Project to put power lines underground in La Cañada neighborhood deemed feasible

Homeowners on Flanders Road and La Cañada Boulevard — who petitioned Southern California Edison last year to see whether unsightly, potentially unsafe power lines in their neighborhood might be moved underground — recently learned the project would be physically feasible.

Adrian Garcia, a liaison between the utility provider and the city of La Cañada Flintridge, informed the City Council during an April 19 meeting that an initial examination of the area had been done and a feasibility report was on its way to the resident group.

NEWSLETTER: Stay up to date with what’s going on in your community >>

Neighbors Philippe Hartley and Jennifer Schloessman, two among the cohort that’s led the effort so far, confirmed in a recent interview they’d received such a report from Edison. Now, the only things that remain to be determined are how, when and by what means the immense undertaking could possibly be executed.

“Edison came about five months ago, surveyed the property and said yes, they could do it,” Hartley said. “(But) they’re not general contractors, and they’re not motivated to do it.”

That could be a serious sticking point, as the onus on completing and bankrolling the necessary legwork may fall largely on the residents themselves. According to the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates Edison and other privately run public utility providers, there are a few different options for undergrounding power lines, under the agency’s “Rule 20.”

Rule 20A stipulates cities may bank annual funding allocations specifically for undergrounding projects, and borrow against future allocations to cover costs beyond what’s been banked. In La Cañada, that option was pretty much exhausted when officials used their allocation to install underground lines along Foothill Boulevard, according to City Manager Mark Alexander.

“My understanding is that the Rule 20 money allocated to La Cañada has been mortgaged out 20 some years,” Alexander explained to council members in a meeting in August. “We’re not going to see Rule 20 money available to us for quite some time.”

Other options, as outlined in Rules 20B and 20C, explain how similar work can be done upon agreement of the utility provider and the applicant at the expense of the person or entities requesting the work, once certain conditions have been met and arrangement regarding the purchasing of equipment have been made.

No Edison spokesperson would comment directly on undergrounding, either in the case of the La Cañada neighborhood group or at large, although a company statement was provided for this story.

“Southern California Edison understands the interest by communities to improve neighborhood aesthetics by placing existing overhead utilities underground,” the statement read. “The company operates primarily as an overhead electric utility, but will work with local governments and agencies when undergrounding projects are initiated and approved.”

Join the conversation on Facebook >>

Alexander and La Cañada Public Works Director Edward Hitti indicated any plans to move forward from this point would have to be made by the neighbors themselves.

“SCE has done the preliminary analysis and has provided information to the residents to help aid their decision-making, but additional consultant information will be required for them to gain a full and true understanding of the total costs and process involved,” Alexander wrote in an email interview.

Hartley said that while some of the neighbors who signed the group’s petition indicated they’d consider establishing a special tax assessment district to help pay for undergrounding, both Edison and the city of La Cañada should take a broader interest in creating a 21st century solution to supplying power to a growing community.

“There was an assessment for sewers — I accepted that, as I’m still paying for that assessment and I absolutely do not mind that assessment,” he said. “But I want the city to pay its share, and the utility to pay its share.”

Schloessman agreed, saying installing bigger power poles was not an adequate solution for the meantime.

“We’re going to keep growing our infrastructure. You can’t just keep putting bigger and bigger poles in,” she said. “Really, it’s a quality of life issue.”

--

Sara Cardine, sara.cardine@latimes.com

Twitter: @SaraCardine