CC SR 20230404 01 - SCE Power Outages
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/04/2023
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a report from Southern California Edison
(SCE) regarding frequent power outages in the Grandview Estates neighborhood.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive a report from Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding the reason
behind the ongoing power outages in the Grandview Estates neighborhood; and
(2) Request SCE return on June 6, 2023 to present the City Council with a short-term
and long-term action plan and timeline for correcting the power outage issue in the
Grandview Estates neighborhood.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. City Manager’s Email Exchange with SCE (page A-1)
B. Public Correspondence (page B-1)
C. Courtesy notice mailed to the Grandview Estates neighborhood (page C-1)
D. RPV Undergrounding Guidelines (page D-1)
BACKGROUND:
In 1974, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes entered into a franchise agreement with
Southern California Edison (SCE) to provide reliable electricity to its residents. SCE
operates the Harbor Generating Station, a 474-megawatt natural gas facility located south
of Wilmington, which supplies a majority of electrical power to the Palos Verdes
Peninsula. The electric infrastructure is made up of resource facilities and a distribution
network. The power distribution network consists of major source lines (66 K.V.), which
run from power-generating resource facilities to local substations, and the lesser
transmission lines, which in turn deliver power to customers in a usable state. The
1
electrical power distribution infrastructure in Rancho Palos Verdes is designed as an
integrated grid system, principally for ease of maintenance and uniform current flow.
For purposes of this report, the Grandview Estates neighborhood is comprised of the
following area:
The Grandview Estates tract was created in 1956 and developed with above-ground utility
lines. Unconfirmed reports from long-time residents indicate that power outages have
2
been occurring in the areas dating back to the late 1970’s. Though SCE power outages
in the Grandview Estates area have long been a concern for the City and residents of
Rancho Palos Verdes, the magnitude of the situation and its frequency was brought to
the City’s attention in 2020 during a series of heat -related power outages.
In response, in October 2020, the City Council attempted to receive a report from SCE
on the cause of the Citywide heat-related power outages with emphasis on the Grandview
Estates neighborhood, which experienced days without power during extreme weather
conditions. At the time, residents expressed concerns exceeding mere inconvenience s
but rather life and safety concerns for the elderly and those on medical-aided equipment.
As a result, the City developed protocols to open free public cooling centers to provide
relief and protection during extreme heat conditions to residents on the Penins ula (all four
Peninsula cities). Hesse Park and Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC) were opened,
and continue to be opened, to the public when temperatures are forecasted to exceed 85
degrees and excessive heat warnings are issued, or when the City experiences a power
outage during extreme weather conditions.
Recent power outages have once again prompted the City to ask SCE to explain publicly
why this continues to occur frequently, including during extreme and non-extreme
weather conditions, specifically in the Grandview Estates neighborhood, and to present
measures SCE is taking to eliminate the frequency and duration of power outages in this
area.
Tonight, Connie Turner, SCE’s Local Public Affairs Government Relations Manager for
the Peninsula cities, confirmed her participation in reporting SCE’s response to frequent
power outages in the Grandview Estates neighborhood.
DISCUSSION:
Extreme weather over the past few months has once again resulted in extended power
outages, lasting up to two days, in the Grandview Estates neighborhood. The City
received numerous calls and emails from the area residents, once again, expressing
frustration and dissatisfaction with the unreliable power supply. More importantly, many
residents were expressing concern for elderly neighbors unable to stay warm and those
relying on operable medical devices and homes with young children. Such frequent power
outages have posed significant financial impacts and health risks to th e community.
After a series of emails and phone calls received from residents in the Grandview Estates
and other nearby neighborhoods, City Manager Ara Mihranian aggressively pushed SCE
to be accountable for the power outages and explain the root cause for the recurrin g
problem and how they intend to address it. However, SCE’s response did not meet the
expectations of the City nor the residents it serves. Most egregious was SCE’s response
to a request for wellness checks on their senior customer base (Attachment A).
On March 23, 2023, Councilmember Paul Seo, City Manager Ara Mihranian, and Deputy
City Manager Karina Banales met with residents of the Grandview Estates neighborhood
to discuss their concerns and experience with SCE. SCE was not invited to participate to
3
allow residents to speak directly and freely to the City about their concerns with SCE and
for staff to better understand the residents’ experiences. That evening, 38 residents
attended in person at Hesse Park, and 20 attended via Zoom.
The following is a summary of residents’ concerns and experiences regarding SCE’s
frequent power outages.
Concerns with SCE customer service:
• Unrealistic date/time when power will resume.
• Customer service representatives cannot answer questions or send a recorded
message.
• When customer service representatives are available to speak, the wait time is
excessive.
• Notifications of SCE repair crews out on the scene are inaccurate. Residents will
drive around and will not find field repair crews.
• Information provided by repair crews often blame power outages to trees.
Loss/damage to property:
• Appliances require replacement due to power surges
https://youtu.be/xSdtQbgyEAw.
• Garage door openers become inoperable.
• Loss of groceries due to a refrigerator having no electricity.
• Electrical fuse boxes are being replaced, and some homes may have long-term
effects due to recurring power outages.
• Loss in wages for residents working from home.
Safety and Security:
• Medical devices requiring electricity are inoperable placing them at risk.
• Residents, particularly young children and elderly, are left in extreme cold or hot
temperatures.
• Power outages leave residents and their homes without security devices
discouraging some to leave their home to seek shelter elsewhere.
• High winds triggering power outages have led to active power lines potentially
triggering a fire, and SCE’s response is delayed. https://youtu.be/OsrISYCZ1AU
• Temporary repairs are completed irresponsibly, such as low-hanging power lines
over swimming pools and backyards, and have become permanent solutions with
no follow-up.
SCE response:
• Claims are rejected for replacement of appliances.
• Claims that are accepted pay out a small portion of expenses.
• SCE service tickets go unanswered or unaddressed.
• At times, SCE does not respond, leaving the resident continuously calling.
• Places the City as the responsible party to get residents’ power or to conduct
wellness checks.
4
These concerns have been shared with representatives from SCE over the years, and
the time has come for SCE to resolve this long-standing problem in the Grandview Estates
neighborhood. The City has yet to receive a solid and convincing explanation as to why
this neighborhood frequently experiences power outages throughout the year. As such,
the City has asked SCE to provide a public explanation to the City Council at tonight’s
meeting.
Recognizing that it may take time to apply corrective measures that will permanently
resolve the recurring power outages, SCE is being asked to develop a short-term and
long-term action plan and timeline for the City Council’s consideration at its June 6, 2023
meeting.
In terms of a short-term action plan, SCE is being asked to consider including the
following:
• Providing free portable generators to residents, especially the elderly and those
reliant on power supplied medical equipment, when power outages occur.
• Establishing a direct phone line to dedicated customer representatives familiar with
the area and the recurring problem to ensure the customer service representatives
are trained, knowledgeable, and readily available to provide accurate and honest
responses.
• Honoring claims filed especially for food losses and appliances damaged by power
surges (SCE should provide each household in the neighborhood with the
appropriate forms to complete)
• Applying a reduction or credit to the monthly service bill.
• Providing a financial match to residents considering investing in solar panels or
portable generators.
In addition to the above, the City will continue to provide heating and cooling centers at
Hesse Park and PVIC (after plumbing repairs are completed) during extreme weather
conditions. These facilities may also be used for charging devices and provides free
public wifi. The City will post notifications of when facilities are opened using its social
media platforms and the MyRPV app.
In regards to a long-term solution, SCE is being asked to present to the City Council on
June 6 its action plan on how the power grid will permanently be repaired to eliminate
ongoing power outages. Additionally, SCE is being asked to provide a realistic time line
to complete the repair work and what that repair work entails.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Public Correspondence
Staff has received the attached public correspondence related to this City Council agenda
item. (Attachment B).
5
Courtesy Notice
On March 28, 2023, a courtesy notice was mailed to the Grandview Estates neighborhood
inviting public participation at tonight’s meeting (Attachment C). Public correspondence
received after posting the agenda will be provided to the City Council as late
correspondence.
RPV Undergrounding Guidelines
Converting existing overhead utility lines (underground conversions) within cities in
California has been performed under California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
Electric Tariff Rule 20. Starting in 1967, tariffs have been collected by investor -owned
utilities, such as SCE, to fund qualifying undergrounding projects. In May 2005, the City
Council established guidelines, pursuant to Rule 20B, for residential neighborhoods to
follow when residents in an area of the City desire to pursue undergrounding e xisting
overhead utilities. Rule 20B requires property owners or developers to pay 80% of the
costs of utility undergrounding projects. Projects usually involve larger developments or
neighborhoods that do not meet Rule 20A criteria. (i.e. projects involvi ng both sides of a
street for a minimum of 600 feet and/or neighborhoods that wish to form an underground
utility district). In November 2020, staff amended the guidelines to include updated
information as it relates to:
• Requiring letters of support for a petition for the City to advance funds for
engineering to be accompanied by checks of $500, compared to the $100
requirement, which was established 15 years ago. This will help demonstrate a
true financial commitment to the project and establish a better financial “seed” for
hiring an engineering firm to manage the undergrounding project.
• A neighborhood meeting with a specified threshold of support (i.e. 50% or 66%)
does not guarantee support or approval by the City Council. Each request must
be considered by the City Council at a public meeting, where anyone can express
their concerns, support for, objection to, or ask questions prior to the City Council
voting on the proposed action.
Staff is providing the Guidelines to Residential Utility Undergrounding as Attachment D.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive a report from SCE regarding ongoing power
outages in the Grandview Estates neighborhood and request that SCE return on June 6,
2023 to present the City Council with a short-term and long-term action plan and a timeline
for addressing power grid issues.
6
From:Ara Mihranian
To:Constance Turner; Robert Brambila
Subject:RE: (External):Re: (External):5458 Whitefox and Grandview Neighborhood: 5458 Whitefox, RPV.
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 7:40:25 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Connie,
I am disappointed, but not surprised, with your response and SCE’s lack of interest in allocating
resources to conduct a wellness check with one of their 90 year old customers that is struggling
because of a power outage.
It is sad that SCE’s business plan is devoid of compassion and empathy, especially when it comes to
the elderly.
I am sure if he was late on a payment someone would be calling him – where are the real human
priorities.
Please let me know when his power is expected to be restored this evening.
Ara
From: Constance Turner <Constance.Turner@sce.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 5:06 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Robert Brambila <Robert.Brambila@sce.com>
Subject: RE: (External):Re: (External):5458 Whitefox and Grandview Neighborhood: 5458 Whitefox,
RPV.
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe!!!.
A-1
Ara,
We have 2 crews working on site to get this power safely restored as quickly as we can. Perhaps the
city and or the fire/police can assist this customer.
Thanks.
Connie
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Constance Turner <Constance.Turner@sce.com>; Robert Brambila <Robert.Brambila@sce.com>
Subject: (External):Re: (External):5458 Whitefox and Grandview Neighborhood: 5458 Whitefox, RPV.
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL - Use caution when opening links or attachments ***
Thank you for the quick response, Connie.
Yes, I witnessed and experienced firsthand the havoc the winds created last night.
The Council meeting was briefly interrupted when the power generator kicked in.
And I do understand that 100% power cannot be guaranteed especially during weather related
events.
That said, can you provide me with any further specifics regarding 5458 Whitefox and the 90 year old
resident.
Many people are concerned about his wellbeing with the cold.
Is there something SCE can do for this particular resident to ensure he has heat?
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
P Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
A-2
From: Constance Turner <Constance.Turner@sce.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 3:35:16 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Robert Brambila <Robert.Brambila@sce.com>
Subject: RE: (External):5458 Whitefox and Grandview Neighborhood: 5458 Whitefox, RPV.
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe!!!.
Hi Ara,
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I have gotten calls as well. Our crews are out and with the windstorm last night we have lots of
customers out. The wind wreaked havoc with pulling down lines. We are always going to have power
outages because guaranteeing power 100% of the time is not doable. WE are trying to get most folks
back up by tonight on the Palos Verdes Peninsula as they have been out since 10:30pm last night.
Definitely an individual’s decision, however, at my home, we have our own generator.
I am sure you are already aware but there is a rain storm moving in also thru Saturday.
Thanks.
Connie
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 3:21 PM
To: Constance Turner <Constance.Turner@sce.com>
Subject: (External):5458 Whitefox and Grandview Neighborhood
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL - Use caution when opening links or attachments ***
Connie,
I have a 90 year old resident at 5458 Whitefox that has been without power since last night. He has no
heat. When can his power be restored and can it be made a priority.
Additionally, I received complaints from the Grandview neighborhood that their power is once again
out and that it is a recurring problem.
They are asking what SCE and the city are doing to prevent power outages from occurring so often.
Could you assist with a response I can send to these residents.
Ara
A-3
A-4
1
Karina Banales
From:Anton Dahlerbruch <tonydahlerbruch@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2023 8:21 AM
To:Ara Mihranian; Karina Banales
Subject:SCE issues
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!.
Dear Ara and Karina,
As you well know, SCE power over the past several years is increasingly unreliable at our house. Sometimes it goes out
for hours and other times, it will be out for days. For us, this causes life/safety concerns for our family. In turn, we want
to thank you for being so genuine, understanding, responsive, and supportive of all the issues with SCE. We know the
City has no control over this matter but knowing the City has our interests at heart and is with us advocating for change
is assuring. Please also share our thanks to Councilmember Seo and the other Councilmembers as well for their effort in
raising this situation to the CPUC, Governor and State Legislators.
We have owned our home on Manitowac for 27 years. While we are now temporarily living in Redondo Beach, our
house is the primary residence of our 30 year old severely disabled son who necessitates 24/7 care and as such, relies on
us and others as his full-time caregivers. Our son is not ambulatory or communicative. As justified by his disabilities, we
qualify for SCE’s medical baseline service rates. His medical situation necessitates a variety of electrically powered life-
critical equipment. Moreover, without AT&T cellular service reaching the house, electrical power is necessary for
powering our Wi-Fi modem that we rely on for landline (Frontier) and cellular phone service. A quick check of our
records will show that we have unfortunately had to call the paramedics on several occasions; we need electrical power
to make the calls. About 2 years ago and because of our medical baseline needs, SCE provided us a battery to use in an
outage. It doesn’t work; it does not keep a charge and during the past 2 outages in the last few months, it was of no
use.
The issues with SCE are as follows:
1. Customer service is terrible
a. There is no one to talk with for accurate and timely information.
b. When calling SCE, there is only a recording and if we can figure out how to connect to a person, we are
literally on hold for hours. Then, the person we talk with knows nothing.
c. The information provided through their automated system is regularly inaccurate; like the electricity, it
is not reliable either.
2. The power routinely goes out
a. With so many brown outs and full outages, we do not know whether to expect a long or short
outage. We cannot easily or quickly move our son out of the house due to his medical needs so if we
can guess the outage will be long, we need to bring out a portable generator and distribute power cords
throughout the house for critical items. There are a variety of issues with this.
b. We know (see) that SCE rarely responds in a timely manner to the outage when it occurs; it takes many,
many hours for crews to come into the neighborhood. We have driven our streets and personally
observed when they are present and not present.
Our requests for SCE are as follows:
A. Upgrade and replace the distribution infrastructure and improve routine maintenance of the system.
B-1
2
B. Provide live, informed people and or improved automation to accurately, honestly and timely update us on the
status of the repair.
C. Physically respond to an outage in our neighborhood within 1 hour to begin the repair, or mobilize special-event
generators on our street to provide power until the repair is complete.
D. Apply a reduction to our monthly bill for the financial impact (e.g., loss of groceries) and inconvenience of
outages.
Again, we thank you for your help with advocating for SCE change and improvements.
Michele and Tony Dahlerbruch
Manitowac Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
B-2
From:Ara Mihranian
To:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: SCE outages issues
Date:Monday, March 27, 2023 4:39:37 PM
Attachments:image001.png
From: GF <gf46610@frontier.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: SCE outages issues
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe!!!.
Hello Mr. Mihranian, and thank you for meeting with our neighborhood,
We have lived on Shoreview Drive for 20 years. Every year or so we have had an unplanned
outage of about 2-3 hours. However in the last year-ish we have had many outages of as much
as 22 hours.
We have not had any known problems with our appliances / electronics due to the outages,
because we have a whole-house surge protector. We also have a large inverter that can be
hooked to a car battery that we use to power our refrigerator and freezer when there is a long
outage, to prevent food loss.
Our concern due the duration of the recent outages is, does SCE have sufficient manpower and
available parts to rapidly respond to and fix outages in RPV when there is bad weather?
B-3
Following is the list of outages we have experienced since Feb. 1, 2022. This data is from
SCE's smart meters, so they have the information on outages of every client that has a smart
meter.
Thank you,
Gregg & Cindy Ferguson <gf46610@frontier.com>
Date Start Duration (hrs:mins)
2/1/2022 8:15:00 AM 5:00
2/28/2022 9:15:00 AM 5:00
5/12/2022 9:30:00 AM 2:45
7/3/2022 3:30:00 PM 1:15
8/26/2022 10:15:00 AM 1:30
1/1/2023 11:00:00 AM 8:15
2/22/2023 12:00:00 AM 21:15
2/24/2023 7:15:00 PM 5:00
B-4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Manager: Mr. Ara Mihranian, AICP
30940 Hawthorrne Blvd.
R.P.V., Ca. 90275
AraM@rpvca.gov
March 25, 2023
Dear Mr. Mihranian,
My name is Ernie Giannioses. My wife, Tasia and I attended your fact finding session at Hess Park
regarding SCE.
So many people expressed the hardships and expense they have endured over the years by Southern
California Edison. I expressed our experiences at the hand of SCE at the meeting but want to add to
what we hope will be a ream of paper that your will be giving to SCE expressing our dissatisfaction with
their service over the last 22 years that we have lived in R. P. V.
We moved to R.P.V. in March of 2001. We began experiencing electrical outages right from the get go.
We have lost refrigerator food several times over the years. On or about the year 2003 we had a major
outage and when power was restored there was a power surge that destroyed the electronics on several
of our appliances. Unfortunately, we no longer have receipts for our expenses but it was in the area of
three to four thousand dollars. We had just remodeled and most of our appliances were new. Several
neighbors had the same experience and expenses. We took SCE to small claims court in an attempt to
recoup our losses but the judge pro-tem declared the incident an act of God and therefore felt the SCE
could not be held responsible. When I asked him how a power surge was an act of God he said, “I have
made my decision, case closed”.
Since that time, I have added some very expensive surge protectors to as many appliances as practical. I
still disconnect everything on every outage. Since then, I doubt that a year has gone by that we haven’t
had an outage lasting several hours. Over the years the R.P.V. City Council has had several SCE
representatives at council meetings. Lots of promises were made but we have seen no improvement in
our service. We hope this time will be different.
We really appreciate your efforts on our behalf and that of the city council if they lend their support.
We will do what we can to support the effort by attending council meetings when this item is on the
agenda.
Best of luck. We hope we have better success on this go-round.
Sincerely,
Ernie and Tasia Giannioses
5344 Manitowac Dr.
R.P.V., Ca. 90275
eandtg@aol.com
B-5
1
Karina Banales
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2023 12:27 PM
To:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: SCE CLAIM 202105698 or 202106598 (1 of 2)
Attachments:Items damaged at 26815 Shorewoould Rd 6-3-2021 power surge.numbers; Replacement LG Gas
Dryer Receipt.pdf; Replacement Garage door opener invoice 6-5-2021.pdf
From: Grace Lui <gracelui755@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: SCE CLAIM 202105698 or 202106598 (1 of 2)
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!.
Hi Ara and Paul, thanks again for advocating for us in yesterday’s meeting.
As suggested, the following is the claim we submitted to SCE in 2021 due to a non- weather related power surge. We
were partially reimbursed.
Looking forward to a positive outcome.
Grace and Gabriel
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Grace Lui <gracelui755@gmail.com>
B-6
2
Date: Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 7:28 PM
Subject: SCE CLAIM 202105698 or 202106598 (1 of 2)
To: <Customerdocuments@sce.com>
CC: Gabriel White <gadwhite@gmail.com>
Dear SCE Claims Department,
My name is Grace Lui, I live at 26815 Shorewood Rd, Rancho Palos Verdes. Pursuant to Greg Kafka's instructions,
attached are the required documentation for your consideration. I apologize for including two claim numbers but Greg's
letter referenced two different numbers. Please confirm the correct claim number.
Several of our household items were damaged as a result of a power surge (SCE Outage #000002083476). Because
of the numerous attachments, we are sending them in two separate emails.
The first attachment in this email is a spreadsheet that lists all of our damaged items along with the supporting
information. The remaining attachments are the invoices and receipts. There were a few original items that we do not
have receipts for. We also included a couple of explanations below for the dryer and the garage door opener.
Dryer
We initially scheduled a repair on June 5th with LG Appliance care, however on the 5th the technician Alex (818)- 489-
3825 contacted us and we diagnosed the problem over the phone. Alex determined the control board was damaged and
the replacement cost would exceed the cost of a new dryer. His recommendation was to replace the dryer. LG
Appliance Care (866) 849-9487 http://www.lg.care/
Garage Door Opener
We contacted AK Garage Door Doctor and on their initial visit on 6/4 they determined the opener was damaged beyond
repair. They replaced the garage door opener on 6/5, however we did not note the exact model # or serial # of the old
unit, and it was disposed of before we could get that information.
Thank you for your assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my husband, Gabriel White, if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Grace Lui
26815 Shorewood Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275
310-755-1641
B-7
24 Mar 2023
Richard W. Mahoney
26736 Menominee Place
RPV CA 90275
310-378-3547
richard_mahoney@verizon.net There is an underscore between richard and mahoney.
Hello Karina,
It was good of you to set up the meeting on Edison unreliability. Here is our brief
history.
We moved to RPV in June 1976. At that time the power went out almost every time that
it rained. As time went on the outages became less frequent. It seemed to take ever
heavier rain to cause an outage. Many times the outages were only on our side of the
street.
When I called Edison about an outage, now many years ago, the representative said
the cause was a lightning strike. I told them outrages had been occurring for at least
twenty-five years, that I thought the problem was more chronic than lightning. There
followed our longest outage at almost three days.
During the past two or three years Edison replaced the transformer on the pole in our
yard. The old transformer was there when we moved here. They added a new pole
behind one of the houses across the street.
We had a power outage of about two hours, in the evening, about two months ago. I
did not record the date. Edison called the next morning to notify us of the restoration.
When a power outage occurs, we have no phone service. When the Verizon, now
Frontier, fiber optic connections were installed, the former GTE landline with GTE
power, was switched to Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). A unit connected to house
power converts the optical signal to electrical signals compatible with house wiring. It
has a battery backup, but even with replacement batteries, the backup no longer works.
We live in a cell phone dead zone for T-Mobile. So we have a personal cell spot
connected to house power. The cell phone gets a signal from the Frontier router. When
there is a power outage, there is no signal from the router., thus no cell service.
B-10
B
B-12
2
Dr. Mr. Mihranian:
This letter concerns recent, recurring power failures at our home and throughout our
neighborhood. Although, as noted below, we have suffered many, many power failures over the years,
the specific events that are the subject of this letter initially occurred on February 21, 2023, and again on
February 24, 2023.
As background, the following chart illustrates the timing and communications from SCE (by email,
to a neighborhood without power), regarding the first outage:
Initial Outage: February 21, 2023; approximately 10:05 p.m.
Time of Message Message /Estimated End of Service
(Time Completed)
Result
Tue 2/21/2023:
11:08 PM
Wed 02/22/2023
04:30 AM
Work did not commence
Wed 2/22/2023:
5:23 AM
06:30 AM
Work did not commence
7:37 AM 09:00 AM Work did not commence
9:22 AM 12:30 PM Work did not commence
11:44 AM 12:15 PM Work did not commence
1:22 PM 04:45 PM Work did not commence
1:52 PM “At this time, we have not determined
the cause of the issue. When more
information is available, we'll send you
an update.”
Work did not commence
5:42 PM 10:00 PM Work did not commence
7:13 PM* 08:30 PM * Approximate time work
commenced
9:16 PM 10:30 PM Work commenced
9:20 PM Power finally restored
As is evident from this timeline, SCE sent six different messages that provided a time at which the
work was estimated to be completed. However, the seventh message (1:52 pm) stated that SCE had not
even determined the cause of the issue, much less the anticipated time to complete repairs. During the
B-14
3
approximately 13 hours in which we were misinformed about the repairs, we and other residents could
have taken actions to insure that (i) the elderly would not be suffering in the cold, (ii) those with medical
devices requiring power could find alternative means of treatment, and (iii) perishable food would not
spoil. This is made even worse by the fact that, at approximately 7:00 pm on February 22, 2023, we were
informed that the first SCE trucks arrived in the neighborhood – if true, apparently SCE had been sending
these messages for nearly 24 hours without even dispatching a crew to investigate and repair the problem.
If these facts are as we have been told, it is unclear whether SCE was merely grossly negligent in
misinforming the ratepayers so repeatedly, or whether this reflects that SCE knew it was misleading the
residents. Either way, the results caused significant economic harm and possibly could have resulted in
far graver consequences.
Second Outage: On Friday, February 24, 2023, the power in our neighborhood commenced
periodic short outages, some lasting only a few seconds. As the day progressed, these outages increased
in frequency. We contacted SCE at approximately 7:36 pm to inform SCE that we were extremely
concerned about a serious accident in the making – the power was going from full power to off in an
extremely rapid progression. At the time of the first call, we estimated that the power was going on and
off as frequently as 20 times per minute. This is increased to approximately 100 times per minute for a
period before the power finally went out completely. During the time of these surges and fluctuations,
household appliances were going on and off, hard drives, DVRs, etc. were beginning to power up before
the power immediately ceased. We heard loud popping, crackling and other unnatural sounds from not
just our appliances, but from the wires and breakers themselves. This was not limited to our home – we
could hear the neighbors electrical systems behaving in the same manner.
When power was eventually restored, we realized that our electrical system had been seriously
damaged. For example, certain power units for appliances no longer work, various lights are dim, and our
microwave seems to be operating at lower power. We have also noted that various breakers for our pool
equipment appear to trip frequently. But the reality is that we do not know the full extent of the damage,
and we will not know until our electrical system has been investigated by qualified personnel, and even
then we may not know the full extent of the damage to our appliances and home.
We are also advised that this second outage occurred at precisely the same location as the initial
outage on February 21. If so, this could indicate that the repairs on the 22 nd were performed in a
substandard, negligent manner.
We note also that our neighborhood endured a third outage on February 28, 2023.
In the nearly 25 years since we moved to Rancho Palos Verdes, the power in our neighborhood
has been interrupted so many times that it is difficult to estimate. We’ve heard for years that our
neighborhood is somehow unique: “too many trees” we’ve been told, or “the winds are terrible,” or “the
infrastructure is bad.” These excuses are spurious. One of us has family in the northeastern part of the
country, where winter snow, blizzards and ice storms hit several times a year. And, one of us went to
college in the Midwest, which has similar harsh weather, but also tornadoes. We have family in Florida,
B-15
4
with its hammering thunderstorms and hurricanes. All of these regions receive far more precipitation
than Rancho Palos Verdes, and have far more trees. With respect to winds, we do not experience the full
force of the Santa Ana winds that cause destruction elsewhere. Rain and wind are not in themselves
natural disasters, especially in a place that many consider to have the mildest climate in the United
States. With respect to claims about infrastructure, we note that our power has been repeatedly shut
down for prolonged periods in the summer, albeit to modernize equipment. But, when the rains inevitably
arrive, it appears that the infrastructure remains embarrassingly incapable of handling the load.
We are hopeful that you will be able to help the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Attached please
find copies of claims that we have filed to date with SCE, but as noted, we have not yet ascertained the
full extent of our damages from the power surges.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
B-29
B-30
B-31
B-32
1
Karina Banales
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2023 7:37 AM
To:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Your townhall regarding SCE issues
Attachments:garage_repair_construction.pdf; contents_loss_garage_fire.pdf; mercedes_loss_garage_fire.pdf
From: Adarsh Pun <adarshpun@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 3:31 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Your townhall regarding SCE issues
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!.
Hi Ara,
Thank you for hosting the meeting to address issues with SCE power disruptions that only happen in our block. As you
became aware, this has been an ongoing issue for the last 20+ years and has progressively worsened over the last 10
years.
In the most recent power issue, the power switched off and on multiple times before a total blackout for 24+ hours -
twice in a week. The resulting surges caused the following problems in my house.
1) Internal garage door opener does not function any more - we have to use wireless remotes from inside the house to
operate the door!
2) The range hood electronics seem to have gone haywire with the range not being able to control speeds as well as the
range light switching on/off randomly.
B-33
2
3) Loss of files and corrupt data on my computer despite the surge protectors.
Our most prominent loss was a garage fire in 2012 due to a power surge where we lost 2 cars, garage contents and
structure. The claims were handled by litigation between my insurance company and SCE and I believe that due to the
stone walling from SCE, the insurance company resolved the loss quickly to avoid us having to go through more misery.
A sample of the documentary evidence is attached for your reference.
Once again, thank you for hosting the meeting and we look forward to the next meeting with SCE.
Best Regards
Adarsh
B-34
Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club
1170 EL CAMINO AVE, Corona, CA 92879
Ltr No. CC0054
March 12, 2013
ADARSH & KAMAL PUN
5404 WHITEFOX DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-2319
RE: Insured : Adarsh Pun
Claimant : Adarsh Pun
Claim Number : 010863717
Date of Loss : 08/22/2012
Type of Loss : Homeowners
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pun:
I am writing to keep you informed regarding the above reference fire loss claim, details are listed below.
Structure Repairs, Other Structures, & Loss of Use
· This portion of your claim was handled and previously resolved by Claims Representative Blake
Emanuel. Should you have any questions regarding this portion of your claim please contact
Mr. Emanuel directly at 909-957-7088.
Contents (Personal Property)
Restorable Contents:
· We have issued a payment directly to you in the amount of $105.00, this check is not included
with this letter and was sent under separate cover. This payment is for the dry cleaning receipt
you recently submitted for consideration for the cost you incurred to have some textile items
cleaned from this fire loss.
· Contents cleaning for items from the garage you wished to save and contents on-site cleaning
for items from the interior of the residence was handled by Oakwood Construction. This vendor
previously completed these services for you and payment was previously issued to this vendor
for these completed services. Please refer to correspondence letters dated 10/15/12 &
02/01/13 for the specific payment details. Services provided by this vendor are considered
resolved. Should you need to reach Oakwood, their office phone# is 714-529-8300.
Total Loss Items:
· Payment for pricing of the total loss items was previously paid, please refer to correspondence
letter dated 11/28/12 & 02/01/13 for the specific payment details.
B-35
Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club
1170 EL CAMINO AVE, Corona, CA 92879 (Mail Stop F-177)
Ltr No. CC0054
November 28, 2012
ADARSH & KAMAL PUN
5404 WHITEFOX DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-2319
RE: Insured : Adarsh Pun
Claimant : Adarsh Pun
Claim Number : 010863717
Date of Loss : 08/22/2012
Type of Loss : Homeowners
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pun:
I am writing to keep you informed about a payment issued under the contents portion (Coverage C -
Personal Property) of the above-referenced fire loss claim.
I have completed my review of the Property Loss Worksheet for your contents total loss inventory. I
have enclosed a copy of this worksheet for your review. You should keep this copy as you will need to
refer to it on a regular basis as you replace items and make claim for any depreciation withheld from
this payment. Please review this worksheet and letter, should you have any questions or concerns
don’t hesitate to contact me.
Our check in the amount of $16,473.18 will be arriving under separate cover for your contents total loss
items and is not included with this letter. Your $1,000 deductible has been applied to this portion of
your claim.
Figure breakdown of this payment as follows:
Total Replacement Cost w/sales tax: $ 32,851.20
Total Depreciation Amount: $ (-10,378.02)
Total Actual Cash Value: $ 22,473.18
Deductible: $ (- 1,000.00)
Minus Previous Contents Advance(s) $ (- 5,000.00)
Payment Due to Insured(s): $ 16,473.18
Your policy provisions stipulate that our settlement for this portion of your claim be based on the actual
cash value of the property. This means a deduction has been taken for depreciation until they are
replaced. The depreciated value of your property is called the actual cash value and this represents
the amount owed to you at this time.
The depreciation withheld, $10,378.02, is recoverable if you provide receipts that document the
replacement of property and you have not reached a limit of liability or replaced it for less than what we
paid at the time of actual cash value.
B-36
Autosource Valuation
Administrative Data 2008 Mercedes-Benz E350 4D Sedan
George Langarica Claimant
Auto Club of Southern Calif.Insured Pun, Adarsh
ACE Long Beach Office Branch Claim 010863738-I-8111
4800 Airport Plaza Dr.Loss Date 08/22/2012
Long Beach CA 90815-1250 Loss Type Comp
Policy CAA063361118
Other
Total Loss No
VINSOURCE Analysis 2008 Mercedes-Benz E350 4D Sedan
VIN WDBUF56X38B214402
Decodes as 2008 Mercedes-Benz E350 4D Sedan
Accuracy Decodes Correctly
History Activity was reported
o Autosource activity: (NONE).
o Autotrak activity: (NONE).
o Audatex/Estimating activity: (NONE)
o Sales history activity: (NONE)
NICB Report 2008 Mercedes-Benz E350 4D Sedan
NICB/ISO
Member
C132 California Capitol Ins. Group
Claim 1325257 Loss Date 02/12/09
Type of Loss PROPERTY/CASUALTY Phone
NICB/ISO
Member
I012 INTERINS EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB OF
SOUTHERN CA
Claim 010863738EXP1 Loss Date 08/22/12
Type of Loss PROPERTY/CASUALTY Phone 7148852621
NICB/ISO
Member
I012 INTERINS EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB OF
SOUTHERN CA
Claim 010863738-I-8111 Loss Date 08/22/12
Type of Loss ASSIGNMENT Phone
Point of Impact Left And Right
Vehicle Salvage Title Summary 2008 Mercedes-Benz E350 4D Sedan
No Branded title history found for this VIN.
Processed on 08/30/12 3:48 PM. Title History is powered by Experian AutoCheck. The Experian
data contained in this report involves the conveyance of information provided to Experian by
other sources. Accordingly, neither Experian nor Audatex can, or will, be an insurer or guarantor
of the accuracy or reliability of the Experian data.
Claim: 010863738-I-8111 Autosource Valuation 2008 Mercedes-Benz E350 4D Sedan AS Request: 31399557
Version: 1 Page: 1 08/30/12 15:48
B-37
2
What is their solution to correct the problems and when.
When I look at the PV entirely:
42,000 households (this does not include Commerical business, shopping centers, resorts (Terranea) etc.
Edison collects: .37 for Distribution - Grid maintenance and new equipment, including poles, wire and Substation.
.08 for Transmission - Investment in operations and maintenance for Hi-Voltage transmission lines.
I assumed that with the 42,000 households (based on the LA County PVP PUMA Census Report) and an average
monthly electric bill of $150/month (this is a conservative number) and if $.45 of each dollar goes to Distribution and
Transmission, then $67.50 for each household......
42,000 households
x $67.50/mo
_____________________
$2,835,000 / mo
x 12 months
____________________
$34,020.000 /year for PV
x 20 years (how long we lived here)
____________________
$680,400,000 for 20 years - What Infrastructure repairs or upgrades has been done over the last 20 years for
$680M to PV.
Below, our oven that cycled at least a dozen times during the many power bumps, just before the 24-hour outage.
The next chart is Edisons transparency on where our money (each dollar) is being spent within Edison.
Thank you for all your support to address this issue......Dennis and Sondra
B-39
From: Tyler Welch <j.tyler.welch@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 10:39 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>; Adam Weiss <adam@greatmatter.com>
Subject: Grandview SCE Issues
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe!!!.
Ara,
Thank you for hosting the meeting on March 23 for the residents of the Grandview area that have been
subjected to numerous power outages over the past few years. I would also like to thank
Councilmember Paul Seo for attending the meeting. As mentioned by many of the meeting participants,
these frequent outages are not only inconvenient but pose a real danger for the elderly and those
reliant on medical devices that are electrically powered. Also noted at the meeting is the dependence of
our neighborhood residents on wi fi connections to connect our cell phone service as the area has poor
to no cell coverage. When the power fails, none of these devices work.
I have lived on Shoreview Drive since 1991. During those 32 years, we have suffered through power
outages in our neighborhood. These seem to have become more frequent and of longer duration during
the last five years. It seems that summers are getting hotter and winters colder with more rain and
wind events. We have also now been designated a high fire risk area which would seem to signal a
greater need for our electrical infrastructure
to be more robust to prevent downed lines causing fires in the area, although I fear SCE will use this
designation to simply call more planned outages to prevent fires rather than upgrading our
infrastructure.
Before retiring, I worked as a Supply Chain Director at a large Aerospace company. We dealt with some
of the largest industrial companies who provided goods and services to support our nations’ defense
effort. We also worked with the military services who oversaw our work. Both the large companies and
the DOD were complex entities with many layers of management where it was hard to find out exactly
who was responsible and accountable for getting problems fixed. My experience was that unless you
found the right individuals, you were not likely to get your problems resolved. It takes tremendous
perseverance.
Here is SCE’s description of their service area:
By the Numbers: Who We Serve
We delivered more than 87 billion kWh of electricity in 2015 and powered a total of
▪ 15 million people
▪ 180 incorporated cities
▪ 15 counties
B-40
▪ 50,000 square miles of service area
▪ 5,000 large businesses
▪ 280,000 small businesses
I can see why it is difficult to get their attention to a small neighborhood like ours. A little research
indicated that SCE is regulated by the CPUC. CPUC members are appointed by the CA Governor and are
approved by the CA Senate. I looked at the CPUC website and found that they do not even list a office
that is responsible for system reliability.
Getting CPUC energized to help us could be a daunting task. The closest thing I could find at the CPUC
was the Director of Public Advocates who is listed as Matt Barker. He can be contacted through his
executive assistant Hilda.Baltodano@cpuc.ca.gov . We should also advise Senator Ben Allen with
our issues and seek his assistance.
Here is some additional information I found trying to discover who in the CA government had oversight
over utility reliability issues:
August 25, 2021 - Keeping the Power On: A Focus on
Electricity Reliability and the California Public Utilities
Commission and the Public Advocates Office Annual
Update to the Legislature.
• Agenda 2021 Summer Reliability Monthly
Report
• Background
• Marybel Batjer, President, California Public Utilities
Commission CPUC Annual Report
• Siva Gunda, Commissioner, California Energy Commission
• Elliott Mainzer President & CEO, California Independent System
Operator CAISO Root Cause Analysis
• Amy C. Yip-Kikugawa, Acting Director, Public Advocates
Office PAO Annual Report
B-41
Ana Matosantos, Cabinet Secretary, Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom - I
found Ana’s name connected to a meeting regarding Diablo Canyon. She may be or may
know who in the Governor’s office is responsible for liaison with the CPUC.
I think you are on the right track in trying to collect data on the frequency and severity of our outages. I
also believe you should continue working with the Government relations contact you have at SCE and
documenting their efforts in solving our problem. The trick here is to continue going up the SCE chain of
command until you find someone that will take a sincere interest in our issue and provide a measurable
plan on how they are going to fix it. I looked at the SCE site and it is not detailed enough to see our
specific city, let alone our small neighborhood. The data I looked at was for the broader South Bay area
and did not indicate a particularly significant adverse trend for the South Bay, Perhaps we could get SCE
to contrast our city and neighborhood vs the rest of the South Bay. This is data they should have since
they would need to track their outages to specific locations. It may take them some digging but I am
sure they could do this. Here are SCE’s metrics for reliability. They don’t look too bad, however, I am
sure that the data for our area would be much worse:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/electric-
reliability/electric-system-reliability-annual-reports
In summary, I imagine you have already researched or know much of what I have provided in this email
but still hope some of this information might be useful. Certainly the city should have a bit more
leverage than any of us individuals and you can be successful in advocating our cause. It is certainly
aggravating to constantly have our power go out and peer out over the view I have at Shoreview Drive
and see it is always our neighborhood that is impacted while all the areas around us are still
powered. We pay our electric bills and deserve reliable service like our neighbors.
Thank you again for your help. I will plan on attending the meeting on April 4th.
Sincerely,
Tyler Welch
5535 Shoreview Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 213-8130
j.tyler.welch@gmail.com
B-42
March 27, 2023
SUBJECT: APRIL 4, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING – DISCUSSION ON
FREQUENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) POWER
OUTAGES IN THE GRANDVIEW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD
On April 4, 2023, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting, has requested to
hear a report from SCE on its response to frequent power outages in the Grandview
Estates neighborhood. The City Council meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in McTaggart Hall
at the Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park building located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.,
Rancho Palos Verdes.
You are invited to attend the City Council meeting to provide public testimony on your
experiences and concerns regarding this matter. Public participation that evening may
be in person or virtually via Zoom. If participating virtually, and to ensure your public
comment is heard, please complete a form on the City website at:
https://www.rpvca.gov/participate/council.
Details on how to participate virtually will be sent to the email address provided on the
form prior to the meeting.
Written comments may be submitted to Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager, at
kbanales@rpvca.gov by noon on Tuesday, April 4, 2023, for City Council consideration
in advance of the meeting. Written comments submitted after noon on Tuesday, April 4,
2023, will be given separately to the City Council that evening. Please note that written
materials, including emails, submitted to the City are public records and may be posted
on the City’s website.
If you should have any questions, contact Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager, at
(310) 544-5203 or via email at kbanales@rpvca.gov.
Sincerely,
Ara Mihranian
City Manager
C-1
01203.0006/675607.2 D-1
01203.0006/675607.2
Table of Contents
Item Page No.
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1
Process Overview ...........................................................................................................................3
Procedures
Phase 1: Building Neighborhood Consensus .............................................................................5
Phase 2: Petition to Advance Funding for Engineering .............................................................7
Phase 3: Engineering and Apportionment of Project Costs .......................................................9
Phase 4: Petition to Establish an Assessment District .............................................................11
Phase 5: Establishing an Assessment District ..........................................................................12
Phase 6: Construction of Underground Utility Improvements ................................................14
Frequently Asked Questions .......................................................................................................16
Exhibits
Letter of Intent ............................................................................................................. Exhibit A
Petition (for the City to advance funding for engineering services) ............................ Exhibit B
Letter of Support (for the City to advance funds for engineering services) ................ Exhibit C
Explanation of Non-Support or Opposition ................................................................. Exhibit D
Petition (for the City to form an Assessment District) ................................................ Exhibit E
Letter of Support (for the City to form an Assessment District) ..................................Exhibit F
Explanation of Non-Support or Opposition ................................................................. Exhibit G
(Draft) Notice of Assessment....................................................................................... Exhibit H
Ballot (for formation of an Assessment District) .......................................................... Exhibit I
(Final) Notice of Assessment and Invoice .................................................................... Exhibit J
Consent for Construction of Home Service Connection.............................................. Exhibit K
D-2
01203.0006/675607.2
Introduction
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide residents who are interested in undergrounding
overhead utility lines (power lines, telephone wires, television/internet cables and associated poles
and infrastructure) in their neighborhood with the necessary information, which is commonly
referred to as “undergrounding.”
Undergrounding is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) under Electric
Tariff Rule 20, which allows cities and counties to identify areas for undergrounding projects.
Depending on the project characteristics and eligibility under pre-established criteria, a utility may
fund some, all, or none of the costs of an overhead conversion.
Rule 20 provides three levels, A, B, and C, of progressively diminishing ratepayer funding for the
projects (and a sub-program D which is specific to undergrounding in San Diego Gas &Electric’s
Fire Threat District). For the Rule 20 program, cities identify overhead lines that they wish to
underground, and in consultation with their investor-owned utility determine if the conversion
project qualifies for any of the Rule 20 A, B, C or D programs.
For more information on the CPUC, and Tariff Rule 20, please visit www.cpuc.ca.gov,
Although few projects gather as much initial public support as undergrounding projects, when the
costs and complexity are better understood, support wains significantly. Although limited Rule 20
funding is available to the City for undergrounding projects along major arterial roadways, such
funding is NOT available for these projects in residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the cost of
such projects is the full financial responsibility of the affected property owners.
Undergrounding often positively addresses a number of neighborhood concerns, including:
Unsightly above-ground utilities
View obstructions
Individual concerns regarding health and safety
However, the process of undergrounding in residential neighborhoods is costly and complex, and
presents a number of challenges and concerns, such as:
Scale and scope of an undergrounding project
Sharing costs amongst the affected property owners
Rights and responsibilities of affected property owners, including those who support or do
not support undergrounding
Financing options including payment plans
Utility connection between the new underground lines and the structures, including
associated costs and the physical impacts on landscaping and the connections to homes
Potential financial hardship on one or more affected property owners
Impacts to roadways, sidewalks and other infrastructure in the public right-of-way
Once an individual, small group, or neighborhood endeavors to underground utilities in their
neighborhood, they may either fund the process themselves utilizing Rule 20C, or seek to establish
an assessment district through Rule 20B.
D-3
01203.0006/675607.2
The process described in these guidelines is based upon the best information available to the City
at the time, and is intended to be a step-by-step approach for residential neighborhoods considering
to pursue forming an assessment district through Rule 20B. In forming an assessment district, at
least 50% of property owners within the proposed district must be in support a the formation of
the proposed district in order for the City to consider forming the assessment district. However,
even in a case where 50% of the property owners support formation, the City Council has the final
decision on whether the assessment district is formed.
In brief,
At this time, the best estimates available to the City for undergrounding at the planning
stage is approximately $50,000 per property, although the final cost will vary.
Costs to underground are borne by individual property owners. The Assessment District
funds the project through the sale of bonds and the imposition of a semi-annual property
tax assessment to pay off the bonds.
Property Owners must also consider the cost to connect the underground utilities to their
home. This cost is not covered by the Assessment District.
D-4
01203.0006/675607.2
Phase 1
•Determine neighbor interest
•Form a committee and select representative
•Provide City with Letter of Intent
•City will host a Community Meeting with neighborhood representative(s) and
Utility Company representatives
Phase 2
•Petition (and accompanying Letters of Support) the City to advance funding
for Engineering
•City staff verification
•City Council consideration
•(potential) Funding of Engineering costs
Phase 3
•Preparing Plans, Specifications and an Engineering Estimate of Construction
Costs
•Proposed apportionment of project costs
•Neighborhood Meeting to discuss Engineering and apportionment of costs
Phase 4
•Petition to establish an Assessment District (and accompanying Letters of
Support)
•City Council consideration of a Resolution of Intent to form an Assessment
District and set a Public Hearing date
Phase 5
•Voting
•City Council conducts a Public Hearing to consider the formation of an
Assessment District
•Notices of Assessment (identifying financing options)
Phase 6
•Construction
D-5
01203.0006/675607.2
D-6
01203.0006/675607.2
Phase 1: Building Neighborhood Consensus
Step 1: Determine the Level of Interest within your Neighborhood
Speak with your neighbors and discuss the contents of this Guideline brochure. Most
property owners and individuals are likely to be in favor of relocating overhead utilities
(power lines, telephone and cable television) underground, but may be reluctant or
unwilling to pay for such relocation.
Although interested neighbors can propose the boundaries of the district area for
undergrounding based on neighborhood support for the project, the district must also
be feasible to the affected utility companies and will likely be based on the layout of
the affected portion of the utilities infrastructure.
Step 2: Form a Neighborhood Committee and/or Select a Neighborhood Representative
Interested neighbors should form a committee to represent the neighborhood and
appoint a representative to serve as the primary point of communication with City staff,
representatives of the applicable utilities (e.g., Cox Communications, Crown Castle
Communications, Verizon, AT&T, etc.)
The committee can be formed by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Board of
Directors or any group of property owners interested in undergrounding. If the
proposed district is governed by (or partially governed by) a HOA, a letter of support
from the HOA’s Board of Directors is required.
Step 3: Provide City with Letter of Interest
The neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative submits a Letter of
Interest to the City (See Exhibit A as a sample letter). This letter is addressed to the
City Council and delivered to the Public Works Department. The purpose of the letter
is to notify the City of the neighborhood’s interest and intention to form an
undergrounding assessment district.
The letter should identify the area contemplated for undergrounding (a map depicting
the area should be attached to the letter) and indicate to what degree the neighborhood
has discussed undergrounding. The letter should also give the name and contact
information of the neighborhood representative.
D-7
01203.0006/675607.2
Step 4: City will Host a Community Meeting
Upon receipt of a Letter of Interest, which indicates significant outreach and a
significant level of support amongst property owners in the proposed district area, City
staff will begin the process of scheduling a community meeting to discuss the details
of the proposed project and the potential impacts on the properties, property owners,
and occupants. As part of that process, the receipt of the Letter of Interest will be
reported in the City Manager’s Weekly Administrative Report.
The Community Meeting will be scheduled so that representatives from the following
are in attendance:
City Manager (or a designee)
Public Works Staff
Neighborhood representative and neighborhood committee members
Representatives of impacted utility companies, such as:
Southern California Edison
Cox Communications
Crown Castle Communications
Verizon
AT&T
Notice of the community meeting will be sent to all property owners within the
proposed district area at least 15 days in advance of the meeting.
D-8
01203.0006/675607.2
Phase 2: Petition to Advance Funding for Engineering
Step 5: Petition and Letters of Support / Explanations for Examples of Lack of Support
After a Community Meeting is held, the neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood
representative may petition for the City to advance funding for engineering for the
project. (See Exhibit B for the form to be used)
The neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative are to reach out to
all of the owners of properties in the proposed district area, and obtain one of the
following for each property:
Letter of Support, signed by the property owner, accompanied by a check for
$500 for each property, made payable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (See
Exhibit C for the form to be used), or
Letter of Opposition explaining why the property owner(s) oppose(s) the
project or does not support it (See Exhibit D for the form to be used.) A
signature is not required.
Checks accompanying Letters of Support will be deposited by the City into a Trust
Deposit account and held until expenses begin to be incurred for engineering services
to design the project. Deposits will be refundable up until a purchase order is opened
by the City for engineering services. Refunds will not be subject to interest accrued in
the Trust Deposit, nor potential lost interest by the property owner.
It is unlikely that support for the undergrounding project will be unanimous, even if
only due to individual financial reasons. Thus, when the owner of a property does not
support the proposed project, the neighborhood representative and/or neighborhood
committee member must document the reason for the opposition or lack of support on
the Letter of Opposition form. (See Exhibit D)
Step 6: City Staff Verification
Upon receipt of the Petition and supporting documents, City staff will verify that at
least one Letter of Support or Letter of Opposition have been submitted for each
property within the proposed district area. Staff will also verify that the name on the
petitions match the current assessment rolls.
Upon verification, the proposed project will be scheduled for consideration by the City
Council at one of its regularly scheduled meetings.
D-9
01203.0006/675607.2
Step 7: City Council Consideration
As a Regular Business Agenda item, the City Council will consider the following
actions in response to the neighborhood’s petition:
Support the neighborhood’s efforts to create an assessment district in their
neighborhood;
Assume the role of lead agency for the project;
Advance funding for engineering services to prepare plans and specifications
for the project (Staff will only recommend to the City Council that the City
advance such funding if the Petition is accompanied by Letters of Support from
at least two-thirds of property owners within the proposed project area);
Alternatively, elect not to support the neighborhood’s efforts; and
Take any other action deemed appropriate by the City Council.
When considering the neighborhood’s petition, including whether or not to advance
funds for a particular project, the City Council will consider many factors, including
but not limited to the following:
Project costs;
Availability of funding;
Level of neighborhood support; and
How the neighborhood intends to address impacted property owners who have
expressed a financial concern over the project.
Step 8: Funding of Engineering Costs
In the event that the City Council elects to advance funding for engineering, the Finance
Department will help determine the appropriate means and methods necessary for
providing necessary funds. This may require the issuing of bonds on proposed
benefitting properties to ensure such funds are reimbursed to the City, regardless of
whether the undergrounding project is completed or not.
D-10
01203.0006/675607.2
Phase 3: Engineering and Apportionment of Project Costs
Step 9: Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Estimates
Upon receipt of a request, accompanied by a boundary map, Southern California
Edison will provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for a proposed assessment
district.
Step 10: Preparing Plans, Specifications
Like all other public projects impacting infrastructure facilities in the public right-of-
way, Plans, Specifications, and an Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs must be
prepared prior to obtaining public bids from potential contractors. However, only
Southern California Edison can provide engineering designs for Edison
undergrounding districts/projects.
All costs for the preparation of the documents shall be the financial responsibility of
the owners of the properties in the proposed assessment district, or as proposed in the
petition to address potential financial hardships of individual property owners.
Step 11: Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs
It is important to note that the Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs will be an
estimate of the total construction cost for undergrounding the overhead utility facilities
in the public right-of-way areas only, and will not include the cost for individual
properties to connect to relocated facilities, nor define costs on a property-by-property
basis.
Step 12: Proposed Apportionment of Project Costs
Once Plans, Specifications, and the Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs have
been prepared, the Engineer will assess each property’s benefit from the project and
prepare a report that includes:
A map of the project area
The methodology used to determine the benefits to each property from the
project
A recommended property-by-property apportioned cost of the project
The report will be provided to the neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood
representative to share with all of the impacted property owners, and a meeting will be
scheduled for the neighborhood to discuss the allocation of financial responsibility.
D-11
01203.0006/675607.2
Step 13: Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting will be scheduled to discuss the proposed apportionment of
project costs and either agree with the proposed apportionment or propose an
alternative distribution. The meeting will be scheduled so that representatives from the
following are in attendance:
City Manager (or a designee)
Public Works Staff
All owners of properties in the proposed Assessment District
Representatives from impacted utility companies, such as:
Southern California Edison
Cox Communications
Crown Castle Communications
AT&T
Verizon
Notice of the community meeting will be sent to all property owners within the
proposed district area at least 15 days in advance of the meeting.
D-12
01203.0006/675607.2
Phase 4: Petition to Establish an Assessment District
Step 14: Petition to Establish an Assessment District
After the Neighborhood Meeting is held, the neighborhood committee and/or
neighborhood representative must submit a Petition to Establish an Assessment District
(See Exhibit E for the form to be used) to the City, accompanied by the following:
Letters of Support (and accompanying fees) for each property for which the
owner(s) are in support of the project
Letters of Opposition for each property for which the owner does not supportthe
project
A proposal to address the financial share of property owners for which the
project would pose a financial hardship
(A possible proposal would be for the neighborhood to agree to collectively
share the financial responsibility of property owners for which the project
would present a financial hardship)
Step 15: Council Meeting to Consider a Resolution of Intent to Form an Assessment
District
As a Regular Business Agenda item, the City Council will consider the Engineer’s
report (see Step 11). If the report is accepted, the City Council will adopt a Resolution
of Intent, which sets a Public Hearing date (at least 45 days following the adoption of
the Resolution of Intent), at which time the City Council will hear testimony and decide
whether or not to form an Assessment District.
D-13
01203.0006/675607.2
Phase 5: Establishing an Assessment District
Step 16: Notice of Assessment and Ballots Mailed
The City Council can only form an Assessment District if a simple majority of the
assessed property ownership (weighted by assessment amounts) agree to the
assessment.
To determine if this State-mandated majority is met, ballots and Notices of Assessment
are mailed 45 days prior to the Public Hearing. The results of the ballot election are
tabulated at the Public Hearing.
If a simple majority of assessed properties (weighted by assessment amounts) does
NOT support the formation of the proposed assessment district, then the assessment
district will not be formed. In such an event, the project will not move forward and
property owners will be required to reimburse the City for the Engineering costs
incurred, in accordance with the neighborhood’s petition to advance funding.
Step 17: City Council conducts a Public Hearing
A Public Hearing is conducted by the City Council to review ballot results and to
receive comments or protests from the property owners.
If a simple majority of the weighted assessment value property owners vote in favor of
the project, the City Council may adopt the resolution forming the Assessment District.
The term “weighted assessment value” means that the vote of a property owner with a
$20,000 assessment counts twice as much as the property owner with a $10,000
assessment.
The City Council has the discretion to refuse to form an Assessment District,
notwithstanding successful vote in support. The ballot result is not the only factor that
will be considered by the City Council. Other factors that may be considered by the
City Council include:
How the neighborhood intends to address impacted property owners who have
expressed a financial concern over the project
Level of neighborhood support
City benefit from the project
Step 18: Notice of Assessment
If the Assessment District is formed, a Notice of Assessment and Financing Options
will be mailed to each affected property owner. A property owner may pay the
assessment within the 30-day cash collection period and receive a discount for bond
financing costs. Property owners not paying within the 30-day period will have an
assessment placed against their property in accordance with the Engineer’s Report and
will pay off the assessment in semi-annual payments with their property tax bills.
D-14
01203.0006/675607.2
Phase 6: Construction of Underground Utility Improvements
Step 19: Construction
The applicable electrical utility must complete the portions of the work related to
placing their facilities within conduits, however, much of the work may be advertised
for competitive bids.
The City will either enter into a contract with the applicable electrical utility to
construct the improvements or advertise a contract for the construction. If the latter
approach is utilized, bids will be sought in accordance with the City’s public project
policies and procedures.
When all properties are connected to the underground system, the utilities will convert
to the underground system and utility wires and poles are removed.
D-15
01203.0006/675607.2
D-16
01203.0006/675607.2
1. What are the typical costs?
The cost of undergrounding overhead utilities lines varies greatly from project to project;
however, it is estimated to cost $50,000 per property. However, the cost can also vary
significantly from property to property. This amount is typically paid through an assessment.
In addition to the construction within the street, the service connection to the individual
homes must also be reconstructed. Under State law, the cost for these private connections is
the responsibility of property owner. However, the law also provides that property owner can
fill out a consent form requesting the City construct the connection to the individual home
as well and in such cases, the cost is included in the assessment and paid by the property
owner over time.
The cost to reconstruct individual service connections will vary greatly depending upon
distance from the street to the connection point, as well as the type improvements that are
impacted by the construction. An estimate for a 40-foot connection in lawn, or standard
concrete or asphalt is $5,000.
2. Will everyone pay the same amount?
Generally, no. The assessment process will determine the amount paid by various propert y
owners and will vary depending on the benefit the property receives from the project. For
example, properties with views greatly improved by the project will pay a higher assessment
than a property with little or no improvement to view.
3. How is the area of the Assessment district determined?
The area of the assessment district is determined by the neighborhood, in conjunction with
the applicable electrical utility, to make sure the district boundaries works well with the
electrical grid.
4. Will all the wires and poles be removed?
The undergrounding project will generally remove all wires and poles. There are some
exceptions. Poles that support streetlights will not be removed. In addition, poles that support
cellular (wireless) communications may only be removed if an alternate location can be
found.
5. How long should the process take?
The length of the process will vary greatly from project to project, depending on size,
complexity, and availability of City funding and neighborhood support. It will take
approximately 12 months to design the improvements and six months to form the Assessment
District. A good estimate of time for the entire process is 3 to 4 years.
D-17
01203.0006/675607.2
6. Why can’t the City pay for undergrounding utilities?
Although the City is supportive of neighborhood undergrounding projects, adequate funding
is not available. The undergrounding program requires the City to advance the cost of
engineering services to design the plans and to prepare the Engineer’s Report of
Assessments. These costs, however, will be added to the cost of construction and included
in assessments to be paid by the property owners within the assessment district.
7. Does the City receive funding for undergrounding from Southern California Edison?
Yes, the City is allocated a certain amount of “work credits” annually for undergrounding,
however, these credits must be accumulated over many years to funds undergrounding
projects, and those projects may only be utilized for projects which benefit a large number
of citizens, such as arterial roadways.
Rule 20A projects are constructed in areas of communities that are used most often by the
general public. Because ratepayers contribute the bulk of the costs of Rule 20A programs
through utility rates, the projects must be in the public interest by meeting one or more of the
following public interest criteria:
Eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead lines;
Involve a street or road with a high volume of public traffic
Benefit a civic or recreation area or area of unusual scenic interest;
Be listed as an arterial street or major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research Guidelines
8. Why can’t Southern California Edison pay for utility undergrounding?
Unfortunately, undergrounding is expensive and there is no legal requirement for Southern
California Edison to underground their facilities.
9. What equipment will still be visible above ground? Will I get a chance to review
proposed equipment locations before they are finalized?
Transformers will be located in sub-surface vaults covered by typical manhole covers.
Telephone systems also require above ground terminals. In addition, many underground
facilities will require air vents, which will be visible from the street.
10. What is an assessment district?
An assessment district is a financing tool used to fund the cost of a construction project over
a period of time. With an assessment district, costs are apportioned to each parcel within the
project boundary based upon the value of the special benefit conferred on that parcel. The
amount each parcel pays is determined in the Engineer’s Report of Assessment.
D-18
01203.0006/675607.2
11. How will I pay for the assessment?
Assessments can be paid one of two ways, either the amount of the assessment can be paid
in cash or it can be financed in, which case it will be paid over a time period typically 20
years as part of the property tax bill. Property owners wishing to pay the entire amount up
front will save the cost of interest.
12. What is the term of bond financing?
Bonds are usually financed over 15 to 20 year terms.
13. Can assessments be deferred for hardship cases?
Individuals should consult with a tax advisor to determine if they qualify for the State of
California Property Tax Postponement Program. If qualified, the utility undergrounding
assessment may be deferred until the property is sold or the estate is settled. Information
regarding the State of California Property Tax Postponement Program can be found at the
California State Controller’s Office website:
D-19
01203.0006/675607.2
D-20
01203.0006/675607.2
D-21
Letter of Interest
to underground utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
c/o Director of Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
I/We, as owner(s) of property(ies) within the _______________________________ neighborhood
(depicted on the attached map) of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (“City”) with existing overhead
electrical and communication utility lines and poles, wish to pursue a project to have those utilities
relocated underground in my/our neighborhood.
As such, I/we have reviewed the latest version of the City’s “Guidelines to Underground Utilities
in Residential Neighborhoods and discussed its contents with owners of _[#]_ of the _[#]_
properties in the proposed area of the project. Of the owners that I/we have spoken to, _[#]_ have
expressed their willingness to support a project for undergrounding the overhead utility facilities,
including indicating that they are willing to bear their fair portion of the financial responsibility
for associated project costs.
Therefore, I/we hereby request that the City schedule a meeting with owners of properties from
the area depicted on the attached map and representatives of the City and companies owning
overhead utility facilities in our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
(signature) (signature)
(full name, printed) (full name, printed)
Owner of the property at: Owner of the property at:
(only address number and street name are needed) (only address number and street name are needed)
(signature) (signature)
(full name, printed) (full name, printed)
Owner of the property at: Owner of the property at:
(only address number and street name are needed) (only address number and street name are needed)
D-22
01203.0006/675607.2 D-23
Petition of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
to Advance Funding for Engineering Services
for a Proposed Undergrounding Project
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
c/o Director of Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
I/We, being owners of property within an area of the City that we wish to pursue residential utility
undergrounding, hereby request the City Council advance funding for engineering services to:
determine the full scope of the proposed undergrounding;
develop plans, specifications, and an engineering estimate of construction costs
Assess each property’s benefit from the project
Prepare a report that includes:
A map of the project area
The methodology used to determine the benefits to each property from the project
A recommended property-by-property apportioned cost of the project
In support of this petition, Letters of Support from the owner(s) of each property that supports this
petition is attached, and an accompanying check for $500 has been provided to the City as a down
payment and sign of our financial commitment to this effort.
We understand:
A. That the cost of the improvements will be assessed to the land which benefits from the
improvements including our land;
B. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed
cost estimate, and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land, and that a
public hearing will be conducted on the report;
C. That the cost of engineering, legal, and other incidental expenses will be included in the
project cost;
D. The initial estimated cost of improvements for each property $50,000;
E. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest , or in
installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years;
F. If the parcel’s private property service connection to the utilities is not underground, then
the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner
expense, after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5,000.
This expense may be added to the assessment.
This petition is filed with you under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2804 of the Streets
and Highways Code of the State of California.
The petition may be filed in counterpart or may be joined with other petitions for similar work.
D-24
01203.0006/675607.2 D-25
Letter of Support
of the ____________________ Neighborhood’s Petition
to Underground Utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
c/o Director of Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
I/We, the undersigned, being owners of the property at __________________________________
hereby support my neighborhood’s efforts to underground utilities within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, and the Petition for the City to advance funds for engineering services to develop plans,
specifications and an engineering estimate of construction cost for the project.
In signing this Letter of Support, I/we attest to having read the City’s Guidelines to
Undergrounding Utilities in Residential Neighborhoods, and understand that:
1. The apportioned share, as determined by the City Council, of the project costs will be
assessed to the land which benefits from the improvements, including my/our land, unless
that share is paid at the conclusion of the project;
2. The apportioned share for my property must be paid, even if the project is not completed
and the undergrounding of utilities is not performed (i.e. there is insufficient support for
construction of the project after engineering work has begun);
3. A Public Hearing will be conducted by the City Council to establish an Assessment
District after engineering services work is completed;
4. The costs of engineering, legal and other incidental expenses will be included in the project
cost;
5. The estimated cost of improvements to be financed from the Assessment District for each
parcel is $40,000 – 60,000;
6. Each property owner may pay their assessment in cash without interest, or in installments
with interest over a period of 15 – 20 years; and
7. The parcel’s private property service connection costs associated with the project are the
financial responsibility of the owners of the properties directly benefitting from the
project, not the City’s, and that an appropriate allocation of the costs will be determined
including me/us, and that payment of my/our apportioned share of the project costs will
either be paid at the conclusion of the project or be assessed to the property and paid semi-
annually with the property taxes.
The improvements, which we hereby request to be acquired for the benefit of the property within
the above-mentions proposed assessment district, are the conversion of existing overhead electrical
and communications facilities to underground locations and the removal of poles.
We understand:
A. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed
cost estimate, and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land, and that a
public hearing will be conducted on the report;
D-26
Letter of Support
of the ____________________ Neighborhood’s Petition
to Underground Utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
01203.0006/675607.2
B. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest, or in
installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years;
C. If the parcel’s private property service connection to the utilities is not underground, then
the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner
expense, after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5,000.
This expense may be added to the assessment.
Respectfully,
(signature) (signature)
(full name, printed) (full name, printed)
(email address) (email address)
(home phone number) (home phone number)
(cell/mobile phone number) (cell/mobile phone number)
D-27
01203.0006/675607.2 D-28
Letter of Non-Support
to Underground Utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
c/o Director of Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
I/We, the undersigned, being owners of the property at __________ [property address]_________
DO NOT SUPPORT the efforts to underground utilities within my neighborhood in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes for the following reasons: (check all that apply)
☐ Personal expenses would be a financial burden
☐ Do not wish to incur personal expenses related to the project
☐ Do not believe that property owners should pay for the project
☐ The overhead utilities do not bother me and/or I like them
☐ Do not want to disrupt landscape and/or hardscape on my property to underground utilit y
connections to my home that are currently overhead
☐ Other (please specify)
☐ Do not wish to specify
Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s)
Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address)
Alternatively, if the property owner does not wish to complete this form, a representative of the
Neighborhood Committee or the Neighborhood Representative can complete the form to document
a verbal conversation with the property owner, as long as it is so noted.
Committee Representative (please print name) Committee Representative Signature
D-29
01203.0006/675607.2 D-30
Petition to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
to form an Assessment District
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
I/We, the undersigned, being owners of property within the area of a proposed assessment district
to be established under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 (Sections 10000, et
seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”), do hereby petition
the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the “City”) to forthwith commence and carry
through to completion under the provisions of said Act, all proceedings for the formation of an
Assessment District as hereinafter described and for the acquisition of the hereinafter mentioned
improvements within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
The area within the City, which we hereby request the City Council to form as an Assessment
District, as hereinabove mentioned, is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A entitled
“Map of Proposed Undergounding Assessment District for the ___________ neighborhood.”
The improvements, which we hereby request to be acquired for the benefit of the property within
the above-mentions proposed assessment district, are the conversion of existing overhead electrical
and communications facilities to underground locations and the removal of poles.
We understand:
G. That the cost of the improvements will be assessed to the land which benefits from the
improvements including our land;
H. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed
cost estimate, and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land, and that a
public hearing will be conducted on the report;
I. That the cost of engineering, legal, and other incidental expenses will be included in the
project cost;
J. The estimated cost of improvements to be financed from Assessment District for each
parcel is $40,000 - $60,000;
K. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest, or in
installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years;
L. If the parcel’s private property service connection to the utilities is not underground, then
the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner
expense, after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5,000.
This expense may be added to the assessment.
This petition is filed with you under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2804 of the Streets
and Highways Code of the State of California.
The petition may be filed in counterpart or may be joined with other petitions for similar work.
D-31
01203.0006/675607.2 D-32
Letter of Support
of the ____________________ Neighborhood’s Petition
to form an Assessment District
01203.0006/675607.2
Petition of Interest
to underground utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
I/We, the undersigned, being owners of property within the area of a proposed assessment district
to be established under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 (Sections 10000, et
seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”), do hereby petition
the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the “City”) to forthwith commence and carry
through to completion under the provisions of said Act, all proceedings for the formation of an
Assessment District as hereinafter described and for the acquisition of the hereinafter mentioned
improvements within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
The area within the City, which we hereby request the City Council to form as an Assessment
District, as hereinabove mentioned, is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A entitled
“Map of Proposed Undergounding Assessment District for the ___________ neighborhood.”
The improvements, which we hereby request to be acquired for the benefit of the property within
the above-mentions proposed assessment district, are the conversion of existing overhead electrical
and communications facilities to underground locations and the removal of poles.
We understand:
A. That the cost of the improvements will be assessed to the land which benefits from the
improvements including our land;
B. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed
cost estimate, and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land, and that a
public hearing will be conducted on the report;
C. That the cost of engineering, legal, and other incidental expenses will be included in the
project cost;
D. The estimated cost of improvements to be financed from Assessment District for each
parcel is $40,000 - $60,000;
E. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest, or in
installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years;
F. If the parcel’s private property service connection to the utilities is not underground, then
the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner
expense, after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5,000.
This expense may be added to the assessment.
D-33
Letter of Support
of the ____________________ Neighborhood’s Petition
to form an Assessment District
01203.0006/675607.2
This petition is filed with you under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2804 of the Streets
and Highways Code of the State of California.
The petition may be filed in counterpart or may be joined with other petitions for similar work.
Property Information
Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address)
Assessor Parcel Number (APN):
Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s)
D-34
01203.0006/675607.2 D-35
Explanation of Non-Support
to Underground Utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
c/o Director of Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
I/We, the undersigned, being owners of the property at __________ [property address]_________
DO NOT SUPPORT the efforts to underground utilities within my neighborhood in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes for the following reasons: (check all that apply)
☐ Personal expenses would be a financial burden
☐ Do not wish to incur personal expenses related to the project
☐ Do not believe that property owners should pay for the project
☐ The overhead utilities do not bother me and/or I like them
☐ Do not want to disrupt landscape and/or hardscape on my property to underground utility
connections to my home that are currently overhead
☐ Other (please specify)
☐ Do not wish to specify
Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s)
Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address)
Alternatively, if the property owner does not wish to complete this form, a representative of the
Neighborhood Committee or the Neighborhood Representative can complete the form to document
a verbal conversation with the property owner, as long as it is so noted.
Committee Representative (please print name) Committee Representative Signature
D-36
01203.0006/675607.2 D-37
01203.0006/675607.2
To: [Property Owner]
[Mailing Address]
[City], [State] [Zip Code]
Re: Assessment of liability to the property at __________________
(Assessor Parcel Number (APN): _______________)
To the owners of the above referenced property,
An assessment is being levied against the above referenced property as part of the Assessment
District established under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 (Sections 10000,
et seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”) on ____ for
improvements within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
The liability assigned to the above referenced property is $ .00, and is your financial responsibility.
If you have any questions regarding this assessment, please contact:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Department of Public Works
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
D-38
01203.0006/675607.2 D-39
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
c/o Director of Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
I/We, the undersigned, being owners of the property at __________ [property address]_________
have received a Draft Notice of Assessment for my/our property and
☐ Support / Vote FOR
☐ Opposed / Vote AGAINST
The formation of an Assessment District (as described and defined in the City’s Guidelines to
Underground Utilities in Residential Neighborhoods)
Please provide comments to explain your vote, if you wish. (Not required)
Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s)
Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address)
D-40
01203.0006/675607.2 D-41
01203.0006/675607.2
To: [Property Owner]
[Mailing Address]
[City], [State] [Zip Code]
Re: Assessment of liability to the property at __________________
(Assessor Parcel Number (APN): _______________)
To the owners of the above referenced property,
An assessment is being levied against the above referenced property as part of the Assessment
District established under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 (Sections 10000,
et seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”) on ____ for
improvements within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
The liability assigned to the above referenced property is $ .00, and is your financial responsibility.
If you have any questions regarding this assessment, please contact:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Department of Public Works
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
D-42
01203.0006/675607.2
D-43
Consent for Construction of Home Service Connection
01203.0006/675607.2
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
c/o Director of Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
I/We, the undersigned, being owners of the property at __________ [property address]_________
hereby acknowledge that a new service connection to our home will be necessary when overhead
utilities are relocated underground in our neighborhood, and that costs associated with establishing
this new connection is my/our financial responsibility.
I/We hereby request that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Southern California Edison and/or third
party contractors hired, construct the necessary service connections as part of the undergrounding
project.
I/We acknowledge that such construction may require trenching from the street to the main
structure of the home, and will likely damage or otherwise disturb existing vegetation.
I/We further acknowledge that the connection will be constructed in the most cost effective way
possible, and is likely to not be the most aesthetically pleasing manner possible. This includes, but
is not limited to replacing decorative vegetation such as flowers and bushes, hardscape such as
rock or mulch, or replacement of driveways or sidewalks that are cut for required trenching.
Property Information
Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address)
Assessor Parcel Number (APN):
Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s)
D-44