” of “public utilities” from any “adjoining property” (not merely
abutting property, but adjoining property including private property) that are “incidental” to
the City’s use and enjoyment of the right-of-way. Accordingly, the relocation of the SCE
power poles and transmission lines will not be relocated onto any HOA property.
2. Easement Law Does Not Prohibit the City from Issuing an Encroachment Permit
Because payment for the relocation work would be made by a private citizen utilizing a
private contractor, the HOA contends that a City encroachment permit would conflict with
the public nature of the City’s easement. While the Applicants are private individuals, the
work they are responsible for completing is to relocate SCE’s public utilities. They are not
constructing any personal or private structures on the easement, nor are the Applicants
being given any legal “right or interest” in the easement.
The original grantor of the easement specified that “we [meaning the grantor and not the
City] know of no easement or structure existing within the easements herein offered for
dedication to the public, other than publicly owned water lines, sewers or storm drains, that
we [meaning the grantor and not the City] will grant no right or interest within the
4
boundaries of said easements offered to the public, except where such right or interest is
expressly made subject to the said easements.”
This language is not a limitation on the City’s authority to approve encroachment permits,
but rather a representation by the original grantor of the easement that no other legal
interests have been granted in the easement property other than those listed in the Tract
Map, nor will any such “rights or interests” be granted. Moreover, a temporary
encroachment permit does not constitute a “right or interest” in the easement property.
Rather, the permit authorizes the holder to gain temporary access to the easement area
necessary to construct a given project. The work is to relocate public utility poles, and does
not conflict with the City’s existing easement. Therefore, the proposed work does not
conflict with existing easement law.
3. Issuance of an Encroachment Permit Will Not Violate the City’s Wildfire Mitigation
Protocols
The City does have several policies, both within the General Plan and the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, which seek to limit the risks associated with wildfires. However,
City Staff has concluded that the relocation of these poles will actually decrease the chance
of a wildfire: while one of utility poles carrying high-voltage lines will be placed within the
SCE-prescribed safe distance to existing pine trees, the remaining utility poles themselves
will not be holding high-voltage wires — more than two-thirds of high-voltage wires will be
undergrounded, and all transformers will remain on the Applicants’ property.
The Public Works Department reached out to the CJPIA, the risk pooling joint powers
authority that, among other services, “proactively help[s] members prevent losses” (see the
link at https://cjpia.org/risk-management/risk-control-services/). City Staff and the City’s risk
manager then analyzed the proposed pole and power line relocations involved in
determining whether it would be appropriate to issue the requested encroachment permit to
assure safety and to mitigate risk.
The CJPIA specifically reviewed the relocation plans, and determined that the
undergrounding of 270 feet of high-voltage lines would result in a safer environment; and
that the roughly 90 feet of overhead power lines, which would reconnect to existing power
lines, would not result in an increased risk.
4. The City is Not Required to Obtain a “CPCN” from the CPUC Prior to Issuance of the
Encroachment Permit
One of the HOA objections to the issuance of a second encroachment permit is that the
City is not in compliance with Public Utility Code regulations because it has not completed
a “public certificate of need” (“CPCN”) for the proposed power poles relocation. A CPCN is
granted to public utilities, and allows the public utility to operate within a city’s or county’s
public right-of-way to construct or expand large public utility projects. The provisions of
CPUC §§ 1001 et seq. are not applicable to the City for work occurring in its own right-of-
way.
5. The Approval Issued by SCE is Beyond the Jurisdiction of the City to Review or
Dispute and Appears to Be Within the Scope of its Authority in Any Event
5
A final HOA argument is that the relocation of utility poles violates SCE’s own rules and
regulations, specifically Rule 15, [Distribution Line Extension], Rule 16 [Service Extensions]
and Rule 20 [Replacement of Overhead with Underground Electric Facilities] as well as its
own Guidelines for Transmission in the Right of Way.
The question of the scope of SCE’s permitting authority is not within the jurisdiction of the
City to review or dispute. The City’s review of an encroachment permit is limited to
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. The HOA is certainly welcome to raise the issue
of the propriety of the SCE permit directly with SCE. Notwithstanding the City’s lack of
jurisdiction over SCE’s permitting process, the City Attorney notes that SCE’s own rules
appear to expressly permit for this type of relocation: Rule 16 F.2 and Rule 15 I.1 address
the procedures for the relocation of utility poles at the request of a single private property
owner.
On July 13, 2020, Staff received a correspondence (Attachment O) from the Applicants
regarding this project.
CONCLUSION:
City Staff is now ready to issue new encroachment permits. Issuance of the encroachment
permits was conditioned on the City being reimbursed the cost to replace the trees illegally
cut down by the Applicants’ contractor. That payment has been rendered to the City.
Having now carefully reviewed all aspects of the application for the encroachment permits,
City Staff is of the opinion that the permits to relocate certain SCE utility poles combined
within undergrounding of high-voltage lines will enhance fire safety.
The Office of the City Attorney has independently considered the various objections to the
issuance of encroachment permits and is of the considered legal opinion that there is no
legal impediment to the Public Works Director issuing the requested permits.
6
~City of Rancho Palos Verdes j Enter Map Title
NAD_1983_StatePiane_Callfomia_ V _FIPS_0405_Feet
~ City ot Rancho Palos Verdes
Tho information on this map is far reference only and may nm be up-ro-dore Pleose
contact tt"v Citv for more information
Power Poles from SCE (2016)
Street Centerlines (2015)
Private
Public
City Boundary
Parcel
Palos Verdes ReseNoir
Adjacent Cities
0 Palos Vardas EsiBtas
0 Rolling HiNs Eslaloa
0 Rolling Hills
Other-
Ocean
Aerials 2017
• Red l!and_1
• Graan: Band_2
• Blue: Band_3
1:644 0
A-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
12 Paseo de Pino
Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275
September 30, 2019
VIA EMAIL WITH HARD COPY
TO FOLLOW VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mayor Jerry V. Duhovic and the Councilmembers
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Utility Pole Relocation Project 3867 Crest Road
Dear Mayor Duhovic and Councilmembers:
I write to express my concern regarding improper use of the public right of way to benefit
a single private property owner. I respectfully request your assistance to direct the City
attorney to instruct City staff to follow the law.
I. Brief Statement of Facts
I am a resident of the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association (the “HOA”).
The HOA owns the property across from 3867 Crest Road. There are 7 utility poles
located in the front yard of 3867 Crest Road.
On Sunday, June 23 2019, a subcontractor engaged by the private property owner,
Funiciello, entered into the HOA property and cut down 4 old growth pine trees. Critically,
without notice or opportunity to be heard by affected property owners and in contravention
of federal and state law, established City ordinances, processes and procedure as well
as Southern California Edison’s own rules and internal guidelines, extensive additional
trenching and excavation work was completed over a 3-day period. This work continued
until the City of RPV shut the work down on June 26, 2019 because “the scope of the
work exceeded the permit.”
An encroachment permit filed by Crown Castle Utility, with the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes (“RPV” or the “City”) was suspended and has now expired. On Friday, June 28,
2019, after the work was stopped by the City and while the permit was suspended, the
contractor cut through the cable supplying telephone and internet service to Marymount
College and the adjacent neighborhood. [Permits enclosed, and in fact, the work
performed bore no resemblance to the permits. There are duplicate permits because the
permit presented by the contractor is different from the permit on file]
C-1
On July 31, 2019, representatives of the City met with the private property owner,
Funiciello, representatives from Southern California Edison (“SCE”), and representatives
of the HOA. In that meeting, SCE representatives, the City and the private party all
agreed that this project is NOT an Edison project. Mr. Funiciello stated that he had friends
and relatives working for Edison. The project is a customer-initiated project, without
any change in function or service capability, to benefit a single private party at the
expense of 76 other private property owners by moving utility poles from his property onto
HOA property.
II. Points of Relevance
1. The utility pole relocation requires an encroachment permit from the
City. RPV Public Works has stated that notice and a hearing are not
necessary or even available to affected property owners “because the
City cannot regulate a franchise utility in the public right of way and
Edison can do whatever it wants in the right of way.” This is an incorrect
statement of existing law and must be corrected immediately.
2. The idea that the City cannot regulate utility projects in the public right
of way is directly contrary to established case law and the actions of the
RPV City Council as well as the Staff Reports relating to Ordinance 520
and its successor, Ordinance 621.
3. Both the City and Edison have actual knowledge that the proposed utility
pole relocation is NOT an Edison project. In fact, it is a customer-
initiated service request to benefit a single private property owner by
shifting the burden from his property to another without due process.
Neither the City nor Edison has the authority to permit this action.
4. SCE has no authority to favor one ratepayer over another. The utility
franchise protects the utilities’ ability to provide the service to the public-
the City can still regulate aesthetics and placement, and SCE expressly
acknowledges the City’s right to regulate.
5. Importantly, the proposed relocation violates the terms and conditions
of SCE’s own Rules: Rule 15, [Distribution Line Extension], Rule 16
[Service Extensions] and Rule 20 [Replacement of Overhead with
Underground Electric Facilities] as well as its own Guidelines for
Transmission in the Right of Way.
6. Finally, the proposed relocation from open space into a grove of mature
pine trees constitutes a public safety hazard and violates the City’s wild
fire risk mitigation policy.
7. Furthermore, staff asserts that this project is occurring in the public right
of way. The HOA does not concede this point, and is informed and
believes that the City has actual knowledge that there are significant
C-2
legal issues relating to the City’s right of way on Crest R oad, which it
has not disclosed or chooses to ignore.
III. Request
Citizens lose faith in their public servants when they seek redress and are repeatedly
given incorrect information. It's disheartening when private citizens are forced to resort
to doing the research that the City staff is compensated to do, especially when good faith
attempts to educate and inform the staff are apparently ignored. It is infuriating when
actions occurring “in front of our eyes” and confirmed by workmen on site are reported to
City staff and yet citizens are 'gas-lighted' by the City Staff. It appears that there may be
other nontransparent reasons why this project has been allowed to proceed, for what the
private property owner claims has been "over 5 years", without any attempt to inform
affected property owners.
Please direct the City Attorney to research the issues raised within this letter and to
instruct City staff to follow the law and its own corresponding rules and
procedures. Please investigate and take affirmative steps to correct the numerous
irregularities that have taken place during this permitting process. City staff simply should
not issue an encroachment permit until there has been compliance with all of the
applicable federal and state laws, City ordinances and Edison's own rules and guidelines.
Let’s stop this private overreach and prevent a repeat of Green Hills.
This letter is not intended to be a complete assertion of rights, all of which are expressly
reserved.
Thank you in advance for taking corrective measures both to (i)permanently shut down
this project since this project violated (and continues to violate) the City’s laws from the
outset and (ii) ensure that City Staff protects the interests of ALL residents.
Respectfully,
Kathy Campbell
Enclosures by USPS Mail
Original Permit, presented on phone by contractor. [Applicant is Crown Castle]
Suspended Permit “Supplemented and Modified” after the fact
Edison Transmission Line Right of Way Constraints and Guidelines
C-3
Edison Press Release Vol. 10 No. 6 June 2010
County of Los Angeles Map showing Crest Road is a private street
Declaration Language of Tract No. 33206
C-4
. ...--..
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Area Permit No.
30940 Hawthorne Blvd , Rancho Palos Verdes 90275
(310} 544-5252 (Ph) (310) 544-5292 (Fax)
Location of Work: ---=3..:..86:.:7....:C:.:..re:.;;s;.;.t .:..:Rd:;.._ __________ ~ _ __...,,.T.-D....,11.,2811c7::::6 =:eJ __
0 Same as Permittee/OWner
PermltteetOwne r..::S:.::C=.E_· :..:.Art:.:..:....:Fr.::an=.c.::..o ---------
Address 1924 Callhdan St
Contractor..~w ..... A~Rwau.su.lc __ ..__ ______________ _
City Compton Zip Code,.::;90:::2::::20:.---
Address·------------~~-------City ___________ ~ Zip Code _____ _
Telephone 626 483-3W Telephone--------------------
E-Mail Add re ss Arturo .3.Franco(a!sce.com E-Mail Address
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
DAsphalt Work Ocenurar 0 Curb Core D Curb & Gutter
tlHaul Route DMailbox 0 MaterlaVEquipment Staging D Parkway Improvement
0 Driveway Approach
0 Sewer line/lateral
0 Dumpster
0 Sidewalk
D Spacial Event 0 Trench/Excavation [!) Utility Work I!J Other
APPLICANTS MUST ADHERE TO ALL CiTY STANDARDS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE ON REVERSE SIDE
MUST NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED RESIDENTS & CITY I~ISPECTOR 72-HOURS PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK
Crew to remove 5 poles located on Private property and install 3 poles on ROW to include all electrical and Civil. 5 days of work
TC per CA MUTCD TA·10
(A HARD COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES)
I, the undersigned permittee hereby certify Bnd agree to the following:
That I or the entity on whose behalf this certificalicn la given, hold a currenUy valid California Contractor's License and a City of Rancho Palos Verdes Business
License.
That I have received, read and understand and I agree to perform all work In accordance with the permit (backside included}, the document titled
"Instructions ror Encroachment Permit," American Public Works Association (A.P.W.A .) Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, applicable
Standards Plans, current California MUTCO manual and the City Municipal Code .
That in consideration of the granting of this permit, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City wherein lhe permit work Is to be pelformed an d any of
their office rs or employees thereof shall be saved harmless by the applicant from any liability or responsibility for any accident , foss or damage to persons
or property. happening or oc curri ng as the proximate ll!Sult of any of the work undertaken under the terms of this application and the permit or permlts wh ich
may be granted in response thereto, and that all of !iaid liabilities are hereby assumed by lhe applicant. It is further agreed that if any part of this instaUation
Interferes with the future use of the Right of Way by th e general public it must be removed or relocated. as designatad by th e Directo r of Public Works at the
expense of the permittee/owner or his successor in interest
MOCK UP DISPLAY AND DUMPSTER PERMITS ARE VALID FOR 30 D.&.YS ONLY· Expires:----,~-------
{Non-skid plates required for dumpsters over 8% grade)
MOCK UP CONSTRUCTION PERMITS VALID FOR 10 DAYS ONLY-Expires: -----.r----------
ALL OTHER PERMITS ARE VALID FOR A PERIOC OF 90 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE APPR
ey: -----~-w---=-z.-~ __ 1_0_11...,..4_11_9_
Permittee/Contractor Signature Date
ITEMS TO VERIFY and PERMIT FEES: {Office Use Only}
0 City Business Lie. No . _____ _
0 Contractor L;c. Nc. ______ _
(Attach copy of CA State online verification)
0 Certificate of Insurance with Additional Insured Endorsement
(Copy of Policy Required)
Q Worker's Compensation Insurance
(Copy of Policy Required)
0 Signed N.P.D.E .S. Compliance Certification
0 Signed Hold Harmjess
Cl NPDES & BMP Guidelines given to Permittee
Base Permit Fee
Traffic Engineer Plan Check
Improvement Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Special Event Fee
County Sewer Saddle Fee
TOTAl FEE
$ ___ ...iC.:...:RW.:.:J-l _
S ___ _.I'-"'4"-'ITD#~
$ ___ __,_T4_..ff_,.D#=-
$ ___ __,_T4 ..... 1T...,D#:..::.
$ ____ T,_4"-'ff:.::::D#.«....
$ ___ ..~<U-lR.:..~W~\ _
$ _____ _
Approved : __ _ Utility Invoice No. 101-0000-115-40. ____________ _
(Not valid unless ap proved by Departme nt) Date
Permit Completed: --------------
WHil'l: -Office GREEN -lnspeetcr PINK-Permittee HARD COPY -Job Site D-1
-aiii-II-I-III ... PI-I
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
/NTERNA TIONAL Compcmy
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
0 30 60
Tl.MDATA: SIZE KVA #GUST %LOAD
EXIST
PROP
1
37.5 44.4 3 118.5%
50 44.4 88.8%
VD = VARIES FLICKER = VARIES
EXISTING 4717041E
50' Class C1
EX: 1-POLE 50' CLASS I WOOD FULL TREAT
RM: 2-FE CO OPEN 100A 16KV 1-EA
RM: 1-TR OH 37KVA 16KV 120/240 IP
SN: __________ _
RM: 1-XA DBLE VB 10' STEEL PIN D/A BRKT
RM: 1-XA SNGL FB 10' STEEL PINS N/BOND
RM: 2-AG DOWN GUY 3/8" -50' LESS THAN 22.5K
RM: 1-AG ANCHOR ROD 1 " X 10' 3-EYE W/PLATE
IN: 1-XA DBLE FB 10' STEEL PINS N/BOND
IN: 4-INS POLY DE 4KV RIG #2
IN: 1-TR OH 50KVA 2.4KV 120/240 IP
SN: __________ _
IN: 1-FE CO OPEN IOOA 4KV 1-EA
IN: 1-FE FUSE TAMER 27KV lOA
IN: 1-AG ANCHOR ROD I " X 10' 3-EYE W/PLATE
IN: 1-AG DOWN GUY 3/8" -50' LESS THAN 22.5KV
I
I -
I --I --
ABDN: 2-4" (37'!-------1
V7229 TO 1394059E
RM: 86' 3-500 EPR 16kV
cu
,_._lftl-1-11 ........ --IHI-1-111 .... 11-111-11 -Hifti-I-11 ...... 1.1-HIHI-1-111 ... 1111''----
RM 3007607E
50' Class C4
RM: 1-POLE 50' CLASS 4 WOOD FULL TREAT
RM: 1-XA DBLE VB I 0' STEEL PIN D /A BRKT
RM: 1-XA SNGL VB 10' STEEL PINS
RM: 1-XA SNGL FB 10' STEEL PINS SECONDARY
RM: 2-AG DOWN GUY 3/8" -50' LESS THAN 22.5KV
RM: 447-CD 336 STR AL BARE ACSR NON-GREASED
E TO C-20, FTR TO PTD {UNAUTH. ATTACHMENT)
E TO RELINQUISH ANCHOR FTR, FTR TO REMOVE
3 RM 1394059E
50' Class C4
RM: 1-POLE 50' CLASS 4 WOOD FULL TREAT
RM: 1-MISC POLE TOP EXTENSION 5' STEEL & WOOD
RM: 1-TR OH 15KVA 2.4KV 120/240 1P
SN· __________ _
RM: 1-GR OH #6 SOL WP SECONDARY W/ROD
RM: 1-XA SNGL VB 10' STEEL PINS
RM: 1-XA DBLE VB 10' STEEL PINS
RM: 1-PH CS 10' XA 16KV 3P 3-1/0
RM: 1-PH CS 16KV 3P 3-500
RM: 1-SA POLY W/GND NO PRI-N 16KV 3P
RM: 1-XA SNGL FB 10' STEEL PINS
RM: 1-RSR PVC/STRAP 4" UNISTRUT APP
RM: 1-RSR PRECUT UNISTRUT W/ HARDWARE NO PVC
IE TO C-19, FTR TO PIDI
--~ --~
RM 2141367[---4 50' Class C4
RM: 1-POLE 50' CLASS 4 WOOD FULL TREAT
RM: 1-MISC POLE TOP EXTENSION 5' STEEL & WOOD
RM: 1-SW OMNI HZ-UP DE 600A 16KV 3W
SN: ______________ _
RM: 1-AE AR MATERIAL 16KV 600A 3W NO SW
REMOVE OH AR0639, RELOCATE TO NEW POLE ON S/S OF CREST RD
RM: 1-XA SNGL VB 10' STEEL PINS
RM: 1-XA SNGL FB 10' STEEL PINS
RM: 402-CD 336 STR AL BARE ACSR NON-GREASED
~ TO C 20, FTR TO PTQ
RM 4471251E
55' Class C3
RM: 1-POLE 55' CLASS 3 WOOD FULL TREAT
RM: 1-XA DBLE VB 1 0' STEEL PINS
RM: 1-PH CS 10' XA 16KV 3P 3-1/0
5
RM: 1-SA POLY W/GND & T-GAP NO PRI-N 16KV 3P
RM: 1-XA DBLE FB 10' STEEL PINS N/BOND
RM: 1-RSR PVC/STRAP 4" UNISTRUT APP
RM: 1-RSR PRECUT UNISTRUT W HARDWARE NO PVC
E TO C-25, FTR TO PTD
E TO RELINQUISH ANCHOR TO FTR, FTR TO REMOVE
ABDN: 2-4" (75')
V7229 TO 4471251E
RM: 138' 3-1/C 1/0 JCN
RM 4471252E
60' Class C2
RM: 1-POLE 50' CLASS 2 WOOD FULL TREAT
RM: 4-XA DBLE VB 10' STEEL PINS
RM: 2-XA DBLE FB 10' STEEL PINS
\
\
RM: 2-AG DOWN GUY 3/8" -50' LESS THAN 22.5KV
RM: 1-AG ANCHOR ROD 1 " X 10' 3-EYE W/PLATE
RM: 1005-CD 336 STR AL BARE ACSR NON-GREASED
IE TO c 19, FTR TO PIDI
\
\
0
I
4471253E
3-336ACSR
3-336ACSR
~--~ X514
3 X5'X4'
-------~
\
\
16kV
16kV
3
I
\
\
\
3
~
~ 0
3007606E
-----3
1299813E
"'
TD 1121176/RELOCATE FACILITIES
3867 CREST RD E
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
SHT 1: OVERHEAD REMOVAL
CREW MAP
FINAL DESIGN
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CUR
CURB
1459571E
-------\-~--C/C '""' m "'"
100' 3-1/0-9.5/16KV 94
DISTRICT
44 -SOUTH BAY
PROJECT NO. SERVICE REQUEST
974716 1897530
CIRCUIT VOLTAGE
FELDSPAR 16kV
SUB / PG NO.
CREST
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (Y /N)
EDISON EASEMENT REQUIRED [YJ
PWRD 88 REQUIRED ern
PERMIT REQUIRED [YJ
PERMIT TYPE: ENCROACH /EXC
OUTAGE REQUIRED [YJ
OUTAGE DATE: ____ TIME: __
TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIRED [YJ
PED. TRAFFIC CONTROL REQ'D ern
CONVEYANCE LETTER REQ'D ern
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REQ'D [YJ
CSD 140 (TLM) REQ'D [YJ
0124: Rev_ 09/2L/I:i
PROJ_ MGR. BACA IV, JOSEPH
PHONE 310-783-9357
PLANNER BACA IV, JOSEPH
PHONE 310-783-9357
MSR NO. PRODUCT-1
DESIGNER
1121176 -RELOCATE FACILITIES (BILLING)
THOMAS GUIDE PRODUCT-2
CIRCUIT CODE PRODUCT-3
06308
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTlON (LOCATlON)
~,---,----,~---,-----,~
IN\IENTORY MAP J.P.A. NO
f--+---f-----+---t----+---13867 CREST RD
f-+---+------1----+----+----1RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
TYPE DATE APPROVED BY CHECKED BY DRAWN BY PAX # SHEET DESIGN\DRWG NO.
3 750700 Southern California Edison Company 1
--OF
ASSOC DESGN
ASSOC DESGN
ASSOC DESGN
0.01 D-2
NOTE TO CUSTOMER:
-ALL DUCT WORK AND TRENCHING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
REQUESTING PARTY
POLE ATTACHMENTS & GUYING DIAGRAMS
(NOT TO SCALE)
:~--•11= D1 AaR •-~==9F~
3/lt' D.Q. 111 -AlTMJt AT 1111-
INI :l-1i'C liJI M:sR 1M 111 -!S.->-
-3-IIC Dl AaR ...V, Vr' D.Q. 111 -ATTMJt AT 1111
-Jtr D.Q. 111 -ATIXH AT Ill"
~#If==~ .... :1-1/C--• ..., 111 -~
-ALL UNDERGROUND INSTALL WORK MUST BE INSPECTED BY :1-1/C liJI M:sR 1M, 3/r D.Q. 111-ATTMJt AT Ill"-\I /j
I!
II UNDERGROUND PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
-EDISON WILL REMOVE SPECIFIED OVERHEAD FACILITIES
-EDISON WILL INSTALL/REMOVE ALL SPECIFIED CABLE _.. 1-3/r 110111 ...,, AlTMJt AT 4lr
\ -INVOICE MUST BE PAID WITHIN 90 DAYS OF ISSUANCE TO Ill WA 'IIIIJ CiiWER \
AVOID RE-PRICING
PRIOR TO SCHEDULING:
-UNDERGROUND INSPECTION MUST BE COMPLETE AND ALL
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES INSTALLED
-INVOICE PAID IN FULL
-EASEMENT SECURED THROUGH SPECTRUM LAND SER~CES
ONCE ALL OF THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET,
SCHEDULING IS A 45 DAY WINDOW
I
EX: V5057229
7'x16'x8' Tunnel Stte
RM: 3-1/0 JCN 138 (I runs)
VAULT
RM: 3-500 12/17KV EPR CABLE CU 220 Ml 86' (I runs)
RM: 3-JJ DBE W/BAIL 1/0 200A (BS5176)
7
\
\
NEW ANCHORS REQUIRED\
SEE GUYING DIAGRAM
&Q,
. "s·
\
I
EXISTING 4471253E
65' Class C1
EX: 1-POLE 65' CLASS 1 WOOD FULL TREAT
11
IN: 3-AG ANCHOR ROD 1 " X 10' 3-EYE W/PLATE
IN: 6-AG DOWN GUY 3/8" -50' LESS THAN 22.5KV
IN: 420-CD 336 STR AL BARE ACSR NON-GREASED
IN: 6-INS POLY DE 16KV HOT SHOE 336 ACSR
RM: 1-SEC 2'' PVC FOR UNDER ARM W/#2 TW
IN: 1-SEC 2" PVC FOR UNDER ARM W/#2 TW
NOTE: MOVE EX. 50kVA XFMR TO ALLOW FOR BUCK ARMS
0
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
--'C::' il
0 \
______j____ 1 PROPOSED HEIGHTS
4717041E (50' CL 1)
LOOKING NORTH
EXISllNG POLE
1 0'
PROPOSED HEIGHTS
4814425E (50' CL 3)
LOOKING NORTH
NEW POLE
j
,
, ,
'10' -
PROPOSED HEIGHTS
4814425E (50' CL 3)
LOOKING WEST
NEW POLE
RM: 3-JJ DB COLD SHRINK 500 EPR 12/16KV 600A I P (POS. 3, GS3881)
RM: 3-JJ 3-DBE 1000 600A (POS 3, GS3881) (' "1_.........0
REMOVAL OF BRIDLE 4kV UND ER EDISON WORK ORDER _TD_949489
, ,
REMOVAL OF EASTFIELD 4-I<V UNDER
EDISON WORK ORDER TD949497
TO BE REPLACED WITH 3-336 16kV
EX: 1-3" (12')
TO EXIST. PED. E TO INSTALL NEW 1"
ANCHOR & DOWN GUYS
(SEE DIAGRAMS)
p L IC/L
I "' -I -I --1-H-11 II .. _ .. '
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (Y /N)
EDISON EASEMENT REQUIRED [iJ
PWRD 88 REQUIRED [E]
PERMIT REQUIRED [iJ
PERMIT TYPE: ENCROACH /EXC
OUTAGE REQUIRED [iJ
OUTAGE DATE: ____ TIME:
TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIRED [iJ
PED. TRAFFIC CONTROL REQ'D [E]
CONVEYANCE LETTER REQ'D [E]
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REQ'D [iJ
CSD 140 (TLM) REO'D [iJ
0124: Re'l. 09/24/15
IN: 3-JJ DBE W/BAIL 1/0 200A (BS5176)
IN: 3-JJ 3-D BE 1000 600A (POS. 3, GS3881)
------E
45' 'v ,-
3867 CREST RD E
NEW ANCHOR REQUIRED AT 28'/
SEE GUYING DIAGRAM
IN• 75' 3-336 ACSR 1 6kV----------
435E TO 253E
REDUCED TENSION
-------------+-------------------
-----------------EX: 3-336 ACSR 16kV
I
!-----------------~~: .3-336 A -------~R 16kV
~--------------------
~ x51497o2
3
_____ 3 _____ 3
-------=--~-~-:1 253E TO 425E 1 REDUCED TENSION
2 5"
2 189'
435E TO V7229
IN: 273' 3-1000 JCN 16kV
TEN 5057229 to Str 2 -3313 LBS (OVERMAX)
TEN Str 2 to 5057229 -1601 LBS
NOTE: SHARE SAME TRENCH AS RUN
AUTOMATION EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION/RELOCATION/REMOVAL
DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION
CONTACT DISTRIBUTION AUTOMATION
714-285-4325
0120: Rev. 11/0B/14
::; 15'-l--15'~+----,-------100'
/ "'--sEE GUYING DIAGRAMS FOR
IN• 30' 3-336 ACSR 16kV__/ 425E & 435E
435E TO 425E
POLE 4814435E
50' Class C3
IN: 1-POLE 50' CLASS 3 WOOD FULL TREAT
CF: 378-CM DUCT 5"
IN: 3-1000 JCN 234' (3 runs)
Ml: 3-1000 JCN 39' (3 runs)
IN: 2-XA DBLE VB 10' STEEL PIN D/A BRKT
IN: 6-INS POLY DE 16KV HOT SHOE 336 ACSR
IN: 1-PH CS 10' XA 16KV 3P 3-1000
IN: 1-SA POLY W/GND NO PRI-N 16KV 3P
IN: 1-RSR PVC/STRAP 5" UNISTRUT APP
IN: 1-RSR PRECUT UNISTRUT W/ HARDWARE NO PVC
IN: 2-AG ANCHOR ROD I " X 10' 3-EYE W/PLATE
IN: 4-AG DOWN GUY 3/8" -50' LESS THAN 22.5KV
9 POLE 4814430E
50' Class Cl
IN: 1-POLE 50' CLASS I WOOD FULL TREAT
IN: 1-AE AR VAC W/DISC SW 16KV 600A 3P
IN: 1-SW OMNI HZ-I RP DE 600A 16KV 3W
SN: ___________ _
IN: 90-CD 336 STR AL BARE ACSR NON-GREASED
IN: 6-INS POLY DE 16KV HOT SHOE 336 ACSR 2 5''
219'
425E TO V7229
IN: 303' 3-1/0 JCN 16kV
TEN 5057229 to Str 2 -475 LBS
TEN Str 2 to 5057229 -268 LBS
--o
I 1n
I b
0
"' --o -z.
0
POLE 4814425E
50' Class C3
IN: 1-POLE 50' CLASS 3 WOOD FULL TREAT
CF: 438-CM DUCT 5"
CF: 219-CM DUCT FOR EXCAVATION
IN: 3-1/0 JCN 264' (I runs)
Ml: 3-1/0 JCN 39' (1 runs)
IN: 2-XA DBLE VB 10' STEEL PIN D/A BRKT
IN: 6-INS POLY DE 16KV HOT SHOE 336 ACSR
IN: 1-RSR PVC/STRAP 5" UNISTRUT APP
IN: 1-RSR PRECUT UNISTRUT W/ HARDWARE NO PVC
IN: 1-PH CS 10' XA 16KV 3P 3-1/0
IN: 1-SA POLY W/GND NO PRI-N 16KV 3P
IN: 2-AG ANCHOR ROD I " X 10' 3-EYE W/PLATE
IN: 4-AG DOWN GUY 3/8" -50' LESS THAN 22.5KV
1299813E
CURB
-----------C/L ----------
.....________ C/L S9701 TO X9702
100' 3-1/0-9.5/16KV 94
lfJSTALL AJIC, 20'
I·JST.'ILL AlE:, . E.'
\I
II
II
PROPOSED HEIGHTS
4471253E (65' CL 1)
LOOKING WEST
EXISTING POLE
I
i{
II -vr D.Q, 111-ATTMJt AT-II -$-IIC Dl tall IM
j/ ~ -3/r 0.41. 111 -ATTMJt AT 4fr
j/==#=1; +==== ;I -ft :1-1/C D1 ,_ IM 111 4B ~
;I !! ;I //
;I f ;I j
i! f ? II ? I ! ; ! ; ! ;
! If /t
[ii5T ~~·C AI'JC, 30'
'\JSTALL A\~C, 28'
PROPOSED HEIGHTS
4471253E (65' CL 1)
LOOKING NORTH
EXISTING POLE
3/r D.O. 111 -AlTMJt AT Wfl'
It :1-1/C--1M 111 -!1L->--3/r 0.41. 111 ANCHCII, AlTMJt AT -
CONNECTING TO EXISTING SCE STRUCTURES
• Per SCE requirements, customers are not allowed to enter, intercept
or tie-in to existing SCE structures, equipment or conductors. This
work will only be performed by SCE. Contact the appropriate SCE
inspector to schedule an appointment. Customers may connect to an
e~eisting duct stub without a SCE inspector present.
• Per CPUC/SCE's Rule 15 8.1.A and Rule 16 D.1.A., the customer will
provide all necessary excavations (with the exception of excavation
under pods and primary splice boxes), material (including conduit and
structures) and encasement. to be utilized in the intercept/tie-in process.
• The customer must adhere to all applicable Cal-OSHA, local, city, state
and federal regulations, (Including, but not limited to, all necessary
shoring and traffic control in place to perform the intercept/tie-in
work by SCE's underground civil contractors(s))
• Intercept/tie-in work must be coordinated with SCE's civil contractors
through the Division lnspector/CCM to limit exposure of excavation(s).
Customer is responsible for securing excavation(s).
DOB; 12/10/07
TIE-IN MADE THROUGH SIDE WALL OF STRUC1URE
(Vault, Manhole, PME, SOE/CST, BURD, Slab Box, Pull Box, PMH)
The customer is responsible to trench to the structure entrance
point and bring the conduit to within 5' of the structure being
entered. The customer is to provide slip coupling and conduit.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
INTERNATIONAL Company
SCALE: 1" 30'
0 30 60
PROPOSED HEIGHTS
4814435E (50' CL 3)
LOOKING SOUTH
NEW POLE
PROPOSED HEIGHTS
4814435E (50' CL 3)
LOOKING WEST
NEW POLE
FINAL DESIGN
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
TD 1121176/RELOCA TE FACILITIES
3867 CREST RD E
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
OVERHEAD INSTALL, UNDERGROUND INSTALL
CREW MAP & CUSTOMER MAP
HOT TIE-IN LOCATION
V5057229
48" X 60" OPENING
USE TOP 4 KNOCKOUT LOCATIONS
ON EAST WALL OF VAULT
DISTRICT PROJ_ MGR. BACA IV, JOSEPH PLANNER BACA IV, JOSEPH DESIGNER
44 -SOUTH BAY PHONE 310-78.3-9357 PHONE .310-783-9357
PROJECT NO. SERVICE REQUEST MSR NO. PRODUCT-1
974716 1897530 1121176 -RELOCATE FACILITIES (BILLING)
CIRCUIT VOLTAGE
FELDSPAR 16kV
SUB / PG NO.
CREST
THOMAS GUIDE PRODUCT-2
CIRCUIT CODE PRODUCT-3
06308
IN\IENTORY MAP J.P.A. NO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTlON (LOCATlON)
f-+---f----+---t----+---13867 CREST RD E
f-+---+------1----+----+----IRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
TYPE DATE APPROVED BY CHECKED BY DRAWN BY PAX 1J SHEET DESIGN\DRWG NO.
2 3
--OF 750700
ASSOC DESGN
ASSOC DESGN
ASSOC DESGN
0.01 D-3
CONSTRUCllON NOTES:
Unless other.orise specified on ltle working drawing which forms CJ part of the specification, the Contractor/Developer
shall furnish the following items at no cost to the Edison Company.
Southern C<1lifomia Edison Company has attempted to correctly ::tlow all existing utilities and substructures
in the vicinity of the work, but does not guarantee there are no other substructures in the aroo.
Failure of SCE to show all substructures in their correct location will not be a basis fer a claim for extra work, and the
contractor shall be responsible for ell damages to substructures whether shown or not.
1. FOR GENERAL SPEaFICATIONS SEE UGS Gl 001.
2. CONDUIT:
a. ~inimum cover in street or pal<woy is 30M below gutter grade. unless noted otherwise.
b. t.1inimum cover on private property is 30" below finished grade, unless noted otherwise.
c. Contractor is to furnish and install oppro'led conduit to Edison specifications per UGS CD 100.1, 110 AND 120.
d. For the t}Pe of conduit for this job, See UGS CD 110.1.
e. Install all risers per UGS CD 160, 161, 162 and 170.
f_ Cop dl mainline conduits per UGS CD 148 and ser11ice conci.Jits per UGS CD 150_
9-Install blank conduit plugs in all conduits termi'loting into Vaults, ~onhole's, Pl.iH's, SOE's & all cap locations,
per UGS CD 180.1 & UGS CD 180.2
h. Install pull rope in all conduit runs Pull rope to be 1/4" polypropylene or polyethylene rope, braided
or twisted. For specifications, approved makes, and suppliers, see UGS Gl 040.
i. All conduit must be mondreled with the appro~~ed mandrel UGS CD 197
3. CONDUIT RADIUS REQUIREMENTS:
a: The minimum radius for bends are:
36" fur conduits 3" in diameter or smaller
48" fur conduits 4" and 5" in diameter
60" fur 6" diameter conduit
b; The minimum radius for all sweeps of all mainline conduits is 12'-6" (unless noted otherwise).
4. EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL;
a. Work area shall be cleared and rough graded to within four inches of final grade prior to installation of
Edison conduit or structures.
b. All exca'Kitions shall be in accordance with the California State Crnstrudion Safety Orders (when applicable),
Edison specifications, and all CJOveminc:J local ordinances.
c. Each trench to be a uniform depth below final grade prior to installation of Edison conduit or structures.
d. Backfll shall be provided by the Contractor for all exca110tions and shall include crushed rack, concrete,
and/or imported backfill, 'M'len required.
e. Backfill with a MINIMUM of one sack per yard sand cement slurry around and over vaults and manholes per
UGS Gl 030, section 6.4 and around PMH's within one foot of finished grade, per UGS SS 590.1.
f. Backfill, per Edison specifications, shall immediately follow conduit or substructure installation. At no time
shall conduit be left exposed over 24 hours.
g. No rocks ore allowed within 12 inches of direct-buried cables or any conduit without concrete encasement.
Nati~~e backfill capable of passing through a one-half inch mesh screen shall be considered to be ·rack free".
If existing backfill does not pass through a 1/2" screen. place imported sand ~" below and 12" abo11e Edison
cables. After this point. no rocks larqer than 12" diameter are permitted.
h. All backfill shall be compacted to meet or el(Ceed local ordinances or ol:tler requirements. It shall be placed
in a manner that will not damage the conduit or substructure or allow future subsidence of the trench or
structures.
5. PAV1NG:
Repovi~g. where required, shall be placed in such o manner that interference with traffic, including
pedestri!l'l traffic, will be kept to a minimum. The Crntroctor shall establish a program of repaving acceptable
to the Municipality, County, or other authority ha11ing jJrisdiction and which is acceptable to Edison.
6. STRUCTURES:
o. All substructures shall ba constructed or installed to Edison specifications.
b. Install protection barriers per UGS MS 830 when required in areas exposed to traffic, per Edison Inspector.
c. All conduit lines and concrete floored substructures shall be water tight.
d. All grounding materials shall be furnished and installed by the Contractor.
7. RETAINING WALlS:
When required, retaininq walls shall be pro11ided by the Developer. Walls are required wherever Qrode rises
more than 18 inches lilo11e the structure or 24" above the pad surfece at a distance of 5 feet from the same,
or in areas subject to erosion. Design and installation must comply with local building ordinances.
Refer to Edison Inspector for twicol space requirements.
8. PER~ITS:
All permit:s necessary fur eKcavotion shall be provided by the Controdar/Developer.
9. ACCESS:
Heo11y truck access shall be maintained to equipment locations. Structures must be dear of all appurtenances
that would obstruct the loading or unloading of equipment.
10. SERVICES:
o. ~eters and services shall comply with Edison Electrical Ser'lices Requirements.
b. Wiring must be in accordance with applicable local ordinonces and opproved by local Inspection Authorities.
11. LOCATION:
o. The location of exca110tions and structures for Edison shall be as shown on the working drawing. No de'liation
from the planned locations will be permitted unless appro'led by the Edison Inspector. See UGS Gl 001, section 2.2.
b. Actual location of obstructions, storm drains, and/or other foreign utilities to be the responsibility of the
Co~troctor. See UGS Gl 001, section 23.
12. Crntroctor is to verify location and widths of all sidewolks and driveways prior to street light installation.
See UGS CD 175.1, UGS CD 175.2 and UGS CD 175.3.
13. SURVEY:
Sur11aying of street impro11aments, property corners, lot lines, finished grade, ate., necessary for the installation
of undergroond facilities must be completed and markers or std<es placed prior to the start of the installation.
In addition, Developer shall maintain the markers during the installation and inspection by Edison
Grode and property line stokes must show any offset measurements.
14. COORDINATION AND SUPERIJISION:
The Dewloper shall provide supervision 011er and coordination among the various contractors working within the
de'ielopment in order to prevent damage to Edison facilities. He is responsible for the cost of repairs,
replacement, relocation, or other corrections to Edison facilities mode necessary by his failure to pr011ida
super~~ision or to otherwise comply with these specifications.
15. TELEPHONE AND OTHER UllUTY REQUIREMENTS:
The drowinc:J prepared fiJr this job may also cover the facilities to be installed for the telephone company
and/or other utility. Any qu~tirns concerning details of their installation shoold be referred to the company
concerned.
16. OWNERSHIP:
Del/Eloper Is to deed to the Edison Company all structures shown hereon except those shown as customer owned.
17. WARRANTY:
Applicants expressly represent and warrant that all work performed and oil material used in meeting Applicants'
obligations herein are free from defects in workmanship and are in conformity with Southern California Edison
Company's requirements. This warranty shall commence upon receipt by Applicants of Company's final acceptance
and shall expire one year from that date. Applicants agree to promptly correct to the Company's satisfaction
and that of any g011ernmentel agency having j.Jrisdiction and at Applicant's expense any breach of this warranty
which may become apparent through Inspection or operation of underground electric system by Company during this
worr!l'lty period.
18. INg:JECllON:
Inspection is required during the construction period. A 48 hour od'Kince notice of intent to start construction
is required from the contractor to the Southern California Edison Company. Standards of Edison construction
requirements are available upon request.
Duct and Structure Inspector: JERRY HOLLERUP
Cabling Construction Coordinator:
005: Rev. 07/17/07
NOTE'
ALL ELECTRICAL DUCTS AND STRUCTURES WILL
CONFORM TO GENERAL ORDER #128 (RULES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
SUPPLY AND COMMUNICATION PRESCRIBED BY THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 2006).
WHERE CONDUITS ARE PICKED UP
OR INTERCEPTED, CONDUIT SHALL BE
MANDRELLED AND PULL ROPE INSTALLED
FROM TERMINAL TD TERMINAL.
Phone: 310-489-0857
Phone:
CONNECTING TO EXISTING SCE STRUCTURES
• Per SCE requirements, customers are not ellowed to enter, intercept
or tie-in to existing SCE structures, equipment or conductors. This
work will only be performed by SCE. Contact the appropriate SCE
inspector to schedule an appointment. Customers may conned to an
e)(lstlng duct stub without a SCE inspector present.
e Per CPUC/SCE's Rule 15 B.1.A and Rule 16 D.1.A., the customer will
provide all necessary excavations (with the e)(ception of excavation
under pods and primary splice bo)(es). material (including conduit and
structures) and encasement, to be utilized In the Intercept/tie-In process.
• The customer must adhere to all opplicable Col-OSHA. local, city, stote
and federal regulations, (including, but not limited to, all necessary
shoring end traffic control in piece to perform the intercept/tie-in
work by SCE's underground civil cantradors(s))
• Intercept/tie-in work must be coordinated with SCE's civil contractors
through the Division lnspedor/CCM to limit exposure of excovatian(s).
Customer is responsible for securing e)(covotion(s)
DOS: 12/10/07
TIE-IN MADE THROUGH SIDE WALL OF STRUCTURE
{Vault, Manhole, PME, SDE/CST, BURD, Slob Box, Pull Box, PMH)
The customer is responsible to trench to the structure entrance
point and bring the conduit to within 5' of the structure being
entered. The customer is to provide slip coupling and conduit
WARNING
THE EXCAVATOR MUST TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO AVOID
CONTACT IMTH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WHICH MAY RESULT IN
INJJRY TO PERSONS OR DAI.1AGE TO FACILillES IN lHE AREA.
THE INDICATED LOCAllONS OF EDISON UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.
AS PROVIDED, ARE BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE. HOWEVER, THE
FINAL DETERt.IINAllON OF D:ACT LOCATIONS AND lHE COST OF
REPAIR TO DAMAGED FACILITIES IS lHE RESPONSIBILITY OF TI1E
EXCAVATOR
CUSTOMER-OWNED CONDUIT fJATERIAL* AND CONCRETE
ENCASENENT ARE TO EE INSTALlED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
EDISON ELECTRICAL SER~CE REQUIRE~ENTS.
*SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY LOCAL INSPECTION AUlHORITlES
014: Rev. 01/55
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
Dial 811
Call USA
For Underground Locating
2 Working Days Before You Dig
LEGEND OF CONDUIT SYMBOLS
(CONVENTIONAL U. G.)
EDISON
NO. CONDUIT REQ'D.~~SIZE OF CONDUIT
RUN NO.~~ LENGTH OF CONDUIT RUN
TRENCH
TYPE OF FACILITY ==csg
(CIC-DB, ETC.)
RUN NO. _..__ LENGTH OF TRENCH
NO.
STREET LIGHT
CONDUIT REQ'D. ((9--SIZE OF CONDUIT
RUN NO.~ ~LENGTH OF CONDUIT RUN
STREET LIGHT
TRENCH
TYPE OF FACILITY cB
---LENGTH RUN NO. ~TRENCH OF ADDITlONAL
REQ'D.
EDISON
NO. CONDUIT REQ'D. ~SIZE OF CONDUIT
RISER INSTALLATION USING UNISTRUT
SEE DUG CR 110.2
Unistrut riser supports should -
be installed <J maximum of 5'
apart, <Jbove the 8' level.
Unistrut-
l<--o-1/4"~
-5/8" Double Arm Bolt
A
~ \fw)~
~ I ,_,r/4"
,-----=n_------,1 _l_
< DO
Side View
Plan View
CONVENTIONAL RISER INSTALLATION
NOTE(S)' NOT TO SCALE
Precut Predrilled
18" Unistrut
M/C 132-00746
1. All nates pertaining to Figure CR
supported by a unlstrut.
110-1.1 {Sheet 1) construction on scope CR 110.1 also apply to risers
1.D APPUCA TION
The unistrut shoWll in Figure CR 110-5 (Sheet 3) is the preferred method where multiple risers are required.
2.0 MATERIAL
TABLE CR 110-2: UnistrtJt Pipe Clamps
Conduit Size
(in)
2
Material Code
622 04052
133 48248
2.5 133-48214
3 133-00025
4 133-00017
5 133 48008
REFERENCE RUN NO.~--~DENOTES CONDUIT RUN CONTINUATION
FOR CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
REF.: DUG CR 110.2
D3E: RFIJ. C?/18/"
6 132-00746
STREET LIGHT
CONDUIT RADIUS REQUIREMENTS' NO. CONDUIT REQ'D. @~SIZE OF CONDUIT
REFERENCE RUN NO.~ __ MEMO ~DENOTES CONDUIT RUN CONTINUA llON
FOR CONSTRUCTION INFORf.IATlON
A: The minimum radius for bends ore:
J6• for conduits J" in diameter or m~oller
.ot-8• for conduits 4" and 5" in diameter
6a" for 6" diameter conduit
Applicants expressly represent and warrant that all work
performed and all material used in meeting Applicants'
obligetions herein are free from defects in workmanship
and are in conformity with Southern California Edison
Company's requirements. This warranty shall commence upon
receipt by Applicants of the Company's final ecceptance and
shall expire one yoor from that date. Applicants agree to
promptly correct to the Company's setisfection end that of
any governmental agency heving jurisdiction and et Applicants'
expense any breach of this warranty which may become
apparent through inspection or operation of underground
electric system by the Company during this warranty period.
ANY OF THE ABOVE SYMBOLS *
FOLLOWED BY A -------
DENOTES THE FOLLOWING:
DB CONDUIT v.1THOUT ENCASEMENT IS
ACCEPTABLE FOR PORTIONS OF TRENCH
WITH ONLY ONE OR TWO CONDUITS
SEMI-ENCASEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR
PORTIONS OF TRENCH WITH ONLY
THREE OR FOUR CONDUITS
FULL ENCASEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR
MORE THAN FOUR CONDUITS
o-18: Rev. ~/08/2006
LEGEND CODE DEFINITIONS
Cl -CUSTOMER CONTRACTOR INSTALLED: MATERIALS FURNISHED AND
INSTALLED BY NlPUCANT AT EDISO'l'S EXPENSE AND ARE DEEDED
TO EDISON. (EXCEPTION: STREET LIGHT ELECTROUERS ¥.ill BE
INSTALLED BY EDISON'S CONTRACTOR.)
CO -CliSTOMER COOTRACTffi OWiEO: MATERIALS FURNI9-1EO. INSTAUED.
OY!TIIED. AND ldAINTAINED BY APPLICANT.
CF -CUSTOMER CONTRACffiR FlJRNISHED: MATERIALS FlJRNISHED AND
INSTALLED BY APPLICANT AT APPLICANT'S EXPENSE TI1AT t.IAY BE
DEEDED TO EDISON.
IN -INSTALL: ldATERIALS FURNI9-1ED AND INSTAUED BY APPLICANT IF
APPLICANT INSTALLED PROJECT OR BY EDISON IF EDISON INSTALLED
PROJECT {EXCEPllOO: Fffi AN APPLICANT INSTALLED LINE EXTENSION
STAll(Jj NOS.=:::-c-c=:-:::c-::-=-c:::=-=:::-:c==
HAIJING AN ASTERISK ADJACENT TO AN "IN• LEGEND COOE REPRESENTS
MATERIALS TU BE PRIJIJJDED BY AFflUCANT AND INSTALLED BY EDISON
IN ALL CASES. REFER TO DPB 8258. PROJECT t.IATERIAL UST BY
AS~MBLY WTHIN A STAllON.)
Ml -MEMO INSTALL: SANE AS IN-INSTALL.
MR -MEMO REMOVE: MATERIALS REMOVED BY EDIS()II.
RM -MEMO REUOVED: MATERIALS REMOVED BY EDISON.
Sl -SHOO'lY IN: t.IATERIAI.S FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY EDISON FOR
TEMPORARY COOSTRUCllON.
SR -SHOOFLY REt.rOVE; t.rATERIALS REt.IOVID BY EDISOO FOR TEI.IPOOARY
CONSTRIJCllON.
TR -TRAN~R: EDISON LABOR REQUIRED TO TRANSFER EXISllNG FACILITES.
DY Rev. 11/135
B: The minimum radius for sweeps ore:
36n for conduits 3n in diameter or smaller
12'-6" for conduits 4" i~ diameter and larger,
unless otherwise noted.
TYPICAL CONDUIT BANK SECTION
SEE UGS CD 120
T#/,. /,
" ~ ,.
z ~
"
l ·.·· E E
'L:.o.E .. E• f -BEDDING , ..
073 Rav C9/23/09
SEMI-ENCASE~ENT
3 OR 4 CONDUITS
TYPICAL CONDUIT BANK SECTION
JOINT WITH CATV & TELE
SEE UGS CD 120
GUTTER GRADE
L (i) (i)
3"
t
.. .. A
·~~ ~h c· ,---
SEMI-ENCASEN1ENT
3 OR 4 CONDUITS
BEDDING
TYPICAL CONDUIT SECTION
JOINT WITH CATV & TELE
SEE UGS CD 120
GUTIER GRADE
l I -::;;..,'1>.,_'-'f>'-.. 'f
~ I (NO SCALE) I
::E :rCATV &: TELEPHONE g I ,r (SEE UTILITY PLANS)
II<D<DI
~ I I _f , .. BEDDING
rz>'f?Pnl • 081-J REV Oel/22/09
REQUIRED EASEMENTS:
*PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED UNDER TD929582 (DSR801413385)*
PROPOSED SINGLE LINE:
FBI .DSPAR 16 kV% CREST
N
(/)
0 a..
1.{)
(/)
0 a..
---···---
1/0 JCN
~r--·-·_· -1-0-0: ·J~N • • • --
• •• ----••• ----.,1
•••
• • •
• • •
•
• • •
V5057229
GS3881
123456
r
z
~
~ _..,
• • •
...
• • •
~
.!i!.... ... • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
/-----fCR[sr Rn •
/ : @AR :
... • 0639
:I:
Q. I I
r----11 11----,1.
V [)(Hvf-LI~ P\ /5 = p"
RAR-0639
0SET:480
GRND SET: 1 OA
EXISllNG FACIUllES IN FIELD
FACILillES INSTALLED ON lHIS WORKORDER
'l.l
4471253E
3007606E
' I
336 ACSR
I \ ~~----1---;::::;....::::; ....... ______ __
A
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON l22__. • • ----G---=>~
INTERNAnONAL C<lmpcny
NOT TO SCALE
I
I
X5149702
-------,-
1/~t.
NEW
APN:
UNDERGROUND EASEMENT
7566-015-012
NEW OH/UG EASEMENT (30'X50')J :
APN: 7566-015-012 I
, __ L
---r--OJ .
P/L
C/L
CURB
---
CREST RO E
I
I
I
I ----
I
Ul
0
___ _[__I ____ _.,_ _L-
!~------3 0, ---i•l
DISTRICT IPRQJ_ MGR. BACA IV, JOSEPH PLANNER BACA IV, JOSEPH
44 -SOUTH BAY PHONE .310-78.3-9357 PHONE .310-783-9357
I DESIGNER
PROJECT NO. I SERVICE REQUEST MSR NO. PRODUCT 1
974716 11897530 1121176 -RELOCATE FACILITIES (BILLING)
CIRCUI~~~. VOLTAGE THOMAS GUIDE PRODUCT 2
FELDSPAR 16kV
SUB / PG NO.
CREST
CIRCUIT CODE
06308
PRODUCT 3
I J.P.A. NO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION (LOCATION)
~,---,----,~---,-----,~
IN\IENTORY MAP
f-+---f----+---t----+--13867 CREST RD
f-+---+-----H----+----+---IRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
TYPE DATE APPROVED BY CHECKED BY DRA'ffl\1 BY PAX # SHEET DESIGN\DRWG NO.
Southern California Edison Company 3 OF 3 750700
ASSOC DESGN
ASSOC DESGN
ASSOC DESGN
0.01 D-4
MEMORANDUM
01203.0006/613437.1
TO:Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works
CC:Doug Willmore, City Manager
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
FROM:Elena Q. Gerli, Assistant City Attorney
DATE:November 5, 2019
RE:Crest Road pole relocation
Introduction.
Per your request, here is an analysis of the issues raised relating to the proposed
relocation of Southern California Edison poles located on Crest Road.
Background.
The relocation at issue involves five Southern California Edison (SCE) utility poles
that are currently located on the 3867 Crest Road property, owned by Mr. Funicello. The
SCE polescross the front of Mr. Funicello’s property. Across the streetfromMr.Funicello’s
property, and on the other side of the public right-of-way, is the Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates Community Association (HOA). Mr. Funicello has petitioned SCE to relocate the
five utility poles in the front of his property to the other side of the street, which would put
them on the public right of way adjacent to the HOA, and to personally pay for the
relocation. After receiving the necessary approvals from SCE and the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC), Mr. Funicello sought anencroachmentpermitfromtheCity’s
Public Works Department.
As part of the application for the encroachment permit, Mr. Funicello and his
contractor, CSI Services, supplied the Citywith thedetailsfortherelocation,providedproof
of insurance, and agreed to all the terms and conditions set by the City. The City reviewed
the relocation for compliance with the City’s rules and regulations, as well as with the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. The encroachment permit was issued on May 6,
2019.
On or about June 23, 2019, the contractor started work. However, the contractor
exceeded the scope of the permit, resulting in several mature pine trees being removed.
When the City was notified, Public Works issued a stop-work order, the encroachment
permit was suspended, and all work ceased. The permit has since expired. The contractor
took full responsibility for the errors and has reimbursed the City for the costs in has
incurred. Public Works will be addressing tree replacement with the contractor.
E-1
Crest Road pole relocation
November 5, 2019
Page 2
01203.0006/613437.1
On October 14, 2019, SCE filed a second encroachment permit to conduct the
relocation. The City has not yet approved the second encroachment permit.
City Authority.
The issuesassociatedwith public utilities operating within thepublicrightof wayare
complex, and it is not surprising that some confusion has arisen in this case. However,
what is clear is that the City has very limited authority in this regard – the City is limited to
time, place, and manner regulations of public utility actions in the public right of way. Note
that this is distinct from the City’s authority to regulate the placement of small cell wireless
facilities – statutes and ordinances regulating these are not applicable to this issue.
Broadly speaking, the process goes like this: the utility applies to the CPUC for
approval prior to the construction of electricalinfrastructure.(Pub.Ut.Code§1001,etseq.)
The CPUC reviews the application, and conducts both an analysis of the reliability and
need for the project, aswell as an environmental review. If the CPUC approvestheproject,
it issues a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). The CPCN outlines
the nature of the project, and allows the utility to complete the project in the public right of
way.
The issuance of a CPCN preempts the ability of the City to regulate a CPUC
approved project except for time, place, and manner restrictions. The City’s time, place,
manner regulations of utilities in the public right of way are imposed through the required
encroachment permit process.
In reviewing the encroachment permit application, the City conducts a thorough
review of the project for potential issues such as: traffic concerns which would require a
traffic management plan; engineeringconcernssuchasthepotentialfortheweakeningof a
slope; and any other potential issues which could arise from proposed work. Further, the
application is reviewed to ensure that all required informationanddocumentsareprovided.
Should anyissues arise, staff workswiththeapplicanttoresolvestaff’sconcerns.Thus,the
Citydoes not have the authorityto outright reject a project supportedbya CPCN.Oncethe
application conforms to the City’s requirements, the City’s encroachment permit issues.
SCE Authority.
The CityAttorney’s Office hasanalyzed claimsthat SCE is violating due process by
favoring one ratepayer over another, and that SCE is violating its own rules, includingRule
15, [Distribution Line Extension], Rule 16 [Service Extensions] and Rule 20 [Replacement
of Overhead with Underground Electric Facilities] as well as its own Guidelines for
Transmission in the Right of Way.
In the considered opinion of the CityAttorneynodueprocessviolationhasoccurred.
SCE’s relocation application has proceeded through the same permit application process
that any encroachment permit application would in the City. Encroachment permits are
E-2
Crest Road pole relocation
November 5, 2019
Page 3
01203.0006/613437.1
subject to appeal per Council Policy No. 31 and Section 17.80.030 of the RPVMC,
providing the necessarydue process. As the original permit has expired, and no additional
permit has yet been issued, anyappeal isnot ripe. Intheeventanewencroachmentpermit
application is granted, the appeal provisions would be applicable.
Additionally, the City Attorney’s Office could not determine that any of SCE’s Rules
were violated. The Rules expresslyprovide for this type of relocation:Rule16F.2andRule
15 I.1 address the procedures for the relocation of utility poles at the request of a single
property owner. In any event, it is not within the City’s authority to interpret or enforce
SCE’s rules.
Violation of the wildfire policy.
Another objection that has been raised isthat relocationof thepolesviolateswildfire
policy. The City does have several policies, both within the General Plan and the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code, which seek to limit the risks associated with wildfires.
However, the relocation itself will actuallydecrease the chance of a wildfire: whiletheutility
poles will be placed adjacent to mature pine trees, the utility poles themselves will not be
holding high-voltage wires -- the high-voltage wires would be undergrounded, and only
telephone and cable wires would be overhead. The undergrounding of these high-voltage
wires would reduce the risk of wildfires, making the relocation safer than thecurrentlayout.
Proposed location of the poles.
Finally, the HOA has asserted that the relocation is not occurring within the public
right of way. However, the HOA has not demonstrated that this is the case. Both the City
Attorney’s Office and the City Engineer have reviewed the tract map associated with this
property, and have concluded that the relocation is taking placefirmlywithinthepublicright
of way. It should also be noted that as part of SCE’s due diligence in these matters, they
also very carefully review property records to ensure that the poles are relocated in the
public right of way.
[END OF MEMORANDUM]
E-3
To: Elias Sassoon
Subject: RE : Response to Memorandum dated November 5, 2019 regarding Crest Pole relocation
project
From: Dal e Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com>
Date: Wed , Nov 6, 20 19 at 10:2 6 A M
Subject: Respo nse to Me morandum dated N ovem ber 5 , 20 19 regardin g Cres t Pole re lo cati on proj ec t
To: <egerli@awattorneys .com>, Eli as Sass oo n <esassoon@mvca.gov >
Cc : Kathy Campb ell <kclll@cox.net>
Dear Elena and Elias :
As Elias knows , I am a homeowner in the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA ("RPVE") and have been actively
expressing my concerns relating to the Project. In reviewing the Memorandum captioned above , there are some points
made in the Memorandum which I believe are at best debatable or potentially confusing , and in some cases are
inaccurate or misleading . If this Memorandum is being circulated as the basis for discussion , decision making or action , I
ask that all recipients be notified that there are objections which I believe should be given equal publication . The same
potentially applies if there are other versions of this Memorandum that are circulating.
The most urgent concern , and a point as to which I specifically object to the Memorandum's analysis and conclusions , is
fire safety. The Memorandum states that all high voltage wires and related equipment will be undergrounded, leading to
no increased fire risk from the project. This is directly contrary to statements in the group meeting that we had some
weeks ago in which SCE specified that a cluster of 3 of the 5 poles in question would be placed directly in the midst of the
large grove of trees on or adjacent to RPVE common areas , with high voltage wires running back across Crest to re-
attach to their original grid, that configuration being necessary to the functionality of the new wire configuration . This detail
was not contained in the original application since rescinded , and I can't be more detailed on this point because I have not
been allowed to take copies or even notes with respect to the pending permit application . I do ask , though , why is there a
need for 5 new poles on the south side of Crest if all the wires and equipment are to be underground?
With respect to fire safety, I would also like to ask : Who is providing the analysis that the project leads to an equally safe
or safer configuration versus the current configuration? Elias has assured me and other owners that RPV Public Works
does not provide or review any fire safety analysis . In the group meeting mentioned above SCE said that their Vegetation
Management team becomes involved only after the installation is complete . Certainly , there is no analysis in the prior and
current files -I have repeatedly requested it and been told none exists . How can this be consistent with any rational policy
of any people involved? This is particularly concerning as the RPV City Council have repeatedly targeted fire as RPV 's
number one safety concern.
If any formal fire safety analysis exists , could you please provide me with a copy , or at least identify it so that I may
request it from the source?
With respect to the CPCN and course of events , there are also major errors . The original permit was for 2 poles, not 5. In
other words , for some reason Public Works issued a permit for a "bridge to nowhere". Neither the original file nor the
current file, so far as I have been able to inspect it, contains even a mention of CPUC involvement or a CPCN. If one or
more versions of that document exist with respect to this project, I request the opportunity to inspect it immediately (and I
don't understand why it would not already have been made available in response to my various record requests). I find it
hard to understand how one could be issued given that in 2010 SCE requested and obtained permission of the CPUC to
adopt the policy that undergrounding of high voltage lines and equipment on behalf of a private customer was NOT in the
public interest.
As the Memorandum notes, the Right of Way discussion is complex . I am not convinced that the proposed pole location is
consistent with any existing ROW. I am heartened to understand that Public Works has requested SCE to provide
documentation for their conclusion that this project falls within the geography of the ROW, and within the scope of SCE's
easement/license to use that ROW. I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome of that request.
1 F-1
Other points as to the Memorandum I reserve for later comment, given the speed at which this seems to be moving .
I very much appreciate (and rely on) the advice in the Memorandum that this encroachment permit is appealable once
issued, and request timely notice of its issuance so Ll1al an appeal may be rnade before physical work on the project
begins .
And I wish to close by thanking RPV, its staff, and its contractors for the diligence with which they work at providing
essential services and even handed treatment for all of residents.
Respectfully yours,
Dale A Spiegel Jr
2 Paseo de Pine
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
spiegda@gmail.com
cell phone 1.310.779.4710
2 F-2
ORANGE COUNTY | LOS ANGELES | RIVERSIDE | CENTRAL VALLEY
Elena Q. Gerli
egerli@awattorneys.com
(310) 527-6660
Fax (310) 532-7395
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
P (310) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
AWATTORNEYS.COM
01203.0006/623359.3
January 15, 2020
VIA E-MAIL
Ms. Kathy Campbell
Email: kc111@cox.net
Re: Crest Road pole relocations/public right of way on Crest Road
Dear Ms. Campbell:
This letter is intended to provide you with the City’s determination regarding the Crest
Road public right of way, specifically where the Southern California Edison poles are intended
to be relocated from Mr. Funicello’s property.
Based on the available records, our office could find no basis to believe that the portion
of Crest Road abutting the HOA is a private road. We reviewed all the documents you provided,
in addition to the documents gathered by the Public Works Department, to determine whether or
not the portion of Crest Road abutting the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association
is within the public right-of-way. We have concluded that Tract Map No. 33206 is the
dispositive document in this matter. The Map (Book 930 Pages 54 and 56) shows that then-
property owner Shapell Industries, Inc. abandoned vehicular access and dedicated easements to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes almost all the way around the subdivision along Crest Road.
The relevant portion of dedication appears to be a portion of Lot 82 (Page 56), which was
dedicated to the City “for sanitary sewer, road maintenance, public utilities, storm drain and
storm drain ingress and egress, and public pedestrian access purposes so designated on said map
and all uses incident thereto including the right to make connections therewith from any
adjoining properties.” (Page 53.) That the relevant portion of Crest Road is dedicated to public
right-of-way was confirmed by the City’s own survey of the area.
In any event, the road has been used as public right of way for a long time, at least since
1979. Based on use and the City’s maintenance of the road, a public right of way has also been
created at common law. (Scher v. Burke (2017) 3 Cal.5th 136, 141; Diamond Match Co. v.
Savercool (1933) 218 Cal. 665, 669.)
G-1
Ms. Kathy Campbell
January 15, 2020
Page 2
01203.0006/623359.3
Please let me know if you have further questions regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Elena Q. Gerli
Assistant City Attorney
EQG
cc: Ara M. Mihranian, Interim City Manager
Elias Sasson, Director of Public Works
Bill Wynder, City Attorney
G-2
May 17, 2020
Mr Elias K Sassoon
Director, Department of Public Works
Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr Ara Mihranian
City Manager
Rancho Palos Verdes
VIA EMAIL
Re: Follow Up meeting to discuss objections to Funiciello Project
Gentlemen:
As you know, we have communicated our ongoing concerns regarding this project. We have been
patiently waiting for all the information to become available out of respect for everyone's time, and
have been consistently reassured that a follow up meeting to our November 2019 meeting would take
place.
You have provided us with copies of two letters: 1. A Letter from the City Attorney dated January 15,
2020 and 2. A letter dated March 17, 2020 from the Joint Powers Insurance Authority [the “JPIA letter’]
We have specific disagreements with the assumptions and conclusions in each of those letters that we
wish to address, particularly in light of recent developments.
We are homeowners in the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association [the “HOA”] located at
the intersection of Crest Road and Paseo de Pino. Our comments herein represent our conclusions as
members of the HOA and residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, but are not intended as a formal submission
on behalf of the HOA and are not binding on the HOA.
At your request, we are providing a short summary of our concerns and objections for the purpose of
discussion. We reserve the right to formalize our concerns and objections in the future as proceedings
warrant.
FUNICIELLO PROJECT
As background, the Funiciello project is the request by Mr Funiciello (3867 Crest Road East) that Rancho
Palos Verdes (the “City”) permit Southern California Edison (“SCE”) to relocate 5 utility poles and
associated equipment from his private property on the north side of Crest Road to the HOA private
property on the south side of Crest Road. It is undisputed from all prior conversations, meetings and
correspondence that this project was initiated solely by Mr Funiciello – he is paying for the project and
has engaged SCE as a contractor. There is no suggestion of any public benefit to be provided by SCE to
any other customer or any public need for this project.
On March 3, 2020, the California Public Utilities Commission confirmed that the Funiciello project is not
an SCE project. “We received a response from SCE stating that the project in question was not an SCE
project.” [Letter attached from Mary Appiah of the California Public Utilities Commission staff to Dale
H-1
2
Spiegel.] The Funiciello project does not bear the imprint of CPUC oversight or fall within a certificate of
public need; it is purely a private project over which the CPUC has no jurisdiction. In addition, both SCE
and the City have repeatedly stated that the Funiciello project is not an SCE project. Accordingly, Mr.
Funiciello’s engagement of SCE to act as a private contractor does not confer on the project any
presumption of favorable treatment as a franchise utility nor does it permit SCE any right to use SCE
rights of way or easements provided to public utilities. The City has repeatedly asserted that SCE “can
do what it wants”, but the CPUC has clearly stated that is not the case with respect to the Funiciello
project because SCE is acting solely as a private contractor on this project. This is contrary to the
assumptions in Elena Gerli’s November 5, 2019 memorandum.
EASEMENT ANALYSIS
In a letter dated January 15, 2020, Ms Gerli provided an analysis concluding that the HOA could not
object to the relocation of utility poles and associated equipment onto HOA private property because of
a claimed City right-of-way. We believe this conclusion is unsupported by the facts and the authorities
cited and is wrong.
In the first place, Ms Gerli conceded that there were no formal land records or statutory authority
supporting the claimed right-of-way. The City has also failed to produce any such support in response to
record production requests.
Ms Gerli attempted to infer a right-of-way from the delineation of Crest Road in Map Book filings.
However, those filings are limited only to the road surface and thus cannot be used to support a project
south of the curb on HOA private property. Ms Gerli tries to bolster her conclusion with the argument
that a right-of-way easement is created under common law by use of the roadway. That conclusion also
fails with respect to the Funiciello project – it is elementary easement law that any such easement is
limited (a) to the use claimed (roadway traffic, not utility poles), and (b) the space occupied by the
activity (the road surface from curb to curb, not the private property south of the roadway where the
poles are proposed to be located).
Further, easement law does not permit the beneficiary of an easement to expand that easement by
granting rights to third parties. Any prescriptive easement that the City might have acquired could not
be granted to Mr Funiciello (or to SCE if it were the party in interest).
PUBLIC POLICY
As noted above, we believe the City’s approach has been deferential to the Funiciello project out of the
erroneous belief that SCE was acting in its capacity as a public utility, rather than merely as a private
contractor. It has now been clearly established by the CPUC that this project is a private project of Mr
Funiciello and therefore should be analyzed as such.
The City has a different process for private projects with the City’s right of way. Even if, contrary to our
belief, it were determined that the proposed new location for the poles were to fall within the City’s
right-of-way, that project would create a private obstruction to the right-of-way. Some of our neighbors
on Crest Road recently requested similar incursions into the City’s right-of-way and were required to
abide by the City’s process. We do not understand why the City’s own processes should be ignored for
the Funiciello project.
H-2
3
PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS
The City Council has identified wildfires as its number one safety risk. The issues associated with fire
safety, power lines and equipment located in proximity to trees and other vegetation are well
established. Yet, but for our diligence, Mr Funiciello, SCE and the City all appear content to relocate the
utility poles, wires and related equipment into a grove of mature pine trees without any consideration
of possible consequences. As noted above, the CPUC and SCE have concluded that this is not a utility
project but a private project of Mr Funiciello and thus the burden should fall on him and the City to
establish that a proper safety review takes place. The fact that SCE is acting only as an agent of Mr
Funiciello does not absolve the City from its public safety responsibilities to all the residents of the City
as well as the residents of adjacent cities.
THE JPIA LETTER
We have received a copy of an opinion letter dated March 17, 2020 in which Melaina Francis concludes
that the Funiciello project “presents no new or increased level of risk exposure.” Without debating the
assumptions line by line, we disagree with the conclusion and the assumptions leading to it. For one, she
places strong reliance on SCE’s safety policies even though as noted above the CPUC has agreed with
SCE that it bears no responsibility for safety analysis. She is assuming that Mr Funiciello now faces risks
even though those risks were apparent to him when he purchased the property as well as apparent to
the previous owner when the property was constructed - nothing has changed, except now, Mr
Funiciello wants to improve his property by placing a burden on another private property owner. We
believe that the City should not and cannot rely on this letter, but should make public safety the subject
of a specific hearing with knowledgeable electrical and fire safety experts.
As a final public policy point, Ms Francis’ conclusion regarding safety relies on the policy of SCE to cut
down as many trees as it deems necessary to achieve safety. If the City allows this project to proceed, it
is approving the cutting of trees for a private purpose without a hearing. That is contrary to our
understanding of the City’s official policy requiring a demonstrated need before tree cutting is
approved. Mr Funiciello’s desire to have the poles relocated is not a compelling need.
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE HOA
As a reminder, the HOA owns the property in question as well as the trees belonging to the HOA that
were wantonly destroyed during an unpermitted entry. Those issues will be addressed outside of this
letter. Taking any more trees or property belonging to the HOA requires the proper due process of law
which likewise must be addressed before the Funiciello project can proceed.
We look forward to addressing these and potentially additional points with you in the proper forum.
Kathy Campbell
Kc111@cox.net
Dale Spiegel
spiegda@gmail.com
H-3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
320 WEST 4th STREET, STE 500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
March 03 , 2020
Dale Spiegel
2 Paseo De Pino
Rolling Hills Estates CA 90275
Gavin Newsom, Governor
Subject: Commission File No: 497543 for Complaint with Southern California Edison Company
Dear Mr . Spiegel:
The Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB) of the California Public Utilities Commission has completed its review of
your complaint against Soufnern California Edison Company (SCE). As part of the review, CAB considered
the information that you provided, the information that SCE provided to us about your account and applicable
codes, orders and tariffs.
You indicated in your complaint that you are the director of the HOA in your neighborhood where the rewiring
project is being removed from an open area to an area that is closer to the residential homes. You also indicated
that there was no notification given, hearings held, or safety review made. You just heard construction going on.
You mentioned that SCE have indicated that the project will be completed frrst and then the safety component
will be looked into and the City has pretty much indicated that SCE can do whatever they want as long as they
have the right of way.
We received a response from SCE stating that the project in question was not an SCE project. SCE was
contracted to complete the job with the city 's permiss ion from a private customer. SCE did inform CAB that
you were advised that this is a civil matter and you could contact the city manager, director of public works
and/or city council members regarding your concerns. Please be advised that the CPUC does not have
jurisdiction over easements or right of way. This is handled by the city. If you wish to pursue this matter
further, you may seek legal counsel and/or pursue the matter in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Based on the review of this information, CAB has determined that SCE is not in violation of the rules or
regulations of the Public Utilities Commission. Therefore, we sustain the position ofSCE.
We regret that we cannot be of further assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
£1JOji:
Consumer Affairs Branch
1-800-649-7 57 0
I-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Attention: Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works
March 17, 2020
Dear Elias .
I have reviewed the scope of the project and visited the site. The residential property located at 3867 Crest Road
has an unusually heavy concentration of overhead powerlines, which poses a risk to the residents. Accidental
contact with overhead high-voltage lines can result in serious bodily injury or death, risk of downed powerlines
on this property in the event of a storm, high winds, or other occurrence is also of concern. Undergrounding aids
in fire prevention, improved safety, and the added benefit of undergrounding is the aesthetic quality of the
landscape. The scope of the project to include the placement of the new poles and lines is under the direction of
SCE and all precautions will be taken to prevent any interference with these new poles and powerlines. It is my
understanding that some action (tree removal) has already taken place. SCE adopted the California Public
Utilities Commission's 2017 guidelines that include high fire hazard areas where SCE is trimming 12 feet of
clearance (at the time of trim) from a power line to ensure the minimum required clearance is never threatened.
Additionally, SCE has a Vegetation Management Program, which covers the following: Vegetation management
is a broad term that describes work Southern California Edison does to minimize the impact trees and vegetation
have on providing safe and reliable electric service. It includes hazard tree assessments, tree pruning and
remova l, brush removal and weed abatement.
It is my professional opinion that the undergrounding portion of this project, which entails removing four power
poles and approximately 270ft of overhead lines, will result in a safer environment. Undergrounding is a safer
alternative than the current powerline configuration for the residents at 3867 Crest Road and surrounding
properties, it will be more aesthetically pleasing, and allow the property owner to fully utilize this portion of
their parcel. The additional phase of the project that includes the relocation of powerlines, and installation of
three new poles to the opposite side of Crest Road in the city's right-of-way, consists of roughly 30' of
powerlines that will reconnect to existing power and presents no new or increased level of risk exposure .
Melaina Francis
Senior Risk Manager
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
8081 Moody Street, La Palma, CA 90623
mfra ncis@cjp ia .org
Enclosures
J-1
J-2
~~l SOUT HER N CA LIF ORNIA
EDISON ® ~ UNDERGROUNDING
En ergy f o r W h at 's Ah ead ® UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS
Faced with the threat of more frequent and catastrophic wildfires, California is implementing additional steps to
make critical infrastructure more resilient. Southern California Edison continues t o strengthen its electric grid.
INSULATED WIRES
SCE is implementing a variety of innovative tools, technologies and practices to further protect customers and communities
from the growing risks of wildfires. One of the most effective ways to make the grid more resilient in high fire risk areas is
the use of insulated wires, also known as covered conductors. While bare wire has been the traditional design standard for
overhead power lines, insulated wire effectively and significantly redu ces the possibilities of objects contacting these lines and
starting a wildfire. SCE is prioritizing the use of insulated wire on its overhead lines in high fire risk areas.
UNDERGROUNDING
SCE is also considering undergrounding where appropriate as an additional risk mitigation measure. Underground systems
can help reduce the risk of wildfires and increase reliability during high winds and storms by reducing the exposure of electrical
infrastructure to extreme weather conditions. However, underground power lines take much longer to construct, are more
costly and are more difficult to maintain and repair -particularly in mountainous and rocky terrain. In addition, commun iti es
may st ill have poles and wires serving the telecommunications industry regardless of power lines being undergrounded.
Be nefits
Can reduce frequency of
outages during storms
Can reduce risk of
wildfires caused by
electrical infrastructure
Can improve
neighborhood aesthetics
Can present fewer
hazards for wildl ife
REG ULATI ON
Drawbacks
Cannot be visually inspected
Require longer service interruptions
to perform repairs and maintenance
Can take much more time to
install due largely to permitting
and construct ion (e.g . traffic/road
closures, trenching, enclosure
construction, cable pulling and road
resurfacing r equirements)
Cost: -$3 million per mile
(-$430,000 pe r mile for covered
conductor), wh ich will lead to higher
customer rates
SCE and the other state investor-owned utilities are participating in a California Public Utilities Commission proceeding looking
at the regulations governing undergrounding, known as Rule 20. The proceeding is looking at when and how cities and
unincorporated areas of counties can request undergrounding, including in high fire risk areas. When undergrounding takes
place under Rule 20, the bulk of the costs associated with such undergrounding work is paid by ratepayers. Cities and counties
interested in undergrounding can participate in the CPUC Rule 20 proceeding to share their perspectives. SCE has notified cities
and counties in its service area of the current CPUC proceeding.
Updated: 2/14/2019
J-3
SCE TRIMS TREES TO KEEP YOU SAFE
Energy for What's Ahead 41
SCE trims trees near
power lines as a free
service to customers to
keep the public safe.
Trees will be trimmed
to create a minimum
12-foot clearance
from a power line at
the time of trim.
DID YOU KNOW? SCE inspects 900,000 trees every year, 400,000 in high fire risk areas
HOW WILL I KNOW IF MY TREE IS BEING TRIMMED?
A door hanger w i l l
be posted 30-45 days
prior to trimming
A second door hanger
will be posted 24-48
hours before trimming.
Customers will
be co ntacted in
perso n if heavy
pruning or
t r ee removal
is required.
For more information, visit SCE.com/safety/power-lines
or call 800-655-4555
WHO CAN I CALL?
The door hanger
will list a contact
number to call
to discuss the
tree trimming
plan for your
property.
Upd at ed: 5/3/2019
J-4
ORANGE COUNTY | LOS ANGELES | RIVERSIDE | CENTRAL VALLEY
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(310) 527-6667
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
P (310) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
AWATTORNEYS.COM
01203.0006/648749.2
May 29, 2020
SENT VIA E-MAIL kc111@cox.net; spiegda@gmail.com ONLY
Ms. Kathy Campbell & Mr. Dale Spiegel
Subject: Your Joint Crest Road Pole Relocation/May 17, 2020 Letter
Dear Ms. Campbell & Mr. Spiegel:
It was a pleasure meeting with you both (“virtually”) and Elias Sassoon, the Public Works
Director, during our recent Zoom meeting. As promised I have now carefully reviewed your letter
dated May 17, 2020, articulating your concerns and “objections” to the issuance of the encroachment
permit for the relocation of Southern California Edison poles from 3867 Crest Road to the public right-
of-way across the street and abutting your property. As also promised, I approached my review with a
“fresh set of eyes” in an effort to better understand the issues and respective position of City staff and
your position(s).
Let me begin by addressing the nature of and scope of the City’s right-of-way (“whose property
is this any way”). I understand that your position is that the power poles are going to be relocated in
and upon “Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association” property. I spoke with the Assistant
City Attorney about this subject, and she has provided me with the various documents we received
from you for my review.
Following my independent review of these documents, it is my considered opinion that Tract
Map No. 332061 is the dispositive instrument in resolving and delineating the right-of-way issue(s).
The Map (at Book 930, Pages 54 and 56) identifies that then-property owner Shapell Industries, Inc.
abandoned vehicular access and dedicated easements to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes almost all
the way around the subdivision along Crest Road.
The relevant language of dedication appears at Lot 82 (Page 56), which dedicates to the City
such land as is described in the instrument to be used “for sanitary sewer, road maintenance, public
utilities, storm drain and storm drain ingress and egress, and public pedestrian access purposes so
designated on said map and all uses incident thereto including the right to make connections
therewith from any adjoining properties.” (Page 53; emphasis added.) Moreover, the City undertook
its own survey which confirmed that the relevant portion of Crest Road for which the encroachment
easement is sought is dedicated as a City public right-of-way and is not “your” property.2
The language of this dedication is very clear and specific. The City has the legal authority to
authorize “connections” of “public utilities” from any “adjoining property” (not merely abutting
property like yours, but adjoining property including private property) that are “incidental” to the
1 Attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2 Attached as Exhibit B.
K-1
May 29, 2020
Page 2
01203.0006/648749.2
City’s use and enjoyment of the right-of-way. From my reading of the dedication, there is no need for
the Public Utilities Commission to be a party to the permit issuance, nor is the letter you have provided
to us relevant to the scope of the City’s right-of-way interest.
To his credit, the Public Works Director went a step further in his consideration of whether the
City was authorized to issue an encroachment permit. He wanted to be assured that issuing such a
permit would not present a risk of liability to the City or a risk of danger to your abutting properties.3
For that reason, he reached out to the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency. CJPIA is the risk
pooling joint powers authority that, among other services, “proactively help[s] members prevent
losses” (see the link at https://cjpia.org/risk-management/risk-control-services/).
The City and its risk manager have analyzed the proposed pole and power line relocations
involved in determining whether it would be appropriate to issue the requested encroachment permit
to assure safety and to mitigate risk. The documents I have reviewed (the plans, the CPUC letter, and
the letter from the CJPIA) satisfies me that the applicant for such a permit and the City have met their
burden to demonstrate that the proposed plan is will result in a safer physical environment overall.
The CJPIA specifically reviewed the plans, and has determined that the undergrounding of 270
feet of high voltage lines will result in a safer environment; and that the roughly 30 feet of overhead
powerlines, which will reconnect to existing power lines, will not result in an increased risk.4 The
replacement poles and new transformer will be located within the public right-of-way.5 The work to
be done will be required to comply with the CPUC’s guidelines of at least 12 feet of clearance from
power lines.
As of the writing of this letter, no application has yet been submitted for issuance of the
encroachment permit. However, I am advised that such an application will likely be submitted soon.
Respectfully, I am of the considered legal opinion that City public works staff will be legally entitled
to issue such permit.
However, no permit will be issued sooner than 14 days following the date of this letter so that
your association can take such action as it deems appropriate to protect and assert you claimed legal
3 He did this notwithstanding the broad immunity cities enjoy under Government Code § 818.4.
4 Attached as Exhibit C.
5 Draft plan, and technical plans from prior permit, attached as Exhibits D & E.
K-2
May 29, 2020
Page 3
01203.0006/648749.2
rights. While I acknowledge this letter will come as a disappointment to you, I trust that you will at
least understand the rationale for the legal opinion(s) expressed herein.
Very truly yours,
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Attachments
cc: (w/attachments via e-mail only)
Ara M. Mihranian, AICP,
City Manager
Elias Sassoon, MS CPA,
Director of Public Works
Elena Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
K-3
May 29, 2020
Page 4
01203.0006/648749.2
EXHIBIT A
TRACT MAP 33206
K-4
May 29, 2020
Page 5
01203.0006/648749.2
EXHIBIT B
SURVEY
K-5
May 29, 2020
Page 6
01203.0006/648749.2
EXHIBIT C
LETTER FROM CJPIA
K-6
May 29, 2020
Page 7
01203.0006/648749.2
EXHIBIT D
DRAFT POLE RELOCATION PLAN
K-7
May 29, 2020
Page 8
01203.0006/648749.2
EXHIBIT E
TECHNICAL PLANS FROM PRIOR PERMIT APPLICATION
K-8
ORANGE COUNTY | LOS ANGELES | RIVERSIDE | CENTRAL VALLEY
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(310) 527-6667
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
P (310) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
AWATTORNEYS.COM
01203.0006/649803.2
June 1, 2020
SENT VIA E-MAIL kc111@cox.net; spiegda@gmail.com ONLY
Ms. Kathy Campbell & Mr. Dale Spiegel
Subject: Addendum to My Letter to Both of You
Dear Ms. Campbell & Mr. Spiegel:
In my letter to you of May 29, 2020, I represented that “[a]s of the writing of this letter, no
application has yet been submitted for issuance of the encroachment permit.” I am following up
because my representation to you turns out to be inaccurate. I had misunderstood the status of the
encroachment permit application.
After further investigation, as it turns out two permit applications have been submitted for the
pole relocation, one in May 2019 and the second in October 2019. The City issued a permit for the first
application, but then issued a stop work order because of the unpermitted tree removal on Crest Road.
That permit subsequently has expired. The application submitted in October 2019 is still pending, but
at this time staff have deemed the same to be incomplete.
So, in the interest of full disclosure, attached are the most current “technical” elements of the
October 2019 encroachment permit application for your review. My apologies for providing you with
“dated” technical drawings.
Very truly yours,
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Attachments
cc: (w/attachments via e-mail only)
Ara M. Mihranian, AICP,
City Manager
Elias Sassoon, MS MBA,
Director of Public Works
Elena Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
L-1
June 1, 2020
Page 2
01203.0006/649803.2
RIOR PERMIT APPLICATION
L-2
June 11, 2020
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Mr. Elias K Sassoon
Director, Department of Public Works
Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275
Mr. Ara Mihranian
City Manager
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUED
Dear Elias and Ara:
We have received and reviewed Mr. Wynder’s letters of May 29 and June 1, and respectfully disagree
with the conclusions and analysis.
The City appears to be willing to grant the permit referenced in those letters even though it violates
several state and local laws, regulations and policies. More significantly, the aboveground poles endanger
the people and property of the HOA and the neighboring community, which includes the City of Rolling
Hills.
Our position is that the City does not have the authority to issue this permit. If the City issues this permit
after the many numerous irregularities and violations that have been documented in real time, this letter
will serve as Notice of Appeal and we respectfully appeal that decision and request to appear before the
City Council at the first available opportunity. The City has represented that no further action will be
permitted under this project until the Appeal process has been completed.
I.The City does not have the authority to issue this permit in violation of Public Utilities Code
Section 1001 et. seq.
The Nov 5 public memo suggests that the City has no discretionary authority because the applicant has
already been through the CPUC process for obtaining a public certificate of need (“CPCN.”) This is not
the case. The CPCN process, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sec. 1001 is required any time a utility
undertakes a public project to extend an electrical distribution system. The process involves an
environmental review, opportunity for public comment, an evidentiary hearing, and a decision by a
neutral administrative law judge that the proposed project has a compelling public need.
The memo suggests that where the CPUC has gone through such a rigorous analysis of a project, there is
little need for the City to repeat the process. Here, however, the applicant has not been through the CPCN
because SCE does not consider this a “public” project and has not gone through the rigorous requirements
of Section 1001. The CPUC itself has issued a letter stating that the project is not a public project.
According to the CPUC, this is a “private” rather than a “public” project. This means SCE is not acting in
its capacity as a regulated public utility but only as a private contractor representing a private party. In
M-1
Mr. Elias K Sassoon
Mr. Ara Mihranian
June 11, 2020
Page 2
these circumstances, the City must critically examine the project to make sure it is safe. This project
threatens the safety not only of the HOA residents, but the residents of Rolling Hills as well.
SCE has not established any compelling need for aboveground poles. Low-voltage distribution lines, as
well as transformers, necessary to step down the voltage from high-voltage to usable voltage, will be
mounted on the poles-The only reason to move the poles is to keep the transformers and distribution
lines aboveground.These overhead lines have many associated safety risks. For example, they create
fire dangers. A pole transformer can explode and spew hot oil (used as transformer insulation) all over the
nearby trees.There have already been two transformer explosions in this very area in the last five
years.
We do not know whether the City, by granting the encroachment permit and intentionally sidestepping the
requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 1001 without any safety or environmental review,could be
held liable in the event of a fire initiated in this manner.
We will address Mr. Wynder’s letter at the conclusion of this letter. Due to time constraints, we will be
brief.
II.Public Works does not have the authority to issue this permit.
As stated above, it is well documented that the CPUC, City, and Edison unanimously agree that this is not
a public project. Moreover, this PRIVATE project involves relocation between two separate easements-
from an Edison easement on private property to a CITY easement for public use on a different property.
III.The Permit Application violates well established easement law.
Issuance of the encroachment permit also violates well-established easement law. SCE, the current
applicant, has not explained why this is a private project yet it involves two separate easements.
Moreover, once poles and an easement have been fixed, they may not be moved even within the same
easement, if it burdens the servient tenement. Here, SCE wants to move poles from one easement
(Funiciello/SCE)to another (HOA/The City), even though it will burden the HOA tremendously.
Furthermore, easement law does not permit the beneficiary of an easement to expand that easement by
granting rights to third parties. Mr. Funiciello does not have the right to use an easement provided to
public utilities for public use, and SCE cannot grant any of its public utility easement rights to Mr.
Funiciello for a private project.
Defects in the Final Design Plan
The Final Design Plan attached to Mr. Wynder’s June 1 letter specifies in the
“Note to Customer” Page 2, that “all duct work and trenching is responsibility
of REQUESTING PARTY” …and that… “Prior to Scheduling-ALL
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES MUST BE INSTALLED”.
M-2
Mr. Elias K Sassoon
Mr. Ara Mihranian
June 11, 2020
Page 3
Under the Box labeled “CONNECTING TO EXISTING SCE STRUCTURES” on Page 2 of the Final
Design Plan, please note the following:
THERE ARE NO EXISTING SCE STRUCTURES IN THE EASEMENT [installation of
the structures will unreasonably increase the burden on the HOA].
Per CPUC/SCE Rules…. The customer will provide all necessary excavations, material
and encasement” [ Customer-Funiciello –Can’t do this without his own EASEMENT,
which he does not have].
“Customer responsible for all excavations” [Customer-Funiciello-does not have an
easement and can’t enter the HOA property]
SCE has not indicated how these requirements can be met without an easement from the HOA to Mr.
Funiciello. SCE’s own rules-Rules 15 [Distribution Line Extensions] and 16 [Service Extensions],
explicitly referenced in the Applicant’s Final Design, Page 2, do not permit this work to be done.
Customer driven service requests will only be granted for new construction or changes in use or
occupancy, neither of which are applicable to this case. [This customer driven project does not Rules 15
and 16 explicitly recognize the right of local authorities to regulate extensions into the public right of
way.
IV.The Right to Appeal
The Nov 5 memo explicitly concluded that no due process rights were violated because the HOA would
have the right to appeal. The City has repeatedly represented that this right to appeal would be
recognized, and the City has been explicitly advised that the HOA and its residents were relying on those
representations in order to allow process to proceed in good faith.
In addition, the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides for the right of appeal to the city council
by any person aggrieved by an act of determination of the director of public works and that the city
council decision, after public hearing, shall be final and conclusive.
Process exists to protect the citizenry. From the beginning, there has never been ANY notice of this
project, and the affected citizens have never been afforded the right to be heard.
V.City Attorney Letter
As to Mr. Wynder’s May 29 letter, we respectfully disagree with his analysis and conclusions. Not only
does the letter fail to address the fact that this project involves two separate easements on two separate
properties, the analysis jumps back and forth between easement and right of way.
The language of dedication for PUBLIC UTILITIES excerpted by Mr. Wynder is expressly for PUBLIC
USE and conditional upon Crest Road being used as a public street. Further, the excerpted dedication
language omits the following language which follows: “…We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho
M-3
Mr. Elias K Sassoon
Mr. Ara Mihranian
June 11, 2020
Page 4
Palos Verdes the right to prohibit the construction of structures except for parking or recreational
facilities and appurtenances….” Finally, the City further certifies that “Except as shown on a cop y of
this map on file in the office of the superintendent of streets we know of no easement or structure existing
within the easements herein offered for dedication to the public, other than publicly owned water lines,
sewers or storm drains,that we will grant no right or interest within the boundaries of said easements
offered to the public, except where such right or interest is expressly made subject to the said
easements”[notably, Edison is not mentioned].
The May 29 letter attached a survey as Exhibit B, date stamped 2012, which shows that the relevant
portion of Crest Road is a private street of variable width, and that the south western portion of Crest
Road past Paseo de Pino is a PRIVATE street,50’ wide. The LACA Map No. 51 attached to the Tract
Map attached as Exhibit A [last page, Page 7558], also shows that Crest Road is a private street. The
purported existing Right of Way indicated in the Exhibit B survey goes right up to the front door of the
Funiciello residence.
VI.Destruction of HOA Trees
We will not be addressing the legal issues surrounding the wanton and unpermitted destruction of the
HOA’s four old growth pine trees, and expressly reserve all rights relating to that issue, which we address
at a later date.
VII.Request
The City should not issue this encroachment permit because of the numerous documented irregularities
and failure to follow process under applicable federal and state laws, City ordinances and Edison's own
rules and guidelines. The City’s argument appears to be that it ca n ignore explicit language restricting
usage to public use for public benefit. The City appears to believe that it can make its own determination
that the letter from the CJPIA is a valid substitute for the compelling public interest finding, mandatory
safety review, and notice required by Public Utilities Code section 1001 et. seq.
The City owes a duty to ALL of its residents to follow and apply the law impartially.
The residents and HOA have been upfront and transparent about all of our concerns and have provided all
of the relevant information and research to the City in good faith for nearly a year. Nevertheless, The
City has persisted in allowing the process to proceed despite the documented irregularities in the
permitting process and the factual errors that formed the basis of the legal rationale and opinions behind
which the City now seeks comfort.
The project should be permanently shut down since this project violated (and continues to violate) the
City’s laws from the outset. The City owes a duty to all of its residents to follow and apply the law
impartially. The residents and HOA have been upfront and transparent about all of our concerns and have
provided all of the relevant information and research to the City in good faith.
M-4
Mr. Elias K Sassoon
Mr. Ara Mihranian
June 11, 2020
Page 5
This letter is not intended to be a complete assertion of the HOA’s rights, all of which are expressly
reserved.
Very truly yours,
Kathy Campbell
Dale Spiegel
CC: Mr. William Wynder, Aleshire and Wynder
M-5
ORANGE COUNTY | LOS ANGELES | RIVERSIDE | CENTRAL VALLEY
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(310) 527-6667
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
P (310) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
AWATTORNEYS.COM
01203.0006/652062.3
June 15, 2020
SENT VIA E-MAIL kc111@cox.net; spiegda@gmail.com ONLY
Ms. Kathy Campbell & Mr. Dale Spiegel
Subject: Your Letter of June 11, 2020
Dear Ms. Campbell & Mr. Spiegel:
Your letter of June 11, 2020, directed to the City Manager and the Director of Public
Works, has been referred to me, again, for a response. I have carefully reviewed your objections
to the issuance of an encroachment permit, but as I explain further below, I find no express
limitation on the City’s existing authority to grant an encroachment permit nor will our office
object to the issuance of the same.
City’s Authority to Grant the Encroachment Permit
As we previously discussed, the proposed work is to be completed within the public right-
of-way, within an easement owned solely by the City. The City was granted this easement as part
of the development of the surrounding area, and the grant of the easement is clearly delineated in
the Tract Map. You have already been afforded our legal interpretation of the scope of the
easement and I will not repeat that here.
While it is true that the grant of easement authorizes the City “to prohibit the construction
of structures except for parking or recreational facilities and appurtenances,” the City complied
with its own policies and conducted a thorough review of the planned work in order to ensure the
same will not pose a health and safety risk (and staff concluded that the work to be done on these
public utilities will actually improve fire safety because of the undergrounding to be performed).
The application was submitted with a set of plans, which staff reviewed to ensure that the
plans were conducted in an appropriately safe manner. In this instance, the City took the additional
step of seeking further review by its risk manager, the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency
(“CJPIA”). Based on both City staff’s and CJPIA’s review, the applicant has met their burden to
demonstrate that the proposed plan will result in a safer physical environment overall.
Pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the
City has determined that the project is a minor alteration of existing public or private structures,
facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, and therefore no environmental review
is necessary. Further, the City is not obligated to determine SCE’s compliance with its own rules
and regulations, nor is the City required to follow SCE’s rules and regulations.
N-1
Ms. Kathy Campbell & Mr. Dale Spiegal
June 15, 2020
Page 2
01203.0006/652062.3
The City has plenary authority to approve/disapprove the encroachment permit.
Notwithstanding this broad grant of authority, the City has proceeded cautiously, carefully, and
only after staff was assured that the proposed construction would enhance overall safety.
Compliance with CPUC Rules and Regulations
One of your objections is that the City is not in compliance with Public Utility Code
regulations because it has not completed a public certificate of need (“CPCN”) for the proposed
work. A CPCN is granted to public utilities, and allows the public utility to operate within a ci ty
or county’s public right of way in order to construct or expand large public utility projects. The
provisions of CPUC §§ 1001 et seq. are not applicable to the City for work occurring in its right-
of-way.
Easement Law does not Restrict the City’s Granting of the Encroachment Permit
You suggest that easement law restricts the ability of the City to grant this encroachment
permit. Specifically, if I understand your argument correctly, you suggest that the performance of
the work by a private citizen conflicts with the public nature of the easement. This is a
misunderstanding of the nature of the proposed work. While Mr. Funicello is a private individual,
the work he is responsible for completing is to relocate public utilities.
He is not constructing any personal or private structures on the easement, nor is he being
given any legal “right or interest” in the easement. Your quotation of certain representations made
by the donor of the easement that “we [not the City] know of no easement or structure existing
within the easements herein offered for dedication to the public, other than publicly owned water
lines, sewers or storm drains, that we [not the City] will grant no right or interest within the
boundaries of said easements offered to the public, except where such right or interest is expressly
made subject to the said easements” is also of no legal import.
First, this language is not a limitation on the City’s authority to approve encroachment
permits but rather a representation by the donor that no other legal interests have been granted in
the easement property other than those listed in the Tract Map nor will any such “rights or
interests” be granted. Second, and more important, a temporary encroachment permit does not
constitute a “right or interest” in the easement property.
Rather, the permit authorizes the holder to gain temporary access to the easement area
necessary to construct a given project. The work is to relocate public utility poles, and does not
conflict with the City’s existing easement. Therefore, the proposed work does not conflict with
existing easement law.
/ / /
/ / /
N-2
Ms. Kathy Campbell & Mr. Dale Spiegal
June 15, 2020
Page 3
01203.0006/652062.3
While there continues to be disagreement between the City and yourselves I trust that you
understand that the City places the health and safety of its citizens as its highest priority. The
actions taken by the City in relation to the encroachment permit has been directly in line with that
priority.
Very truly yours,
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Copies: (via e-mail only)
Ara M. Mihranian, AICP,
City Manager
Elias Sassoon, MS, MBA,
Director of Public Works
Elena Gerli, Esq.,
Assistant City Attorney
N-3
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4