CC SR 20201104 04 - Crest Road Utility Pole Re-Location
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/04/2020
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a status report on relocating certain utility
poles at 3867 Crest Road.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a status report on 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.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Ken Rukavina, PE, Director of Community Development
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Revised Project Plans (see Attachment F)
B. Original Project Plans (see Attachment F)
C. Crown Castle Plans (see Attachment F)
D. July 21, 2020 City Council staff report (available at:
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3704&meta_id=
84716 )
E. August 18, 2020 City Council staff report (available at
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3715&meta_id=
85594)
F. October 20, 2020 City Council staff report (available at
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3749&meta_id=
87308)
G. Portions of Tract Map 33206 (page G-1)
H. SCE Costs to Underground based on original Design (page H-1)
I. SCE Costs for Revised Design Presented on October 20 (page I-1)
J. CSI Cost Estimate to Expand Undergrounding between Funicello’s property
and the Roadway (page J-1)
1
K. CSI Cost Estimate to Prepare Undergrounding of Telecommunication Utilities
(page K-1)
L. Public Correspondence (page L-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On July 21, 2020, the City Council received a report regarding the pending issuance of an
encroachment permit by the Public Works Director to allow the relocation of certain
Southern California Edison (SCE) utility poles and transmission lines from the property at
3867 Crest Road to across the street within City right-of-way (Crest Road).
At that time, the proposed project (Attachment B) consisted 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 were to be
relocated by SCE.
These three poles were to be within 15 feet of each other and relocated in proximity to the
HOA entrance, but with appropriate tree clearance. The two remaining poles were to be
relocated by the Applicants’ contractor further to the west. All transformers were to remain
on the Applicants’ property side and no new transformer to be added to any of the
relocated poles. The automatic re-closure switching equipment was to be installed by SCE
on the middle pole of three of the five relocated poles.
At the July 21 meeting, the issues outlined in the staff report were presented by Staff and
discussed by the City Council, with input received from the property owners, the public and
SCE (see link to the July 21, 2020 City Council Staff Report). During its presentation, Staff
noted, and as confirmed by the City Attorney, that it is the Public Works Director who is
charged with the authority to issue encroachment permits for such work per § 12.04.030 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). It was also noted that the City Council
had requested a public discussion of the issues with all stakeholders being encouraged to
present their issues, concerns, and perspectives publicly.
The discussion that ensued included expressions of concern related to safety, the current
state of the existing SCE poles, SCE’s response to the community’s questions, discussion
of possible funding participation, and whether the RPVMC should be modified to address
the scope of City Council oversight of encroachment permits involving power pole
relocations. At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Council voted to continue this item
to a future meeting no later than August 18, 2020 to allow Staff and the interested parties to
confer one more time and to engage SCE to become a partner in the project for the
betterment of the City, residents and SCE.
On August 18, the City Council received a status report informing them that on August 6, a
meeting with the stakeholders was held to discuss specific issues raised by the City
Council and to clarify objectives of the property owners (the Funicellos) and the Rancho
Palos Verdes Estates Community Association (HOA). With the general consensus of the
stakeholders, the City Council agreed to continue the matter to no later than October 20,
2020 to explore other feasible alternatives for the proposed utility pole relocation project.
2
On October 20, the City Council received a status report presenting a summary of design
changes to relocate five SCE poles and undergrounding approximately 380 feet of high -
voltage transmission lines, leaving only 65 feet of high-voltage transmission lines above
ground crossing Crest Road to one new pole on the south side of Crest Road and
eliminated two SCE poles and the switching equipment west of Paseo Del Pinto. However,
it was also noted that this did not eliminate the 16-kilovolt lines crossing to the south side of
Crest Road, nor the need for the two additional utility communication poles on the south
side of the street to accommodate Crown Castle, Cox Communications, and Frontier.
The following four key issues were raised during the October 20 City Council meeting:
1. Can the utilities be undergrounded beginning on the Funicello property, including the
communication lines, in order to eliminate poles on the south side of Crest Road;
2. What are the costs including to underground the project;
3. Disposition of right-of-way; and
4. Authority of the Public Works Director to issue an encroachment permit for this work.
These four issues are further elaborated below.
1. Undergrounding Beginning at the Funicello Property
During the City Council meeting, the HOA reiterated their desire that the SCE lines be
undergrounded from the north side of the street in order to mitigate fire risks from
having 16 kilovolt lines extending closer to HOA properties adjacent to the south side of
the street. This matter was not able to be resolved during the City Council meeting and
was partly the basis for continuing the item to this evening.
A meeting was held between the Funicellos, a neighboring property owner, the HOA,
SCE, Crown Castle and staff on October 26 to discuss the feasibility of beginning the
SCE undergrounding on the Funicello property. SCE stated that in concept this is a
potential solution, but would require the placement of a pole on the Funicello property to
be used as the drop location due to needed clearance from the primary pole supporting
a transformer and the transmission lines coming up the hill.
The Funicellos appeared to be amenable to this design alternative if this pole can be
placed at the far northeast corner of their property; however, trees and guy wire
supports may be a limiting factor. Further, beginning the SCE undergrounding on the
Funicello property may mean that some of the SCE conduit previously installed may be
a “throw-away” cost item. There was no resolution on this matter as it was determined
that a field meeting with all parties is needed to further discuss potential locations for
this new pole and SCE will need to perform additional engineering analysis .
Furthermore, additional costs associated with supplementary SCE engineering as well
as for extending the extent of the underground construction needed to be estimated in
coordination with licensed contractors. Additionally, unresolved at this meeting was who
would bear the added cost for the increased undergrounding, which is discussed under
Discussion Point No. 2 below.
Crown Castle confirmed that the communication conduits can be placed underground,
and that the costs for this work would depend on whether the conduits are placed in a
3
joint trench with SCE, or placed in their own trench either under the street pavement or
within the turf in the existing easement in the Funicello’s front yard. If the
communication lines are placed underground, the Funicillo’s would like the conduit to be
placed in the street. Again, unresolved at this meeting was who would bear the added
cost for undergrounding the telecommunication utilities which include Crown Castle,
Cox Communication, and Frontier.
2. Costs
At the October 20 meeting, a member of the HOA Board indicated that there may
interest in providing funds to fully underground both the SCE and communication lines,
but no commitments have been or can be made by the HOA at this time. The HOA’s
willingness to contribute depends on whether or not there are poles ultimately placed on
the south side of Crest Road and what the total magnitude of costs w ill be. Full HOA
financial support cannot be garnered or committed without conducting a legally noticed
HOA Board meeting where all HOA members are notified and allowed an opportunity to
vote, which has not yet occurred.
In response, the City Council requested that the Funicellos share the undergrounding
costs with City Staff and the HOA. As requested, Mr. Funicello provided costs for the
following:
• SCE Costs to Underground based on original Design (Attachment H) - SCE costs
to the Funicello’s for the original design and construction, plus the costs to
develop the re-engineered plans totals $453,464.96 (Attachment H). This cost
excludes communication line relocation design and construction costs that will be
charged by Crown Castle and other utilities, and excludes the retaining wall and
building pad required by SCE for above-ground equipment.
• SCE Costs for Revised Design Presented on October 20 (Attachment I) – SCE
costs for the design presented to the City Council at the October 20 meeting is
approximately $340,000 which includes the design cost, of which the Funicello’s
have paid approximately $320,000 to SCE (the remaining balance is
approximately $20,000).
The Funicellos are in the process of obtaining costs from licensed contractors to
perform the additional undergrounding described in No. 1 including undergrounding the
telecommunication utilities. At this time, the Funicellos have provided a cost estimate
from one contractor, CSI Services, in the amount of $90,200 (Attachment J). The scope
of work includes traffic control, undergrounding raceway for SCE, street trench,
installing pipe, backfill, asphalt patch work, and permits. Additionally, CSI Services
provided a separate cost estimate, in the amount of $12,700, to prepare the trench f or
the undergrounding of telecommunication utilities (Attachment K). As reported at the
October 20 meeting, the utility companies will assess costs to insert the lines. Crown
Castle indicated a cost of approximately $25,000 (outstanding cost estimates from Cox
Communication and Frontier are pending but are anticipated to be approximately the
same cost as Crown Castle).
4
The Funicellos are in the process of obtaining two addition cost estimated from licensed
contractors which will be provided to the City Council and the public as late
correspondence in advance of the November 4 meeting.
3. Disposition of Right-of-Way
As stated in previous staff reports, the City Attorney’s office has opined that the south
side of Crest Road west of Paseo Del Pinto is public right-of-way. Notes Page 1 of
Tract Map No. 33206 clearly delineate the scope of the City’s legal interest in Crest
Road adjacent to the HOA’s tract.
Attachment “G” includes enlarged portions of the Tract Map No. 33206, which
delineates the scope of the City’s legal interest in Crest Road adjacent to the HOA’s
tract. We call your attention to the first, second and third sentences in the dedication by
the Developer.
Sentence one certifies that the Developer is the owner of the real property within the
subdivision which is thereafter detailed on the various pages of the Tract Map.
(Attachment “G,” Los Angeles County Recorders Book 930, page 53.)
Sentence two provides that the developer dedicates to the City a strip of land “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.” This area runs along the interior portion of the Tract boundary.
(Attachment “G,” Los Angeles County Recorders Book 930, pages 53-54 & 56;
emphasis added.)
Sentence three confirms that the developer acknowledges “[a]s a dedication to public
use . . . all of Crest Road within or adjacent to this subdivision remains a public street,
we hereby abandon all rights of direct vehicular ingress and egress from abutting lots to
the said street.” (Attachment “G,” Los Angeles Recorders County Book 930, pages 53-
54 & 56; emphasis added.) This sentence acknowledges that Crest Road was a public
street prior to this dedication and confirms that Crest Road continues to be a public
street after the dedication.
Public rights-of-way are exclusive meaning the City has exclusive control of the road
and the underlying fee owner may not control the use of the land. The rule is that a City
has the right to use of a dedicated street and this right is paramount to the rights of
abutting owners regardless of whether they own the fee to the c enter of the street or
not.
Accordingly, unless vacated, the underlying owner does not have any rights other than
as an abutter meaning the owner has a right to access the Crest Road from one access
point designated on the Tract Map.
Therefore, the City Attorney’s office remains of the considered legal opinion that Tract
Map 33206 specifically confirms that the City has an exclusive right -of-way in that
portion of Crest Road “adjacent” to the HOA’s tract. The HOA has no right, title, or
interest in that portion of Crest Road unless or until the City abandons its right-of-way.
5
The right-of-way measures 100’ in width, 50’ on either side of the center line, and
includes the improved roadway and unimproved land.1
However, assuming, for the sake of argument only, that the forgoing language of
dedication could be deemed to be ambiguous (which it is not) such that the Tract Map
provides for an inconclusive dedication, the City still has an prescriptive right -of-way in
and over Crest Road because the road has been used by the general public for
decades and because the City maintains the same. Therefore, pursuant to Civil Code §
1009, the City, long ago, acquired a prescriptive right -of-way over Crest Road.2
Implementation of the proposed relocation of SCE power poles and power lines would
be entirely within the City’s Crest Road right-of-way as a privately funded project (Rule
20C) to relocate public utilities which has been approved by SCE and is now subject
only to the issuance of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Director.
4. Public Works Director Authority to Issue Encroachment Permits to the Funicello’s
Contractor
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 [of Los Angeles] 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.)
The County of Los Angeles Road Commissioner has such powers to issue
encroachment permits as set forth in Chapter 16.08 of the Los Angeles County Code
(“LACC”). Commencing with Section 16.08.010 the LACC specifies the contents of an
application for a permit and advises that “[t]he commissioner [or in the case of the City,
the Director of Public Works] may make such changes or additions in any application for
a permit as in his opinion are necessary for the protection of the highways, for the
prevention of undue interference with traffic, for the safety of persons using such
highways, as to the route over which to move any over height, width, length or weight
1 Moreover this100-foot right-of-way (50 feet on each side of the center line) exists around the
tract up to about Paseo Del Pino. From Paseo Del Pino westward the south 50 feet is confirmed to
be a public street; the north 50 feet is designated a private street. However, that designation is no
longer legally valid because, as noted below, the City certainly has acquired a right-if-way in this so-
called private street by prescriptive easement. (See, note 3, below & Civil Code § 1009(d).)
2 Civil Code § 1009(d) provided that: “Where a governmental entity is using private lands by an
expenditure of public funds on visible improvements on or across such lands or on the cleaning or
maintenance related to the public use of such lands in such a manner so that the owner knows or
should know that the public is making such use of his land, such use, including any public use
reasonably related to the purposes of such improvement, in the absence of either express
permission by the owner to continue such use or the taking by the owner of reasonable steps to
enjoin, remove or prohibit such use, shall after five years ripen to confer upon the governmental
entity a vested right to continue such use.”
6
load; as to the location, depth, dimensions, character and number of excavations; as to
encroachments made or placed . . . .”
The Director of Public Works may also “establish additional requirements for the work to
be done under the permit, including equipment to be used, type of backfill, compaction,
paving, traffic regulations, hours of work, flagmen, lights, inspection, and other similar
requirements. He also may require whatever advance notice he deems proper for
requests for inspection,” and “require the permittee to make proper arrangements for
and bear the cost of the relocation of any structure, publicly owned facility, tree or shrub
where such relocation is made necessary by the proposed work for which a permit is
issued.” (LACC §§ 18.08.050 & .060.)
Finally, the Director of Public Works has authority to “require that evidence be submitted
with the application to satisfy him that the proposed overhead structure or
encroachment will not, insofar as he can foresee, create a hazard of any kind.” If the
foregoing requirements are satisfied, the Public Works Director “may issue to the
applicant a written permit to perform the work set forth in the application. The
commissioner may refuse to issue a permit if he finds that it is not in the best interest of
the general public to do so.” (LACC §§ 18.08.070 & .080.)
CONCLUSION:
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 (Attachment L). Having now carefully reviewed all aspects of the
application for the encroachment permits, City Staff and the City Attorney are of the opinion
that the encroachment permits to relocate certain SCE utility poles combined within
undergrounding of high-voltage lines can be issued once there is resolution on location of
poles, extent of the undergrounding, and who will pay for any additional costs.
Although it was the City’s intent to use the time between the July 21 meeting and now to
develop a mutually agreeable design for the proposed project between the various
stakeholders, because this is a privately funded project with limited permit authority by the
City, the ultimate design and related costs is between the Funicellos, SCE and
telecommunication utilities (i.e. Crown Castle). Recently, the HOA has indicated it may
consider providing funds to further underground the project beginning on the Funicello’s
property, but no commitments have been or can be made by the HOA at this time unless
costs are known and can be considered by the HOA.
Staff will continue to facilitate a design and funding compromise and then issue
encroachment permits accordingly once reached. However, if there is an impasse to the
full undergrounding due to costs and who pays, and location of infrastructure, the Public
Works Director will issue encroachment permits based on the re-engineered design, as 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.
7
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for the
City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify additional issues or concerns, provide direction to Staff, and continue this
item to a future agenda.
8
G-1
Utilities easementPublic streetG-2
Public streetUtilities easementG-3
Utilities easementPublic streetG-4
G-5
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
I-6
I-7
I-8
State License # 959577 (Class A, B, C10)
Construction Division
PO Box 271
San Pedro, CA 90733
Fax No.: 310.530.8110
Bill To:
Gian Carlo Funiciello
3867 Crest Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Ph.
Cp.
gcfsportsmgmt@aol.com
SCOPE OF WORK:
INCLUDES:
- Traffic Control
- Underground Raceway for Edison
- Street Trench
- Install Pipe
- Backfill
- Asphalt Patch
- Permits
CSI appreciates the opportunity to provide you the following price.
Please contact the undersigned with any questions,
Regards,
CSI Services
Frank Colaruotolo (310) 628-1099
Installation of Approximately 120ft of 5inch Conduits
T O T A L 90,200.00$
Quantity Description
Net 30
CONDUIT
INSTALLATION - 3867
Crest Road, Rancho Palos
Verdes, CA 90275
P. O. No. Terms
PROPOSAL
Project
10/27/2020
Number: CSI-2007
Date:C S IS e r v i c e s
J-1
State License # 959577 (Class A, B, C10)
Construction Division
PO Box 271
San Pedro, CA 90733
Fax No.: 310.530.8110
Bill To:
Gian Carlo Funiciello
3867 Crest Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Ph.
Cp.
gcfsportsmgmt@aol.com
SCOPE OF WORK:
INCLUDES:
-
CSI appreciates the opportunity to provide you the following price.
Please contact the undersigned with any questions,
Regards,
CSI Services
Frank Colaruotolo (310) 628-1099
T O T A L 12,700.00$
Installation Concurrently 2- 4inch Conduits for Low
Voltage Systems
Installation Concurrently 2- 4inch Conduits
for Low Voltage Systems
Quantity Description
Net 30
CONDUITS FOR LOW
VOLTAGE SYSTEMS -
3867 Crest Road, Rancho
Palos Verdes, CA 90275
P. O. No. Terms
PROPOSAL
Project
10/27/2020
Number: CSI-2008
Date:C S IS e r v i c e s
K-1
1
Ken Rukavina
Subject:FW: Follow Up Request for Clarification in Staff Report
From: Kathy Campbell
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:10 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Follow Up Request for Clarification in Staff Report
Dear Ara and Ken,
1. Please include the forwarded correspondence below and clarify and address these
questions from the Oct. 20 Staff Report:
2. Please clarify the statement on Page 6, under " Conclusion": " Issuance of the
encroachment permits was conditioned on the City being reimbursed the cost to replace
the trees illegally cut down by the Applicant's contractor. That payment has been
rendered to the City"(underlining in original).
1. What was the amount of the payment? $1,708.oo
2. What was the date of the payment, who paid, and who was the payee? Check date -
June 28, 2020, paid by - Funiciello, payee – City Where were those funds deposited? Not
deposited yet
3. What process was used to determine the amount of the payment? The cost of tree
replacement was based on an estimate from a nursery
3. Condition 12 of the May 6 2019 Crown Castle permit provides: "All shrubs, plants,
trees or parkway improvements that have been damaged or disturbed during "in the
course of the work shall be replanted or replaced so as to restore the work site to original
condition or better". Was this condition fulfilled? The work was stopped which included
the referenced note # 12 on the Crown Castle Plans. Prior to closing out this permit this
condition will be required to be completed. Will it be enforced before any new permit
issues? Work associated with the permit was stopped, the permit has not been
canceled. Work like noted through condition #12 would require completion prior to
canceling the permit.
Thank you,
Kathy Campbell
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Crest Road Utility Relocation
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:10:48 +0000
L-1
2
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
To: Kathy Campbell >
Hi Kathy: Thanks for reaching out to us. My comments are below in blue.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310‐544‐5335
Fax: 310‐544‐5292
From: Kathy Campbell <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:20 AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Crest Road Utility Relocation
Dear Elias,
Thank you for meeting with me to address concerns regarding the numerous ongoing
irregularities in the permitting process for this illegal project on Crest Road.
I appreciate that the City shut down this project. The concerns which were initially raised 4 months
ago with the City continue unresolved. Those concerns are amplified after reviewing the most recent
application for encroachment permit filed on Oct. 14, 2019 by Art Franco of SCE as the
Applicant/Permittee.
I will briefly summarize the concerns we discussed below.
1. I understand the City has collected the fine imposed for the initial, now expired permit, issued
by the City to Crown Castle Utility for work exceeding the scope of the permit. In reality, the
work performed bears no resemblance to that permit. Your understanding is correct.
2. 2. The pending Application by Applicant SCE makes no provision for replacing trees or vegetation
damaged by the contractor by the illegal entry onto HOA property. The City has represented that no
further permits would be issued until this issue is resolved:
“The contractor is shut down and won’t be able to proceed till such time they submit a plan as
to how they intend to mitigate the removal of trees/vegetation….” This is going to be a comment from
us to SCE regarding this application.
L-2
3
3. 3. SCE has admitted that this is not an Edison project, and that they did not order the removal of the
trees or vegetation
“John Collins (the City of RPV inspector) and I (Elias) met with Frank Colaruotolo of CSI
Services (the Contractor) and Jerry Hollerup of SCE at the site this morning about 9:30 AM and
discussed this incident. The contractor accepted the full responsibility of what has taken
place and admitted the removal of the trees/shrub was NOT directed by SCE. We measured the
calipers of the removed trees which added up to 96 inches. A few shrubs were also taken
out.”
On June 25, 2019, Devan Doherty confirmed on site that these trees were not removed by
Edison or as part of an Edison project. See my response to paragraph 2.
4. 4. SCE does not have the authority to remove the trees or vegetation prospectively because currently
there are no overhead wires passing through trees- CPUC GO 95 does not apply. Please see my
response to 2 above.
5. 5. The fact that the Applicant/Permittee is SCE, who is not the property owner in this customer driven
request, raises questions. Edison has explicitly stated that this is not an Edison project, and is not the
proper Applicant, as it is not the owner of the property, easements, “future easements” or property “to
be deeded”, per the Application. It is our understanding that SCE’s application is submitted to us on
behalf of the property owner.
6. 6. SCE needs to establish that this work is being done in a public right of way and that it has the
proper easements to proceed with this project. I believe SCE understands that very well.
7. 7. I have personally reviewed 4 maps from the County assessor’s office going as far back to 1946,
which show that Crest Road is a street of variable width, and that the south western portion of Crest
Road past Paseo de Pino is a PRIVATE street, 50’ wide. Pls send me copies of document/drawing
which supports your notion. The documents which you sent me a few weeks ago had nothing to do
with Crest Road, and I informed you of that a day after you sent those documents to me. Again, if you
have any other document that shows this stretch of Crest Road is a “Private” street, please forward
this document to me as soon as you can.
8. 8. The City claims a 100’ right of way over Crest Road. Please provide the language of conveyance
or dedication that creates this claimed right of way. Tract map filed Please see attached map.
9. 9. SCE’s own rules- Rules 15 [Distribution Line Extensions] and 16 [Service Extensions] , explicitly
referenced in the Applicant’s submitted plans, in addition to Rule 20 [Undergrounding],do not permit
this work to be done. [This customer driven project does not involve either new construction or a
change of use or occupancy as defined in state or local law.] We are NOT able to opine on SCE’s
rules or their enforcement.
10 10. “Order of Operations”- This customer driven project to facilitate the installation of a swimming pool,
requires first, that plans be submitted to planning/community development, so that the required
L-3
4
“change of use or occupancy” is obtained. Is the City going to issue a permit for a swimming pool in a
front yard? Can all the City setback requirements be met? SCE ‘s own Transmission Line Right of
Way Constraints and Guidelines prohibit installation of permanent structures, including swimming
pools..This application needs to be processed as submitted.
1111. After 2010, the CPUC and SCE Above Ground Equipment Initiative, [“AGE Rule”] explicitly
recognizes the municipality’s authority to impose conditions for work occurring in the public right of
way. Please see response to 9 above.
1212. SCE does not have the authority to favor one ratepayer over another, and may not shift the
burden from one private property owner to another without notice or due process in violation of
federal and state law and local ordinances. See response to 9, above.
1313. In any case, a right of way for “public use” does not contemplate a customer-driven request for
private benefit. We will be reviewing this issue.
1414. The Safety Review- This proposed relocation of utility poles from open space into a grove of
mature pine trees creates an immediate public health and safety issue, and contradicts the City’s
wildfire mitigation plan, as described in the City’s November 5, 2018 letter to the
CPUC. Furthermore, the proposed relocation of utility poles from one side of the level street onto a
upward slope creates the exact condition as the Pacific Palisades fire of October 21.2019- fire travels
uphill quickly, without the “safety buffer” created by Crest Road. As I have indicated earlier, as part of
this application most of the existing high voltage cables is planned to be undergrounded and
consequently it will be safer.
1515. Fundamental Fairness. As we discussed, it appears that there has been, and continues to be, a
deliberate attempt to avoid a public hearing and “work around the rules” by “finessing” the process
and rules of the City, CPUC and SCE. Everyone benefits from transparency. Please enforce the
rules. Public Works has been transparent and proactive regarding this project. We follow the permit
procedures as they exist in the code.
Respectfully and in Good Faith,
Kathy Campbell
L-4