20200602 Late CorrespondenceEnyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:32 PM
cc
CityCierk; Adrienne Mohan
CC 06/02/2020 Agenda Item No. 3
Honorable Mayor & Members of City Council -
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening regarding the Status Report on the Acacia Removal
Project.
This project iswonderful example of innovation and cooperation between the City, the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Land Conservancy and the community,tt o address a significant public safety concern. Being a unique pilot
program, there were a lot of unknowns at the start, including dealing with access, steep terrain, the density of
the acacia growth and estimating the true costs. However, the project has accomplished a lot of good, provided
a measure of peace of mind for our community and we've learned a lot through the process.
/
I firmly believe it has been a worthwhile endeavor and I strongly encourage the City Council to proceed with
Staffs recommendation to clear 2 to 3 more acres of acacia and to mow an additional 16 acres of dry brush with
the remaining grant funds . Going forward, it would be my hope that the landscape contractors will have
enough experience now to provide lump sum pricing on any future phases of the project. -
I appreciate you considering my comments and thank you for all the work the City Council and Staff
do on behalf of our community.
Kindest regards,
Carolynn Petru
President, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and proud RPV resident
1
Th:mk you
Joan Davidson
Palos Verdes Estates
"The Clean Power Alliance is an opportunity to let your residents choose for themselves between remaining with SCE or
enjoying one of the three additional options that the city of RPV can explain to its' residents.
One can save money on the CPA's Lean Power choice
or
pay the same price as Edison's standard rate but that is almost 90% carbon free
or
residents may choose to pay about $4.00 more a month for 100% renewable power
Local cities such as Rolling Hills Estates, Redondo Beach and Malibu have opted for this power alliance.
I am hoping that RPV and its' leaders will take this under consideration and reach out to residents for acceptance.
Any resident can either join or stay with SCE.
This is a win-win for all.
Please join in cleaning the environment and giving a choice to your residents. Hoping that other cities in the Peninsula
will jump
on the band wagon too! "
2
Teresa Takaoka
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Monday, June 1, 2020 8:14PM
'Joan Davidson'; Teresa Takaoka
cc
Subject: RE: joining the Clean Power Alliance
Hi Joan,
The City is in receipt of your statement which will be read into the record during public comments.
Stay safe and well,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
!~CliO PA.tos VEr~oEs
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
r:>rnail con\J.)ins infonnation belonginq to the confdcntidi ,Jt:d/or protected frorn
&:.clnsue. The is intended only for us(: of the or entity narncd, Unauthorizccl dist/hul:ion, or copyinr.1 is strictly prohibitc::L F
you r!:cdvcd ri1b cm;;il in error, or arc not an :ntendcd i'CC!i.!IPnt, please notify the r;c'ndcr immediately_ Thank you for your assrstanu" ant coopemtion,
From: Joan Davidson <j135cooper@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 4:29 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: re: joining the Clean Power Alliance
Dear Teresa, Can this please be read my statement into the record for tomorrow night's RPV meeting on this
agenda item for the Clean Power Alliance.
1
1
From:Teresa Takaoka
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 6:11 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 4: Please support joining the Los Angeles County Clean Power Alliance
(Sorry for Very Late Correspondence)
Late corr
From: Al Sattler <alsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 6:13 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 4: Please support joining the Los Angeles County Clean Power Alliance (Sorry for Very Late
Correspondence)
Members of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
I strongly urge you to move forward in the process toward joining the Los Angeles County Clean Power Alliance.
I see excellent benefits, and no downsides.
This would help allow us to control our energy, to reach 100% renewable energy earlier, and at a lower cost, than
staying with SCE.
A number of local cities have joined, and have had good experiences.
I am puzzled about the expressed concern about the issue of eminent domain...I don't see how that is involved.
Al Sattler
(Sorry for Very Late Correspondence, I only found about this today)
1
From:Terry Rodrigue
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 6:22 PM
To:'SUNSHINE'
Cc:CC; CityClerk; PC; jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com;
stoneladybug@sbcglobal.net; susanmswank@gmail.com; david.lukac.us@gmail.com
Subject:RE: Follow the money, Re: Complaint about 14 Bronco Drive.
Hi Sunshine,
You are correct that an easement is not the same as a trail but I am not sure what we would be expected to do when it comes
to these two particular projects? As far as implementation of the trails plan, you are correct that has been transferred to R&P.
While Planning Departments in general are good places for master plans to originate and be prepared, planning departments
generally do not have the means, wither technical or funding capability to actually build facilities. Thus the transfer.
I am not really sure what you think we should do for these two projects which are now in front of us. As far as funding to get
information out, I also do not understand what the planning department should be doing in this regard. Are you talking about
funding to build the trails? Funding to update the plan or map the trails. Sorry I just don’t understand as I clearly don’t have the
background that you do on this topic.
Terry
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 6:54 PM
To: Terry Rodrigue <TRodrigue@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com;
pvpasofino@yahoo.com; stoneladybug@sbcglobal.net; susanmswank@gmail.com; david.lukac.us@gmail.com
Subject: Follow the money, Re: Complaint about 14 Bronco Drive.
Hi Terry,
Now you know about one quarter of what I know about these two projects. The question on the table is
whether or not you have the funding, come July 1, 2020, to at least get the information you are missing and
therefore are not sharing with Applicants?
I am working at damage control.
Bottom line. An Easement does not preserve and enhance an off-road circulation corridor.
Have a lovely evening. …S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 6/2/2020 5:01:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, TRodrigue@rpvca.gov writes:
2
Hi Sunshine,
On the two projects that you mentioned here is the status as I understand it.
14 Bronco – We would like this project to provide a trail easement that will connect to 10 Chaparral in the
future if the property owner is still interested. Several months ago we requested that Kurt (a well-known trail
surveyor that also worked on the GPS coordinates for 10 Chaparral) provide us with some GPS coordinates
so that we could specify where the easement should be placed. The project has been noticed to the public
and we have a bit less than two months to take action on the application. Kurt has been busy but has
indicated he will try to get us the appropriate information to condition the property. The applicant is aware of
this and so far has been cooperative.
28160 PVDE – The project is scheduled to appear in front of the Traffic Safety Committee on June 10th and
then at Planning Commission on June 23rd. The trail does not traverse the property but does run along
PVDE on the same side of the road as the property. The Public Works Department is conditioning the
property to provide adequate room by delineating an 8 foot wide path to that can be accommodated for trail
purposes. The applicant is aware of this condition and is cooperative. Additional comments beyond this can
of course, be expressed in writing or verbally to the Traffic Safety Committee or the Planning Commission.
Please let me know if you understand differently. I think we are trying to accommodate for the trails in these
instances. If you think something is going wrong with these projects could you let me know what that would
be?
Thank you
Terry
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:38 PM
To: Terry Rodrigue <TRodrigue@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>;
jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; stoneladybug@sbcglobal.net; susanmswank@gmail.com;
david.lukac.us@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Complaint about 14 Bronco Drive.
Hi Terry,
3
Look fast. Tonight is the night for you to make sure that what needs to get done in order for you
and your Planners to do their jobs on behalf of the residents of RPV, is in the FY 20-21 Budget.
14 Bronco and 28160 PVDE just happen to be the development Applications which are going really
wrong, right now. They are not the first. There are others still coming.
If you are not funded to authorize IT to complete the corrections needed on the Official Land Use
Map and/or present the OPEN SPACE-HILLSIDE codes to Council as an Amendment to the
General Plan, then this particular "Applicant Abuse" is going to continue to put the City at legal risk
and certainly keep the quality of the City's infrastructure in the toilet.
I hear that the update of the RPV Trails Network Plan has been moved to Rec.& Parks. The
existing Plan (including the Conceptual Trails Plan and the Preserve Trails Plan), is actually just
fine when you bother to reach out to the trail user community for assistance with interpreting their
needs and wants.
My real complaint about these two projects is the lack of coordination among our various City
Departments. Jaehee did not consult with them. The reason why is the root of my complaint.
I am hear by the phone if you need any more "background". I have no clue as to what you can do
to salvage these two projects. I'm just working "damage control" and it all leads to what is and what
is not in the Budget at the level of each department's discretionary funds.
Looking forward to hearing from you, today. …S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 6/1/2020 7:34:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, TRodrigue@rpvca.gov writes:
Hi Sunshine,
Let me look into the questions on these properties and get back to you.
Terry
4
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 1, 2020, at 7:07 PM, SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> wrote:
Terry Rodrigue, RPV Interim Director of Community Development
Hello Terry,
I have been instructed to register my complaints about the performance of
Planning Staff with you. I have had a long-standing concern about the degree
of decision-making discretion that has been granted to the Director of the
Community Development Department.
I have provided Jaehee, Amy, Ara and Elias with all the trail related
complications in relation to preserving and enhancing the "Bronco Connection"
which is shown in the original RPV General Plan and has a "narrative" in the
current Conceptual Trails Plan as Section Five F2 Bronco Trail. I am aware of
the development applications at 10 Chaparral, 14 Bronco and the City's
interest in purchasing 8 Chaparral. So, I ask the question now and then…
What's up?
Catch this.
From: jyoon@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: AmyS@rpvca.gov, david.lukac.us@gmail.com, pvpasofino@yahoo.com,
jeanlongacre@aol.com, OctavioS@rpvca.gov
Sent: 5/28/2020 10:58:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: RE: Heads up on job descriptions and funding in the Budget
Hi SUNSHINE,
Thank you for your email.
Please find attached additional aerials per your request.
On a side note, there are no new updates to 14 Bronco Dr. regarding
the trail.
5
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Jaehee Yoon
Then I see the notice in the Peninsula News, on the same date, that you will
be "considering" the application for a MAJOR GRADING PERMIT and a
MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT at 14 Bronco on some undisclosed date in the
future.
Please use Notify Me to share the good news with the trail user and
equestrian community that Public Works has provided an engineered "ideal
route", minimally TYPE 5, across this multiple property site, Jaehee has
negotiated with the Applicant to grade in any portion of the "ideal route" that
falls on the 14 Bronco property as a part of their MAJOR GRADING PERMIT
and one of the development conditions is to record a dedicated trail easement
to RPV, prior to occupancy, which provides sufficient width for the City to
maintain said trail at the stated CRITERIA TYPE. Oh, has Jeahee written
conditions to improve the public Bronco ROW for non-motorized use and
having the portion of the new driveway, which is in the public ROW
maintained, with an "anti-skid surface? These last two conditions are
advisable everywhere and are particularly important in a Q Zone, which this
project is.
This is the sort of consideration that I am suggesting to Council that they be
sure is covered in the FY 20-21 Budget.
I am officially raising these issues in relation to the Public Notice. Tell me
anything except that all this Staff Time to comply with Council's directives are
not "in the Budget". I am "house-bound" with or without COVID-
19. Whenever they are available and you have set the date for your
"consideration", please email me Jeahee's recommended "Conditions of
Approval" for this project. I will respond as appears appropriate on behalf of
the RPV citizenry.
Watch your six,
SUNSHINE
6
RPV
310-377-8761
PS: All the same engineering, planning and negotiating should have taken
place for 28160 PVDE long before you took on being RPV's Interim Director of
Community Development. See attached citizen input. I could have provided
the same sort of information on Dodson Canyon if Jaehee had "reached out"
two years ago. Now, the ball is in your court. Please don't put another
"debacle" in the City's archives
<concept v reality map-0302.pdf>
<CTA RPV Spoke 2 -0432.pdf>
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JUNE 2, 2020
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
4
Description of Material
Clean Power Alliance Q & A from City Manager Mihranian; Email
exchanges between City Manager Mihranian and: Desiree Mys and
William Patton; Emails from Marianne and William Hunter; Eva
Cicoria; and Nelly and Jim Bertolina
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200602 additions revisions to agenda.docx
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Subject:
Attachments:
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 4:41 PM
Agenda It em No.4 -CPA Q&A
CPA Q&A.docx
Importance: High
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members ,
Over the past few days, you have received questions from community members regarding tonight's
agenda item on the Clean Power Alliance (CPA).
Attached, as late correspondence , are answers to these questions that Staff prepared in consultation
with CPA and SCE .
Megan intends to summarize the answers during her presentation tonight.
Contact me directly if you have any questions. Do not re ply to all.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF I<ANa-10 PAIDS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544 -5202 (telephone)
31 0-544 -5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca .gov
www.rpvca.gov
-j; Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message conta ins 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 individua l or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyin g 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.
1
4.
CPAQ&A
What are the long-term risks of joining CPA?
The risks of joining a community choice aggregation (CCA) program like CPA are
associated with long-term performance and liabilities, including the CCA's ability to
remain competitive with traditional investor-owned utilities (IOUs). This concern is
heightened by rising Power Charge Indifference Adjustment fees, or exit fees, which are
paid to IOUs when CCAs take over providing power service.
According to CPA's Joint Powers Agreement, the JPA seeks to provide electricity rates
that are "lower or at worst competitive with those offered by SCE for similar products."
CPA's rates are established to meet standard bill comparison targets approved by its
Board of Directors (1-2% cost savings for Lean Power, 0-1% savings for Clean Power,
and 7-9% cost premium for 100% Green Power).
If over time, CPA became unable to maintain competitive rates, the City could leave the
JPA. However, this would require a board vote and the City would be financially
responsible for any unused power procured on behalf of RPV customers.
How could the City leave CPA?
According to the JPA agreement, if the City wanted to leave the JPA, it would have to
provide 180 days' written notice prior to the start of the next fiscal year and obtain
approval of a majority vote of the Board of Directors. So far, no cities have left the JPA.
CPA is still a young CCA and only became fully operational in 2018.
It is Staff's understanding if the City joined the JPA, although there would be a gap year
before launching service, CPA would begin procuring power on behalf of residents soon
after signing. This would be considered after the feasibility study is presented to the City
Council. To avoid being financially responsible for unused power, the City should only
join the JPA if it intends to launch service.
What is the cost to join the CPA?
It is Staff's understanding that there are currently no fees to join Clean Power Alliance
other than the cost of the one-time feasibility study. Clean Power Alliance does not
currently charge its member cities fees for services; however, it is Staff's understanding
that the Board of Directors may consider introducing fees for new members in the
future.
What could it cost the City to leave the CPA?
If the City withdrew from the JPA, the City would be financially responsible for all
unused power purchased on behalf of RPV residents and businesses. Without knowing
the City's load -which would be assessed in the feasibility study -it is difficult to
estimate a potential cost, though in conversations with CPA, Staff understands it could
be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and potentially top $1 million.
How does a customer opt out, and what are the fees?
Customers can opt out before or after CPA service begins via a web form on the
Clean Power Alliance website or by phone. City Staff could also assist residents with
opting out.
Customers who opt out within the first 60 days of service would return to SCE
bundled service beginning on their next available billing cycle and return to the SCE rate
they were previously on. Accounts would be transferred when the electric meter is read
and cannot be transferred during the middle of a billing cycle. In order for a customer's
request to be processed on their next meter read date, their request must be received at
least five business days prior to the date on which the meter is read. SCE may charge a
one-time account processing fee (currently set at 50 cents).
Customers who opt out after the first 60 days of service may be charged a one-time
account processing fee (currently set at 50 cents). They must choose between returning
to SCE service as soon as possible or after providing SCE with six months' notice. If
customers choose to return to SCE service as soon as possible, they are subject
to SCE's traditional bundled service rates during their first six months back, which could
be lower or higher than standard bundled rates. If customers choose to return to SCE
service after six months, they continue to receive service from CPA for the six
months, then be transferred to SCE's standard bundled rates.
Customers who opt out before CPA launches service can opt back in at any time.
Customers who opt out after CPA service launches can return after a one-year period.
What are the downsides of not joining CPA?
CCA presents the City with an opportunity to make a more significant impact on
reducing carbon emissions by increasing the amount of renewable energy powering
homes and businesses, and to have local control over energy rates. Not joining CPA
would simply mean the City would not benefit from these opportunities. If the City does
not join CPA, residents and businesses would continue to receive electricity service
from SCE. SCE's default power mix contains 36% renewable energy, the same as
CPA's Lean Power tier. It should also be noted that SCE has called for providing 80%
carbon-free power by 2030.
In January, the City Council indicated it was not interested in other available options for
community choice aggregation (forming a hybrid CCA with CaiChoice, or forming an
independent CCA), due to very high startup and ongoing costs. It should be noted that
RPV does not currently have up-to-date GHG emissions data for the City. The City
could obtain this data by hiring a consultant to complete an emissions inventory, as was
done for the preparation of the City's Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP), which
was adopted in 2017. The South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), which
helped prepare the ERAP for RPV and the other South Bay cities, has indicated to Staff
that it is trying to identify funding to conduct another emissions inventory for the South
Bay cities at the end of 2021 or early 2022 in order to track their progress toward
reaching their reduction targets.
What are the downsides of discontinuing the ERAP?
The City's ERAP is a non-binding policy guidance document that was approved by the
City Council in December 2017. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 32, which set GHG
reductions targets for the state, the ERAP was prepared in collaboration with the
SBCCOG to improve the region's sustainability and to reduce GHG emissions over the
next 20 years.
The ERAP isn't a plan of strategies that the City must implement, but is a tool to help
the City carry out its sustainability goals. CCA was included in the ERAP as a potential
strategy the City could explore. Not having an ERAP could weaken the city's ability to
pursue funding opportunities for sustainability and other projects.
How do customers really know how much renewable energy
they are receiving?
The renewable energy purchased by CPA goes into the same grid, so it is impossible to
determine exactly how much renewable energy goes to one address or another. Rather,
CPA adds renewable energy to its portfolio on behalf of households and businesses
based on their tier (36% renewable, 50% renewable, or 100% renewable).
Like SCE, CPA has a Power Content Label released each year by the California Energy
Commission, which provides a detailed view into the sources of energy it purchases to
power homes and businesses, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric.
What information would the feasibility study contain?
The study would assess the feasibility of adding RPV as a member of CPA. The
analysis would assess RPV's electric load and peak usage, how much energy would
need to be procured on behalf of RPV customers, how adding the City would impact
CPA's GHG emissions, and how adding the RPV would impact CPA's financial position.
Who would perform the feasibility study?
It is Staff's understanding that an impartial consultant would perform the study.
Could the City obtain grant funding to cover cost of the
feasibility study?
Staff is not currently aware of a potential grant to cover the cost of the study, but has
asked the City's grant consultant to research opportunities. It is Staff's understanding
that if the City were to proceed with the study this year, the study would cover only RPV,
and RPV would cover the full cost. If the council would rather share the cost of the
study, it could wait until another city moves forward with pursuing a study.
Are the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement negotiable?
According to CPA, because the Joint Powers Agreement establishes the agency, an
individual member cannot negotiate its particulars. Any changes must go through the
entire board.
Can the JPA exercise eminent domain to acquire property?
Yes, though CPA has indicated it has not engaged in eminent domain, and does not
anticipate engaging in eminent domain. It is Staff's understanding that eminent domain
is among powers given to JPAs.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:08 AM
CityCierk
FW: Item #4 -CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
From: Dez Mys <dezmys@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:29 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M. Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson
<nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
Thank you, Ara.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:33PM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Desiree,
This link is to the feasibility study for the first cities that joined CPA (then called LACCE). We are
asking for Westlake Village's study and who would conduct ours.
http:/ /file.lacounty. gov /SDSinter/bos/bc/24 7283 BoardMotionofSept.15 ,20 16,ItemN o.6-
FinalReportonCCAwithAttachments7 -28-16.pdf
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
1
crrvoF I<A.NO 10 F1\LOS VEf~DES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e~r-rrail messaqe contains information belonqinq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileqed, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. ·rhe infonnation is intended only for usc of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissernination, distribution, or copyin9 is strictly prohibited.
Jf you received this ernail in crmr, or are not an 'ntendcd recipient, please notify me sender immediately. Thank you for yoU!· assistance and cooperation.
From: Dez Mys <dezmys@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 9:24 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Rodich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M. Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson
<nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance {CPA)
Thank you, Ara.
It is very much appreciated.
2
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:21PM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Desiree,
I have asked the City Attorney to review the standard agreement in advance of tomorrow's meeting.
It is my understanding that the last city to prepare a feasibility study was Westlake Village.
Let me try to get a copy of their feasibility study.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITV'OF 1~'\NOtO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
3
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e nFlil contains inforrndtion belonging to the City of R<mcho Palos Verdes, which rnay be pl'ivileged, confidential cmd/or protected from
disclosure, The is 1ntended only fo1· use of the individual or entity named, Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibitecL lf you received this ernail in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Th,lnk you for yotw assistance and
cooperation,
From: Dez Mys <dezmys@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 9:10PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M. Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson
<nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
Ara,
Thank you for providing the contract, this is very helpful.
A few questions if I may:
• Will the city attorney review the contract and provide consultation to Council and the residents of the
risks and any concerns?
• Who provides the study? Is it the petitioner themselves, i.e. CPA, or a a neutral party?
• If the CPA, is there an example of what such a study looks like -to assess the $13K of effort and back
up material?
Thank you again, Ara for your support.
Best,
-Desiree
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:56PM Ara Mihranian <AraM(fz1rpvca.gov> wrote:
4
Hi Bill and others,
Thank you for taking the time over the past few days to raise some legitimate questions regarding
tomorrow night's agenda item on the Clean Power Alliance.
The questions being asked are important for the City Council to consider to determine whether to
move forward and are being vetted in preparation for tomorrow's meeting.
Attached, which is being provided to the City Council as late correspondence, is the standard
agreement for the Clean Power Alliance.
Although provided, tomorrow night, the City Council is being asked to determine whether the City
should move forward in preparing a feasibility study (not to execute an agreement). There is an
estimated cost of $15,000 to prepare this study. Once the study is completed, it will be brought
back to the City Council to consider whether to join or not join the CPA. If at that time the City
Council decides to join the CPA, the agreement will be placed on the agenda.
It is Staff's intent to have answers to these questions at tomorrow's meeting (which will be held as
a virtual meeting because of the anticipated curfew).
Additionally, representatives from SCE and CPA will be available to answer any questions during
the meeting.
Stay safe and well,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
5
CITVOF I.(A.Na tO PAIDS VEf~DES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail contains information helonQing to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The is intended oniy for use of the individual or entity narned. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited, If you received this email in error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender irnrnediately, Tt1ank you for your assistance and
coopcratiorL
From: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 8:05AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M.
Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Dez Mys
<dezmys@gma il.com>
Subject: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
City Council Members
6
Additional commentary re CPA
First, regardless of your individual opinions you certainly do not want the residents to feel this is being
expedited with a false sense of urgency. Do not pass at this meeting!
Certainly the City Attorney must have reviewed a proffered agreement and noted to City Council all risks.
we believe the CPA stipulates you can opt-out, (which applies to residents),
who can be charged a fee. This can be misleading to Councils, because
cities once a contract is consummated can not just simply "opt out" of
the contract (our review determined).
Most important it seems the contract may ambiguously hide the true cost
from the city that seeks to exit. It is prudent and necessary that the City
must determine the absolute costs to exit.
CPA has noted they will sell energy to residents cheaper than SCE
because they stipulate they can "create" green energy cheaper than SCE.
Quite a statement but the City must have a contractural detailed
commitment to such a general statement thus it is certain proof of such a
stipulation seems mandatory.
Simply if this cannot be contractually committed the business model
falls apart and requires the City to fund the gap on the back-end. The
stoic imperative is that such a situation must be contemplated and
provided for in any agreement i.e, the City should NOT be obligated to
"fund the gap".
7
Eminent Domain rights in the contract must not allow the CPA to claim
resident property. Frankly it is amazing that such a clause is even
proposed.
Will a contract exclude the City from CPA's liabilities?
If the City is forced to buy power contracts the additional cost should be
borne by CPA.
The CPA should be providing full access to their documents that
PROVE they have access to green power as claimed. They should
provide all of the following documents allowing the City to conduct
proper due diligence:
1. CPA's unredacted Power Source Disclosure (PSD) reports; to ensure the power is
green.
2. Price information ofthe cost of CPA's power sources.
3. CPA's full disclosure of any of any unbundled RECs (Type 3 energy).
4. Copies of all hydroelectric contracts.
5. Copies of all contracts for carbon free attributes.
6. Copies of all contracts for environmental attributes.
I must say not withstanding this is a personal opinion RPV does not need this involvement
and agreement.
Hope this helps!
Bill
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property ofDez Mys and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to
8
believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at Dezmys@gmail.com and delete this message immediately
from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property ofDez Mys and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to
believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at Dezmys@gmail.com and delete this message immediately
from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property ofDez Mys and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to
believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at Dezmys@gmail.com and delete this message immediately
from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
9
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:19 AM
CityCierk
FW: Item #4 -CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
Clean Power Alliance Joint Powers Agreement.pdf
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 8:54 PM
To: 'William Patton' <billpatton21@icloud.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M.
Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Dez Mys
<dezmys@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
Hi Bill and others,
Thank you for taking the time over the past few days to raise some legitimate questions regarding
tomorrow night's agenda item on the Clean Power Alliance.
The questions being asked are important for the City Council to consider to determine whether to
move forward and are being vetted in preparation for tomorrow's meeting.
Attached, which is being provided to the City Council as late correspondence, is the standard
agreement for the Clean Power Alliance.
Although provided, tomorrow night, the City Council is being asked to determine whether the City
should move forward in preparing a feasibility study (not to execute an agreement). There is an
estimated cost of $15,000 to prepare this study. Once the study is completed, it will be brought back
to the City Council to consider whether to join or not join the CPA. If at that time the City Council
decides to join the CPA, the agreement will be placed on the agenda.
It is Staff's intent to have answers to these questions at tomorrow's meeting (which will be held as a
virtual meeting because of the anticipated curfew).
Additionally, representatives from SCE and CPA will be available to answer any questions during the
meeting.
Stay safe and well,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
1
CITVOF I<A.No 10 B:\LOS vtr~DES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e··mail contains information belonqing to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be p1·ivile9ed, confidential and/or protected from
d;sclosure. The is intended only for usc of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in e:Tm, or am not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 8:05AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M.
Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Dez Mys
<dezmys@gmail.com>
Subject: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
City Council Members
Additional commentary re CPA
First, regardless of your individual opinions you certainly do not want the residents to feel this is being
expedited with a false sense of urgency. Do not pass at this meeting!
Certainly the City Attorney must have reviewed a proffered agreement and noted to City Council all risks.
we believe the CPA stipulates you can opt-out, (which applies to residents),
who can be charged a fee. This can be misleading to Councils, because
cities once a contract is consummated can not just simply "opt out" of the
contract (our review determined).
Most important it seems the contract may ambiguously hide the true cost
from the city that seeks to exit. It is prudent and necessary that the City
must determine the absolute costs to exit.
2
CPA has noted they will sell energy to residents cheaper than SCE
because they stipulate they can "create" green energy cheaper than SCE.
Quite a statement but the City must have a contractural detailed
commitment to such a general statement thus it is certain proof of such a
stipulation seems mandatory.
Simply if this cannot be contractually committed the business model falls
apart and requires the City to fund the gap on the back-end. The stoic
imperative is that such a situation must be contemplated and provided for
in any agreement i.e, the City should NOT be obligated to "fund the gap".
Eminent Domain rights in the contract must not allow the CPA to claim
resident property. Frankly it is amazing that such a clause is even
proposed.
Will a contract exclude the City from CPA's liabilities?
If the City is forced to buy power contracts the additional cost should be
borne by CPA.
The CPA should be providing full access to their documents that PROVE
they have access to green power as claimed. They should provide all of
the following documents allowing the City to conduct proper due
diligence:
1. CPA's unredacted Power Source Disclosure (PSD) reports; to ensure the power is
green.
2. Price information of the cost of CPA's power sources.
3. CPA's full disclosure of any of any unbundled RECs (Type 3 energy).
4. Copies of all hydroelectric contracts.
5. Copies of all contracts for carbon free attributes.
6. Copies of all contracts for environmental attributes.
I must say not withstanding this is a personal opinion RPV does not need this involvement
and agreement.
Hope this helps!
Bill
3
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
This Joint Powers Agreement (the "Agreement"), effective as of June 27, 2017, is made and
entered into pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500
et seq.) of the California Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers among the
public agencies set forth in Exhibit A.
RECITALS
1. The Parties are public agencies sharing various powers under California laws, including
but not limited to the power to purchase, supply, and aggregate electricity for themselves and
their inhabitants.
2. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which
mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels. The California Air
Resources Board is promulgating regulations to implement AB 32 which will require local
government to develop programs to reduce greenhouse emissions.
3. The purposes for the Initial Participants (as such term is defined in Section 2.3 below)
entering into this Agreement include addressing climate change by reducing energy related
greenhouse gas emissions and securing energy supply and price stability; energy efficiencies
and local economic benefits, such as jobs creation, community energy programs; and local
power development. It is the intent of this Agreement to promote the development and use of a
wide range of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not
limited to solar and wind energy production.
4. The Parties desire to establish a separate public agency, known as the Los Angeles
Community Choice Energy Authority ("Authority"), under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) ("Act") in order to
collectively study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy programs.
5. The Initial Participants have each adopted an ordinance electing to implement through
the Authority a Community Choice Aggregation program pursuant to California Public Utilities
Code Section 366.2 ("CCA Program"). The first priority of the Authority will be the consideration
of those actions necessary to implement the CCA Program.
6. By establishing the Authority, the Parties seek to:
(a) Develop an electric supply portfolio with overall lower greenhouse gas intensity
and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than Southern California Edison ("SCE"), and one
that supports the achievement of the parties' greenhouse gas reduction goals and the
comparable goals of all participating jurisdictions;
(b) Establish an energy portfolio that encourages the use and development of cost-
effective local renewable and distributed energy resources and that discourages the use
unbundled renewable energy credits;
(c) Promote an energy portfolio that incorporates energy efficiency and demand
response programs and pursues ambitious energy consumption reduction goals;
,kQS ANGELE<:S COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY_::l_QINT_POWERS AGREEMENT
(d) Provide electricity rates that are lower or at worst competitive with those offered
by SCE for similar products;
(e) Offer differentiated energy options (e.g. 33% or 50% qualified renewable) for
default service, and a 100% renewable content option in which customers may "opt-up" and
voluntarily participate;
(f) Achieve quantifiable economic benefits to the region;
(g) Recognize the value of current workers in existing jobs that support the energy
infrastructure of Los Angeles County and Southern California (e.g. union and prevailing wage
jobs, local workforce development, apprenticeship programs, and local hire). The Authority, as
a leader in the shift to clean energy, commits to ensuring it will take steps to minimize any
adverse impacts to these workers to ensure a "just transition" to the new clean energy
economy;
(h) Support a stable, skilled workforce through such mechanisms as project labor
agreements, collective bargaining agreements, or community benefit agreements, or other
workforce programs that are designed to avoid work stoppages, ensure quality, and benefit local
residents by delivering cost-effective clean energy programs and projects (e.g. new energy
programs and increased local energy investments);
(i) Promote supplier and workforce diversity, including returning veterans and those
from disadvantaged and under-represented communities, to better reflect the diversity of the
region;
(j) Promote personal and community ownership of renewable resources, spurring
equitable economic development and increased resilience, especially in low income
communities;
(k) Provide and manage its energy portfolio and products in a manner that provides
cost savings to customers and promotes public health in areas impacted by energy production;
(I) Ensure that low-income households and communities are provided with
affordable and flexible energy options, including the provision of energy discounted rates to
eligible low-income households;
(m) Recognize and address the importance of healthy communities, including those
disproportionately affected by air pollution and climate change;
(n) Use program revenues to provide energy-related programs and services; and
(o) Create an administering Authority that is financially sustainable, responsive to
regional priorities, well-managed, and a leader in fair and equitable treatment of employees.
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 "AB 117" means Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, Ch. 838, codified at Public
Utilities Code Section 366.2), which created Community Choice Aggregation.
~ 2 -
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CIIOICE ENERGY--JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
1.2 "Act" means the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California
(Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code commencing with
Section 6500).
1.3 "Agreement" means this Joint Powers Agreement.
1.4 "Authority" means Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Authority.
1.5 "Authority Document(s)" means document(s) duly adopted by the Board by
resolution or motion implementing the powers, functions and activities of the
Authority, including but not limited to the Operating Policies and Procedures, the
annual budget, and plans and policies.
1.6 "Board" means the Board of Directors of the Authority.
1. 7 "Community Choice Aggregation" or "CCA" means an electric service option
available to cities, counties, and other public agencies pursuant to Public Utilities
Code Section 366.2.
1.8 "CCA Program" means the Authority's program relating to CCA that is principally
described in Section 2.4 (Purpose) of this Agreement.
1.9 "Days" shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specified by this Agreement.
1.1 0 "Director" means a member of the Board representing a Party, including up to
two alternate Directors appointed in accordance with Sections 4.1 (Board of
Directors) and 4.2 (Appointment and Removal of Directors) of this Agreement.
1.11 "Effective Date" means the date on which the Agreement shall become effective
and the Authority shall exist as a separate public agency, as further described in
Section 2.1 (Effective Date and Term) of this Agreement.
1.12 "Initial Costs" means all costs incurred by the Authority relating to the
establishment and initial operation of the Authority, such as the hiring of the
executive, technical, and any administrative staff, any required accounting,
administrative, technical and legal services in support of the Authority's initial
formation activities or in support of the negotiation, preparation and approval of
power purchase agreements. The Board shall determine the termination date for
the Initial Costs.
1.13 "Initial Participants" means, for purpose of this Agreement, the County of
Los Angeles, and the cities of Calabasas, Rolling Hills Estates, and any other
Parties joining in accordance with Section 2.3 (Initial Participants) of this
Agreement.
1.14 "Operating Policies and Procedures" means the rules, regulations, policies,
bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority.
1.15 "Parties" means, collectively, the signatories to this Agreement that have
satisfied the conditions in Section 2.3 (Initial Participants) or Section 2.5 (Addition
-----·······------.. ·-··-······-············-····-·····--···· ·········--···················
-3-
of Parties) of this Agreement, such that they are considered members of the
Authority.
1.16 "Party" means, singularly, a signatory to this Agreement that has satisfied the
conditions in Section 2.3 (Initial Participants) or Section 2.5 (Addition of Parties)
of this Agreement, such that it is considered a member of the Authority.
1.17 "Public Agency" as defined in the Act includes, but is not limited to, the federal
government or any federal department or agency, this state, another state or any
state department or agency, a county, a county board of education, county
superintendent of schools, city, public corporation, public district, regional
transportation commission of this state or another state, a federally recognized
Indian tribe, or any joint powers authority formed pursuant to the Act.
2. FORMATION OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY
2.1 Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become effective and the
Authority shall exist as a separate public agency on the date this Agreement is
executed by the County of Los Angeles and at least one other public agency
after the adoption of the ordinances required by Public Utilities Code
Section 366.2(c)(12). The Authority shall provide notice to the Parties of the
Effective Date. The Authority shall continue to exist, and this Agreement shall be
effective, until the Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 8.3
(Mutual Termination) of this Agreement, subject to the rights of the Parties to
withdraw from the Authority.
2.2 Formation of the Authority. Under the Act, the Parties hereby create a
separate joint exercise of power agency which is named Los Angeles Community
Choice Energy Authority. Pursuant to Sections 6506 and 6507 of the Act, the
Authority is a public agency separate from the Parties. The debts, liabilities or
obligations of the Authority shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the
individual Parties unless the governing body of a Party agrees in writing to
assume any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority. The
jurisdiction of the Authority shall be all territory within the geographic boundaries
of the Parties; however the Authority may, as authorized under applicable law,
undertake any action outside such geographic boundaries as is necessary and
incidental to the accomplishment of its purpose.
2.3 Initial Participants. In addition to Parties executing this Agreement on or prior
to the Effective Date, any incorporated municipality, county, or other eligible
public agency may become a Party and recognized as an Initial Participant
provided during the first 180 days after the Effective Date it executes this
Agreement and delivers an executed copy of this Agreement and a copy of the
adopted ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) to the
Authority. All Initial Participants to this Agreement shall be required to
commence electric service as soon as practicable, as determined by the Board.
2.4 Purpose. The purpose and objectives of this Agreement are to establish the
Authority, to provide for its governance and administration, and to define the
rights and obligations of the Parties. This Agreement authorizes the Authority to
------····--·····---··------------------····---· ·----····----·····-
-4-
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY -JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
provide a means by which the Parties can more effectively develop and
implement sustainable energy initiatives that reduce energy demand, increase
energy efficiency, and advance the use of clean, efficient, and renewable
resources in the region for the benefit of the Parties and their constituents,
including, but not limited to, establishing and operating a Community Choice
Aggregation program.
2.5 Addition of Parties. After 180 days from the Effective Date any incorporated
municipality, county, or other public agency may become a Party to this
Agreement if all of the following conditions are met:
2.5.1 The adoption of a resolution of the Board admitting the public agency to
the Authority;
2.5.2 The adoption by an affirmative vote of the Board satisfying the
requirements described in Section 4.10 (Board Voting) of this Agreement,
of a resolution authorizing membership into the Authority and establishing
its pro rata share of organizational, planning and other pre-existing
expenditures, and describing additional conditions, if any, associated with
membership;
2.5.3 The adoption by the public agency of an ordinance required by Public
Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) and approval and execution of this
Agreement and other necessary program agreements by the public
agency;
2.5.4 Payment of the membership payment, if any; and
2.5.5 Satisfaction of any reasonable conditions established by the Board.
Pursuant to this Section 2.5 (Addition of Parties), all parties shall be required to
commence electric service as soon as is practicable, as determined by the
Board, as a condition to becoming a Party to this Agreement.
2.6 Continuing Participation. The Parties acknowledge that membership in the
Authority may change by the addition, withdrawal and/or termination of Parties.
The Parties agree to participate with such other Parties as may later be added,
as described in Section 2.5 (Addition of Parties) of this Agreement. The Parties
also agree that the withdrawal or termination of a Party shall not affect this
Agreement or the remaining Parties' continuing obligations under this Agreement.
3. POWERS
3.1 General Powers. The Authority shall have the powers common to the Parties
and which are necessary or convenient to the accomplishment of the purposes of
this Agreement, subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 3.4 (Limitation on
Powers) of this Agreement. As provided in the Act, the Authority shall be a public
agency separate and apart from the Parties.
3.2 Specific Powers. The Authority shall have all powers common to the Parties
and such additional powers accorded to it by law. The Authority is authorized, in
-------------------------· .... ·----.......... ---·--········----·----·--.. ·······
- 5 -
LOS ANGELES COMMUN.I'(Y_C'_t.IOICE ENERGY--JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
its own name, to exercise all powers and do all acts necessary and proper to
carry out the provisions of this Agreement and fulfill its purposes, including, but
not limited to, each of the following:
3.2.1 make and enter into contracts;
3.2.2 employ agents and employees, including but not limited to an Executive
Director;
3.2.3 acquire, contract, manage, maintain, and operate any buildings, works or
improvements;
3.2.4 acquire property by eminent domain, or otherwise, except as limited
under Section 6508 of the Act, and to hold or dispose of any property;
3.2.5 lease any property;
3.2.6 sue and be sued in its own name;
3.2.7 incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, including but not limited to loans
from private lending sources pursuant to its temporary borrowing powers
authorized by law pursuant to Government Code Section 53850 et seq.
and authority under the Act;
3.2.8 issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness;
3.2.9 apply for, accept, and receive all licenses, permits, grants, loans or other
aids from any federal, state or local public agency;
3.2.1 0 form independent corporations or entities, if necessary to carry out energy
supply and energy conservation programs at the lowest possible cost or
to take advantage of legislative or regulatory changes;
3.2.11 submit documentation and notices, register, and comply with orders,
tariffs and agreements for the establishment and implementation of the
CCA Program and other energy programs;
3.2.12 adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the
operation of the Authority ("Operating Policies and Procedures"); and
3.2.13 make and enter into service agreements relating to the provision of
services necessary to plan, implement, operate and administer the CCA
Program and other energy programs, including the acquisition of electric
power supply and the provision of retail and regulatory support services.
3.3 Additional Powers to be Exercised. In addition to those powers common to
each of the Parties, the Authority shall have those powers that may be conferred
upon it as a matter of law and by subsequently enacted legislation.
···-·-··-···-·-···---··------------------
- 6 -
LOS A._NQELE.S COMMUNITY CHOICEf.o.HE.JSGY: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT'
3.4 Limitation on Powers. As required by Section 6509 of the Act, the powers of
the Authority are subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising power
possessed by the County of Los Angeles.
3.5 Obligations of the Authority. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the
Authority shall not be the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Parties unless
the governing body of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts,
liabilities, and obligations of the Authority. In addition, pursuant to the Act, no
Director shall be personally liable on the bonds or subject to any personal liability
or accountability by reason of the issuance of bonds.
3.6 Compliance with the Political Reform Act and Government Code
Section 1090. The Authority and its officers and employees shall comply with
the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.) and
Government Code Section 1090 et seq. The Board shall adopt a Conflict of
Interest Code pursuant to Government Code Section 87300. The Board may
adopt additional conflict of interest regulations in the Operating Policies and
Procedures.
4. GOVERNANCE
4.1 Board of Directors. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of
Directors ("Board") consisting of one director for each Party appointed in
accordance with Section 4.2 (Appointment and Removal of Directors) of this
Agreement. The Board, in consultation with the Executive Director, may
determine at any time to consider options to reduce the size of the Board if it
determines that the efficient functioning and operation of the Board would be
improved by having a smaller number of Directors. Any such change to the size
of the Board would require amendment of this Joint Powers Agreement in
accordance with Section 4.11 (Special Voting).
4.2 Appointment and Removal of Directors. The Directors shall be appointed and
may be removed as follows:
4.2.1 The governing body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing
one regular Director who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of
the Party on matters within the powers of the Authority. The governing
body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing up to two
alternate Directors who may vote on matters when the regular Director is
absent from a Board meeting. The person appointed and designated as
the regular Director shall be an elected or appointed member of the
governing body of the Party. The persons appointed and designated as
the alternate Directors may be an elected or appointed member of the
governing body of the Party, an appointed member of an advisory body of
the Party, a staff member of the Party or a member of the public who
meets the criteria below. All Directors and alternates shall be subject to
the Board's adopted Conflict of Interest Code.
(a) Any alternate Director that is a member of the public must have
demonstrated knowledge in energy-related matters through
-------·-······--·------··-----·········~-·············
-7-
LOS ANGE.L.E.S..COMMUNJ'I'Y C.'HQICE ENERGY-JOINT POWERS AQRf':..f:.MENT
significant experience in either: 1) an electric utility or company,
agency, or nonprofit providing services to a utility, 2) a regulatory
agency or local government body overseeing an electric utility or a
company, agency, or nonprofit providing services to such an
agency, 3) an academic or nonprofit organization engaged in
research and/or advocacy related to the electric sector.
4.2.2 The Operating Policies and Procedures, to be developed and approved
by the Board in accordance with Section 3.2.12 (Specific Powers), shall
specify the reasons for and process associated with the removal of an
individual Director for cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Party
shall be deprived of its right to seat a Director on the Board and any such
Party for which its Director and/or alternate Directors have been removed
may appoint a replacement.
4.3 Terms of Office. Each regular and alternate Director shall serve at the pleasure
of the governing body of the Party that the Director represents, and may be
removed as Director by such governing body at any time. If at any time a
vacancy occurs on the Board, the affected Party shall appoint to fill the position
of the previous Director within 90 days of the date that such position becomes
vacant.
4.4 Purpose of Board. The general purpose of the Board is to:
4.4.1 Provide structure for administrative and fiscal oversight;
4.4.2 Retain an Executive Director to oversee day-to-day operations;
4.4.3 Retain legal counsel;
4.4.4 Identify and pursue funding sources;
4.4.5 Set policy;
4.4.6 Maximize the utilization of available resources; and
4.4. 7 Oversee all Committee activities.
4.5 Specific Responsibilities of the Board. The specific responsibilities of the
Board shall be as follows:
4.5.1 Identify Party needs and requirements;
4.5.2 Formulate and adopt the budget prior to the commencement of the fiscal
year;
4.5.3 Develop and implement a financing and/or funding plan for ongoing
Authority operations;
4.5.4 Retain necessary and sufficient staff and adopt personnel and
compensation policies, rules and regulations;
-8-
LOS ANGEL_~S_(:_OMMUNITY CHOICE_ENERGY :JQIN.TPOWERS AGREEMEN'f
4.5.5 Adopt rules for procuring supplies, equipment, and services;
4.5.6 Adopt rules for the disposal of surplus property;
4.5.7 Establish standing and ad hoc committees as necessary to ensure that
the interests and concerns of each Party are represented and to ensure
operational, technical, and financial issues are thoroughly researched and
analyzed;
4.5.8 The setting of retail rates for power sold by the Authority and the setting
of charges for any other category of retail service provided by the
Authority;
4.5.9 Termination of the CCA Program;
4.5.1 0 Address any concerns of consumers and customers;
4.5.11 Conduct and oversee Authority audits at intervals not to exceed three
years;
4.5.12 Arrange for an annual independent fiscal audit;
4.5.13 Adopt such bylaws, rules and regulations as are necessary or desirable
for the purposes hereof; provided that nothing in the bylaws, rules and
regulations shall be inconsistent with this Agreement;
4.5.14 Exercise the Specific Powers identified in Sections 3.2 and 4.6 except as
the Board may elect to delegate to the Executive Director; and
4.5.15 Discharge other duties as appropriate or required by statute.
4.6 Startup Responsibilities. The Authority shall have the duty to do the following
within one year of the Effective Date of the Agreement:
4.6.1 To adopt an implementation plan prepared by the County of Los Angeles,
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(3), for electrical load
aggregation;
4.6.2 To prepare a statement of intent, pursuant to Public Utilities Code
Section 366.2( c)( 4 ), for electrical load aggregation;
4.6.3 To encourage other qualified public agencies to participate in the
Authority;
4.6.4 To obtain financing and/or funding as is necessary or desirable;
4.6.5 To evaluate the need for, acquire, and maintain insurance.
4. 7 Meetings and Special Meetings of the Board. The Board shall hold at least
one regular meeting per year but the Board may provide for the holding of regular
meetings at more frequent intervals. The date, hour and place of each regular
.................................... -.... ---·-····--------·"--·--.. ··················-·-· ............... -... --·-·-·--····· ··········-------.. --···
- 9 -
LOS ANGEL.ES.~Q.MM.UNlTY CHOICE ENERGY_:::-_l_QJ.NTPQ\Y.ERS. .. AGREEMENT
meeting shall be fixed by resolution or ordinance of the Board. Regular meetings
may be adjourned to another meeting time. Special meetings of the Board may
be called in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.
Directors may participate in meetings telephonically, with full voting rights, only to
the extent permitted by law.
4.8 Brown Act Applicable. All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code
Section 54950, et seq.).
4.9 Quorum; Approvals. A majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum,
except that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time in accordance with
law. The affirmative votes of a majority of the Directors who are present at the
subject meeting shall be required to take any action by the Board.
4.10 Board Voting.
4.1 0.1 Percentage Vote. Each Director shall have one vote. Action of the
Board on all matters shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of all
Directors who are present at the subject meeting, except when a
supermajority vote is expressly required by this Agreement. When a
supermajority vote is required under Section 4.11 (Special Voting), action
of the Board shall require an affirmative vote of the specified
supermajority of all Directors who are present at the subject meeting. All
votes taken pursuant to this Section 4.1 0.1 shall be referred to as a
percentage vote. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a tie in a
percentage vote, the Board can break the tie and act upon an affirmative
voting shares vote as described in section 4.1 0.2 (Voting Shares Vote).
4.1 0.2 Voting Shares Vote. In addition to and immediately after an affirmative
percentage vote three or more Directors may request that a vote of the
voting shares shall be held. In such event, the corresponding voting
shares, as described in section 4.1 0.3, of all Directors voting in order to
take an action shall exceed 50%, or such other higher voting shares
percentage expressly required by this Agreement or the Operating
Policies and Procedures of all Directors who are present at the subject
meeting. All votes taken pursuant to this Section 4.1 0.2 shall be referred
to as a voting shares vote. In the event that any one Director has a voting
share that equals or exceeds that which is necessary to disapprove the
matter being voted on by the Board, at least one other Director shall be
required to vote in the negative in order to disapprove such matter. When
a voting shares vote is held, action by the Board requires both an
affirmative percentage vote and an affirmative voting shares vote.
4.1 0.3 Voting Shares Formula. When a voting shares vote is requested by
three or more Directors, voting shares of the Directors shall be
determined by the following formula:
(Annual Energy Use/Total Annual Energy) multiplied by 100, where (a)
"Annual Energy Use" means (i) with respect to the first two years
-10-
L,OS ANGELES COMMlLNITY CHOICE ENERGY-JOINT POWERS AGR!l~Mgl{_I
following the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in
kilowatt hours ("kWh"), within the Party's respective jurisdiction and (ii)
with respect to the period after the second anniversary of the Effective
Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kWh, of accounts within a
Party's respective jurisdiction that are served by the Authority and (b)
"Total Annual Energy" means the sum of all Parties' Annual Energy Use.
4.11 Special Voting.
4.11.1 Except as provided below, matters that require Special Voting as
described in this Section shall require 72 hours prior notice to any Brown
Act meeting or special meeting. Two-thirds vote (or such greater vote as
required by state law) of the appointed Directors shall be required to take
any action on the following:
(a) Change the designation of Treasurer or Auditor of the Authority;
(b) Issue bonds or other forms of debt;
(c) Exercise the power of eminent domain, subject to prior approval
by the passage of an authorizing ordinance or other legally
sufficient action by the affected Party; and
(d) Amend this Agreement or adopt or amend the bylaws of the
Authority. At least 30 days advance notice shall be provided for
such actions. The Authority shall also provide prompt written
notice to all Parties of the action taken and enclose the adopted or
modified documents.
5. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION
5.1 Chair and Vice Chair. For each fiscal year, the Board shall elect a Chair and
Vice Chair from among the Directors. The term of office of the Chair and Vice
Chair shall continue for one year, but there shall be no limit on the number of
terms held by either the Chair or Vice Chair. The Chair shall be the presiding
officer of all Board meetings, and the Vice Chair shall serve in the absence of the
Chair. The Chair shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Authority, and shall
perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board. In the absence of
the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall sign contracts and perform all of the Chair's
duties. The office of the Chair or Vice Chair shall be declared vacant and a new
selection shall be made if: (a) the person serving dies, resigns, or the Party that
the person represents removes the person as its representative on the Board, or
(b) the Party that he or she represents withdraws from the Authority pursuant to
the provisions of this Agreement. Upon a vacancy, the position shall be filled at
the next regular meeting of the Board held after such vacancy occurs or as soon
as practicable thereafter. Succeeding officers shall perform the duties normal to
said offices.
-11 -
I,O~_ ANGELES COMMUN.Iry_~l::LQJCE ENERGY--JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
5.2 Secretary. The Board shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of
the Board, who shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of
the Board and all other office records of the Authority.
5.3 Treasurer. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Treasurer,
who need not be a member of the Board. Unless otherwise exempted from such
requirement, the Authority shall cause an independent audit to be made by a
certified public accountant, or public accountant, in compliance with Section 6506
of the Act. The Treasurer shall act as the depositary of the Authority and have
custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and as such,
shall have all of the duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the
Act. The Board may require the Treasurer to file with the Authority an official
bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so requested the Authority
shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond. The Treasurer shall
report directly to the Board and shall comply with the requirements of treasurers
of incorporated municipalities. The Board may transfer the responsibilities of
Treasurer to any person or entity as the law may provide at the time.
5.4 Auditor. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Auditor, who
shall not be a member of the Board. The Board may require the Auditor to file
with the Authority an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so
requested the Authority shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond.
5.5 Executive Director. The Board shall appoint an Executive Director for the
Authority, who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation and
management of the Authority and the CCA Program. The Executive Director
may exercise all powers of the Authority, except those powers specifically
reserved to the Board including but not limited to those set forth in Section 4.5
(Specific Responsibilities of the Board) of this Agreement or the Operating
Policies and Procedures, or those powers which by law must be exercised by the
Board. The Executive Director may enter into and execute any Energy Contract,
in accordance with criteria and policies established by the Board.
5.6 Bonding of Persons Having Access to Property. Pursuant to the Act, the
Board shall designate the public officer or officers or person or persons who have
charge of, handle, or have access to any property of the Authority exceeding a
value as established by the Board, and shall require such public officer or officers
or person or persons to file an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the
Board.
5.7 Other Employees/Agents. The Board shall have the power by resolution to hire
employees or appoint or retain such other agents, including officers, loan-out
employees, or independent contractors, as may be necessary or desirable to
carry-out the purpose of this Agreement.
5.8 Privileges and Immunities from Liability. All of the privileges and immunities
from liability, exemption from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief,
disability, workers' compensation and other benefits which apply to the activities
of officers, agents or employees of a public agency when performing their
respective functions shall apply to the officers, agents or employees of the
-12-
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY-.JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Authority to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of
any of the functions and other duties of such officers, agents or employees under
this Agreement. None of the officers, agents or employees directly employed by
the Board shall be deemed, by reason of their employment by the Authority to be
employed by the Parties or by reason of their employment by the Authority, to be
subject to any of the requirements of the Parties.
5.9 Commissions, Boards and Committees. The Board may establish any
advisory commissions, boards and committees as the Board deems appropriate
to assist the Board in carrying outs its functions and implementing the CCA
Program, other energy programs and the provisions of this Agreement. The
Board may establish rules, regulations, policies, bylaws or procedures to govern
any such commissions, boards, or committees and shall determine whether
members shall be compensated or entitled to reimbursement for expenses.
5.9.1 The Board shall establish the following Advisory Committees:
(a) Executive Committee. The Board shall establish an executive
committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The Board
may delegate to the Executive Committee's such authority as the
Board might otherwise exercise, except that the Board may not
delegate authority regarding certain essential functions, including
but not limited to, approving the fiscal year budget or hiring or
firing the Executive Director, and other functions as provided in
the Operating Policies and Procedures. The Board may not
delegate to the Executive Committee or any other committee its
authority under Section 3.2.12 to adopt and amend the Operating
Policies and Procedures.
(b) Finance Committee. The Board shall establish a finance
committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The
primary purpose of the Finance Committee is to review and
recommend to the Board:
(1) A funding plan;
(2) A fiscal year budget;
(3) Financial policies and procedures to ensure equitable
contributions by Parties;
(4) Such other responsibilities as provided in the Operating
Policies and Procedures, including but not limited to
policies, rules and regulations governing investment of
surplus funds, and selection and designation of financial
institutions for deposit of Authority funds.
(c) Community Advisory Committee. The Board shall establish a
community advisory committee comprised of members of the
public representing key stakeholder communities. The primary
~ 13-
LOS_ ... !.\t-JGELES COMivfUNITY CI}OICE ENERGY--JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
purpose of the Community Advisory Committee shall be to provide
a venue for ongoing citizen support and engagement in the
operations of the Authority.
(d) Meetings of the Advisory Committees. All meetings of the
Advisory Committees shall be held in accordance with the Ralph
M. Brown Act. For the purposes of convening meetings and
conducting business, unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, a
majority of the members of the Advisory Committee shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that
less than a quorum or the secretary of each Advisory Committee
may adjourn meetings from time-to-time. As soon as practicable,
but no later than the time of posting, the Secretary of the Advisory
Committee shall provide notice and the agenda to each Party,
Director and Alternate Directors.
(e) Officers of Advisory Committees. Unless otherwise determined
by the Board, each Advisory Committee shall choose its officers,
comprised of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and a Secretary.
6. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS
6.1 Preliminary Implementation of the CCA Program.
6.1.1 Enabling Ordinance. In addition to the execution of this Agreement,
each Party shall adopt an ordinance in accordance with Public Utilities
Code Section 366.2(c)(12) for the purpose of specifying that the Party
intends to implement a CCA Program by and through its participation in
the Authority.
6.1.2 Implementation Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared and
secure Board approval of an Implementation Plan meeting the
requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable
Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date
as reasonably practicable ..
6.1.3 Termination of CCA Program. Nothing contained in this Section 6 or
this Agreement shall be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to
terminate the implementation or operation of the CCA Program at any
time in accordance with any applicable requirements of state law.
6.2 Authority Documents. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the affairs of
the Authority will be implemented through various documents duly adopted by
the Board through Board resolution or minute action, including but not
necessarily limited to the Operating Policies and Procedures, the annual budget,
and specified plans and policies defined as the Authority Documents by this
Agreement. The Parties agree to abide by and comply with the terms and
conditions of all such Authority Documents that may be adopted by the Board,
subject to the Parties' right to withdraw from the Authority as described in Section
8 (Withdrawal and Termination) of this Agreement.
-14-
LQS._i\~9&I..,ES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY-JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
7. FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Fiscal Year. The Authority's fiscal year shall be 12 months commencing July 1
and ending June 30. The fiscal year may be changed by Board resolution.
7.2 Depository.
7.2.1 All funds of the Authority shall be held in separate accounts in the name
of the Authority and not commingled with funds of any Party or any other
person or entity.
7.2.2 All funds of the Authority shall be strictly and separately accounted for,
and regular reports shall be rendered of all receipts and disbursements,
at least quarterly during the fiscal year. The books and records of the
Authority shall be open to inspection and duplication by the Parties at all
reasonable times. The Board shall contract with a certified public
accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts
and records of the Authority, which shall be conducted in accordance with
the requirements of Section 6506 of the Act.
7.2.3 All expenditures shall be made in accordance with the approved budget
and upon the approval of any officer so authorized by the Board in
accordance with its Operating Policies and Procedures. The Treasurer
shall draw checks or warrants or make payments by other means for
claims or disbursements not within an applicable budget only upon the
prior approval of the Board.
7.3 Budget and Recovery Costs.
7.3.1 Budget. The initial budget shall be approved by the Board. The Board
may revise the budget from time to time as may be reasonably necessary
to address contingencies and unexpected expenses. All subsequent
budgets of the Authority shall be prepared and approved by the Board in
accordance with the Operating Policies and Procedures.
7.3.2 Funding of Initial Costs. Subject to the approval of the Board of
Supervisors, the County of Los Angeles has agreed to provide up to $10
million for funding Initial Costs in establishing the Authority and
implementing the CCA Program. In the event that the CCA Program
becomes operational, the County of Los Angeles shall be reimbursed for
the Initial Costs. The County and the Authority will execute an agreement
specifying the terms and conditions of the Initial Costs provided by the
County, including but not limited to: (a) Repayment of this amount, which
shall be first priority in relation to all other indebtedness of the Authority;
and (b) authorization for the County Auditor-Controller to conduct an audit
of the Authority's books and records (including personnel records, as
necessary) and/or investigation, following reasonable advance notice
from the County, to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of
the agreement. The Authority may establish a reasonable time period
over which such costs are recovered. In the event that the CCA Program
-15 -
LOS.;1.NOELES COMMUNI1.:Y .... CHOI_cE ENERGY-JOINT POWERS_AQBJ:.<:EMENI
does not become operational, the County shall not be entitled to any
reimbursement of the Initial Costs they have paid from the Authority or
any other Party.
7.3.3 Program Costs. The Parties desire that, to the extent reasonably
practicable, all costs incurred by the Authority that are directly or indirectly
attributable to the provision of electric services under the CCA Program,
including the establishment and maintenance of various reserve and
performance funds, shall be recovered through charges to CCA
customers receiving such electric services.
7.3.4 General Costs. Costs that are not directly or indirectly attributable to the
provision of electric services under the CCA Program, as determined by
the Board, shall be defined as general costs. General costs shall be
shnred among the Parties on such bases as the Board shall determine
pursuant to the Authority documents.
7.4 Contributions. Parties are not required under this Agreement to make any
financial contributions. Consumers may subscribe as customers of the Authority
pursuant to the Act and outside of this Agreement and through their on-bill
selections.
7.4.1 A Party may, in the appropriate circumstance, and when agreed-to:
(a) Make contributions from its treasury for the purposes set forth in
this Agreement;
(b) Make payments of public funds to defray the cost of the purposes
of the Agreement and Authority;
(c) Make advances of public funds for such purposes, such advances
to be repaid as provided by written agreement; or
(d) Use its personnel, equipment or property in lieu of other
contributions or advances.
(e) No Party shall be required to adopt any tax, assessment, fee or
charge under any circumstances.
7.5 Accounts and Reports. The Treasurer shall establish and maintain such funds
and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice or by any
provision of any trust agreement entered into with respect to the proceeds of any
bonds issued by the Authority. The books and records of the Authority in the
hands of the Treasurer shall be open to inspection and duplication at all
reasonable times by duly appointed representatives of the Parties. The
Treasurer, within 180 days after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a
complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to the Parties.
7.6 Funds. The Treasurer shall receive, have custody of and/or disburse Authority
funds in accordance with the laws applicable to public agencies and generally
-16-
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY-JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
accepted accounting practices, and shall make the disbursements required by
this Agreement in order to carry out any of the purposes of this Agreement.
8. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION
8.1 Withdrawal
8.1.1 Withdrawal by Parties. Any Party may withdraw its membership in the
Authority, effective as of the beginning of the Authority's fiscal year, by
giving no less than 180 days advance written notice of its election to do
so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party.
Withdrawal of a Party shall require an affirmative vote of the Party's
governing board.
8.1.2 Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 8.1.1 (Withdrawal by Parties) of
this Agreement, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority
upon approval and execution of an amendment to this Agreement
provided that the requirements of this Section 8.1.2 are strictly followed.
A Party shall be deemed to have withdrawn its membership in the
Authority effective 180 days after the Board approves an amendment to
this Agreement if the Director representing such Party has provided
notice to the other Directors immediately preceding the Board's vote of
the Party's intention to withdraw its membership in the Authority should
the amendment be approved by the Board.
8.1.3 Continuing Liability; Further Assurances. A Party that withdraws its
membership in the Authority may be subject to certain continuing
liabilities, as described in Section 8.4 (Continuing Liability; Refund) of this
Agreement, including, but not limited to, Power Purchase Agreements.
The withdrawing Party and the Authority shall execute and deliver all
further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may
be reasonably necessary, as determined by the Board, to effectuate the
orderly withdrawal of such Party from membership in the Authority. The
Operating Policies and Procedures shall prescribe the rights if any of a
withdrawn Party to continue to participate in those Board discussions and
decisions affecting customers of the CCA Program that reside or do
business within the jurisdiction of the Party.
8.2 Involuntary Termination. This Agreement may be terminated with respect to a
Party for material non-compliance with provisions of this Agreement or the
Authority Documents upon an affirmative vote of the Board in which the minimum
percentage vote and percentage voting shares, as described in Section 4.10
(Board Voting) of this Agreement, shall be no less than 67% excluding the vote
and voting shares of the Party subject to possible termination. Prior to any vote to
terminate this Agreement with respect to a Party, written notice of the proposed
termination and the reason(s) for such termination shall be delivered to the Party
whose termination is proposed at least 30 days prior to the regular Board
meeting at which such matter shall first be discussed as an agenda item. The
written notice of proposed termination shall specify the particular provisions of
this Agreement or the Authority Documents that the Party has allegedly violated.
-17-
LOS ANQJ::LES COMMUNITY CHQLC_EJ::NERGY-JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The Party subject to possible termination shall have the opportunity at the next
regular Board meeting to respond to any reasons and allegations that may be
cited as a basis for termination prior to a vote regarding termination. A Party that
has had its membership in the Authority terminated may be subject to certain
continuing liabilities, as described in Section 8.4 (Continuing Liability; Refund) of
this Agreement. In the event that the Authority decides to not implement the
CCA Program, the minimum percentage vote of 67% shall be conducted in
accordance with Section 4.10 (Board Voting) of this Agreement.
8.3 Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement
of all the Parties; provided, however, the foregoing shall not be construed as
limiting the rights of a Party to withdraw its membership in the Authority, and thus
terminate this Agreement with respect to such withdrawing Party, as described in
Section 8.1 (Withdrawal) of this Agreement.
8.4 Continuing Liability; Refund. Upon a withdrawal or involuntary termination of a
Party, the Party shall remain responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or
liabilities arising from the Party's membership in the Authority through the date of
its withdrawal or involuntary termination, it being agreed that the Party shall not
be responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising after the
date of the Party's withdrawal or involuntary termination. In addition, such Party
also shall be responsible for any costs or obligations associated with the Party's
participation in any program in accordance with the provisions of any agreements
relating to such program provided such costs or obligations were incurred prior to
the withdrawal of the Party. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to
the Party or may require the Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority,
as reasonably determined by the Authority, to cover the Party's liability for the
costs described above. Any amount of the Party's funds held on deposit with the
Authority above that which is required to pay any liabilities or obligations shall be
returned to the Party.
8.5 Disposition of Authority Assets. Upon termination of this Agreement and
dissolution of the Authority by all Parties, and after payment of all obligations of
the Authority, the Board:
8.5.1 May sell or liquidate Authority property; and
8.5.2 Shall distribute assets to Parties in proportion to the contributions made
by the existing Parties.
Any assets provided by a Party to the Authority shall remain the asset of that
Party and shall not be subject to distribution under this section.
9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Dispute Resolution. The Parties and the Authority shall make reasonable
efforts to settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement.
Before exercising any remedy provided by law, a Party or the Parties and the
Authority shall engage in nonbinding mediation or arbitration in the manner
agreed upon by the Party or Parties and the Authority. The Parties agree that
-18 -
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE J.;m_EROY.-=.JOI.N_I_E_QWERS AGREEMENT
each Party may specifically enforce this section 9.1 (Dispute Resolution). In the
event that nonbinding mediation or arbitration is not initiated or does not result in
the settlement of a dispute within 60 days after the demand for mediation or
arbitration is made, any Party and the Authority may pursue any remedies
provided by law.
9.2 Liability of Directors, Officers, and Employees. The Directors, officers, and
employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in
the exercise of their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to
this Agreement. No current or former Director, officer, or employee will be
responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee.
The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current
and former Directors, officers, and employees for any acts or omissions in the
scope of their employment or duties in the manner provided by Government
Code Section 995 et seq. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
defenses available under the law, to the Parties, the Authority, or its Directors,
officers, or employees.
9.3 Indemnification of Parties. The Authority shall acquire such insurance
coverage as is necessary to protect the interests of the Authority, the Parties and
the public. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Parties
and each of their respective governing board members, officers, agents and
employees, from any and all claims, losses, damages, costs, injuries and
liabilities of every kind arising directly or indirectly from the conduct, activities,
operations, acts and omissions of the Authority under this Agreement.
9.4 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be made hereunder shall be in
writing and shall be delivered in the manner prescribed herein at the principal
place of business of each Party. The Parties may give notice by (1) personal
delivery; (2) e-mail; (3) U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, or a faster delivery
method; or (4) by any other reasonable method deemed appropriate by the
Board.
Upon providing written notice to all Parties, any Party may change the
designated address or e-mail for receiving notice.
All written notices or correspondence sent in the described manner will be
deemed given to a party on whichever date occurs earliest: ( 1) the date of
personal delivery; (2) the third business day following deposit in the U.S. mail,
when sent by "first class" mail; or (3) the date of transmission, when sent by e-
mail or facsimile.
9.5 Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the successors of each Party.
9.6 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the
rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the
advance written consent of all of the other Parties, and any attempt to assign or
delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Section 9.6 shall be null
and void. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the
-19-
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY---JOINT POWER$._AQREEJY1Etli
successors and assigns of the Parties. This Section 9.6 does not prohibit a Party
from entering into an independent agreement with another agency, person, or
entity regarding the financing of that Party's contributions to the Authority, or the
disposition of the proceeds which that Party receives under this Agreement, so
long as such independent agreement does not affect, or purport to affect, the
rights and duties of the Authority or the Parties under this Agreement.
9.7 Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants,
or conditions of this Agreement were adjudged invalid or void by a court of
competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises,
covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and
shall remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law.
9.8 Governing Law. This Agreement is made and to be performed in the State of
California, and as such California substantive and procedural law shall apply.
9.9 Headings. The section headings herein are for convenience only and are not to
be construed as modifying or governing the language of this Agreement.
9.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
and upon execution by all Parties, each executed counterpart shall have the
same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all Parties had signed
the same instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be detached
from any counterpart of this Agreement without impairing the legal effect of any
signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this
Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more
signature pages.
9.11 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement and the obligations hereunder
are not intended to benefit any party other than the Authority and its Parties,
except as expressly provided otherwise herein. No entity that is not a signatory
to this Agreement shall have any rights or causes of action against any party to
this Agreement as a result of that party's performance or non-performance under
this Agreement, except as expressly provided otherwise herein.
9.12 Filing of Notice of Agreement. Within 30 days after the Effective Date, or
amendment thereto, the Secretary shall cause to be filed with the Secretary of
State the notice of Agreement required by the Act.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Agreement to be executed and
attested by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized, its official seals to be hereto affixed, as
follows:
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
-20-
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY-JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARY C. WICKHAM
County Counsel
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By .'~'c, {t_, litH .. ~~~-~
Sachi A. Hamai
Chief Executive Officer
-21 -
LOS. .. ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY._-,I OINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Exhibit A-Members
The following entities are Parties of the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Authority:
1. County of Los Angeles
2. City of Rolling Hills Estates
-22-
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 11:53 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Positive move for RPV
LC
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 11:52 AM
To: 'Marianne Hunter' <2hunter@cox.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Positive move for RPV
Hi Marianne,
Thank you for taking the time to share your comments with the City Council.
Your email will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITY or= 1¢\NCl iO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This c·mi1il contains information bclonginq to the City of' Rancho Palo:> Verde;, which rnay be privilqj(:d, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The is intended only for use of the individual or named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended f(,Cipient, please the sender irnrnediately. Thank you for your assistance cooperation.
From: Marianne Hunter <2 .. huntf.?L@f.QK,net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:21AM
1
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Positive move for RPV
Subject: Vote YES June 2 Vote on the Clean Power Alliance
An opportunity for RPV to make a responsible choice.
As a residents of RPV, my family and I are asking you to vote YES on CPA (Clean Power Alliance)
at the June 2 City Council meeting!
Joining the CPA would give RPV residents the choice to purchase their electricity from
renewable energy sources at rates lower or similar to what we are currently paying SCE.
Please, don't let RPV miss this opportunity for local control of our power sources
Marianne and William Hunter
RPV 90275
Sent from my iPhone
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:09 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Regular Business Item 4: Vote YES to join Clean Power Alliance
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:08 PM
To: 'Eva Cicoria' <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Regular Business Item 4: Vote YES to join Clean Power Alliance
Hi Eva,
Thank you for sending your support letter regarding tonight's agenda on the Clean Power Alliance.
It will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITVOF 1.) "Nr't ~o l)i\ ·t OS' \IE·· f"DES '\f'IJ 1\..A I ·-r'> • · .. '\. . ,_,,
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e·rnail contains information bcloliQin9 to the City of Rancho Palo;; Verde:>, which rnay be privilcned, confidential and/or protected frorn
disclosure. The is intended only for U92 of the individual or narned. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyin9 is prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not: an intended recipient, please the serrder immediately. Thank you for your· assistance and cootJcratron
From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 9:21 AM
1
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Regular Business Item 4: Vote YES to join Clean Power Alliance
Good morning Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor ProTem Alegria, and Councilmembers Bradley, Dyda, and
Ferraro,
I hope this email finds you all safe and healthy. I and my family strongly support the Staff
recommendation to authorize the City Manager to submit a letter of intent to join the Clean Power
Alliance by June 30, 2020 and to proceed with a feasibility study.
Eva Cicoria
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:19 AM
CityCierk
FW: Vote Yes on Clean Power Alliance
From: James Bertolina <jnbertolina@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 9:06 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Vote Yes on Clean Power Alliance
Hello:
We are writing to ask you to vote YES on CPA (Clean Power Alliance) at the June 2 City Council meeting. Joining the
CPA would give RPV residents the choice to purchase their electricity from renewable energy sources at rates
lower or similar to what we are currently paying SCE.
Please, don't let RPV miss this opportunity for local control of our power sources.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nelly and Jim Bertolino
3713 Hightide Dr
RPV, CA 9275
310-265-0446
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JUNE 1, 2020
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 2, 2020 City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
4
Description of Material
Email exchange between Councilmember Dyda and Sunshine; Email
from Sunshine
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Barnes and
Sunshine; Emails from William Patton; Email from C.J Ruona; and
Steve Zuckerman
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200602 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
Subject: June 2, 2020 Council Agenda Item 1. Re: June 2 is just another City Council Meeting.
Or, will something be different?
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 1:29 PM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Terry Rodrigue <TRodrigue@rpvca.gov>;
Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Trang Nguyen <Tnguyen@rpvca.gov>
Subject: June 2, 2020 Council Agenda Item 1. Re: June 2 is just another City Council Meeting. Or, will something be
different?
Ken,
Thank you for "listening". I am going through the angry phase of mourning the loss of the Palos
Verdes Loop Trail Project's dream and Ara has the nerve to tell Council that the NCCP will not
eliminate trails.
I am not at all upset when Council discusses the options in a situation and chooses a different
direction than my preference. What has me so frustrated is that Council is not provided with an
analysis of all the options. Planning Commission and Applicants are not being given the basic facts
in relation to a specific site. And, the City's GIS data base is for shit. Human garbage in, garbage
out.
I agree, calling Staff incompetent is not nice however, I always couch it in with ... or, is someone
directing you to produce such an incomplete Staff Report? Either way, upper management is
dodging the bullet. Local interpretations of the Brown Act are killing "local control", not the State
Legislature. Only the Council can vote NO on a draft budget and 5-year model which does not
contain clear direction that Staff is to provide analysis of the broader consequences of each
Recommendation and the "downside of doing nothing".
The one thing that is causing serious problems since the updated General Plan was approved is the
new OPEN SPACE-HILLSIDE designation. My first hint of a potential problem was when Council
went along with Staff's suggestion that instead of just updating the text and graphics to reflect the 30
something amendments that previous Councils had approved, Staff got to draft their suggested
changes. That means that these changes were never run through the vetting process that an
amendment goes through.
1
My suggestion that the new Code to implement HILLSIDE should include specific language to
encourage the engineering/grading for improved trails across extreme slopes never got beyond
somebody's "in box".
The development application at 28160 PVDE is an example of my concern that just the term
HILLSIDE as opposed to HAZARD would imply that grading and construction on extreme slopes is
not as onerous as the original General Plan intended it to be.
There may be some way to address the anomalies in the HILLSIDE codes and the Official Land Use
Map but, not before the 28610 PVDE project becomes a legal action. I sent Jaehee a lengthy heads-
up after reading her Staff Report and alii got in return was the usual... "Thank You. Your comments
will be submitted as Late Correspondence." Oh, I got a reprimand from Octavia Silva about criticizing
Jaehee just like you sent me about Megan. The Planning Commission was totally frustrated by their
lack of a way to resolve the problems. The Applicant is frustrated with the piecemeal interpretations
he was not told at the beginning. All the Planning Commissioners could do was ask the Applicant for
more time for Jaehee to get her act together. Without some City Council level directions, come June
23, the lack of "findings" is not going to be any different.
My suggestions for a solution to these problems are still the same. Seat an Infrastructure and
Activities Commission and make sure that the Budget contains clear funding/directions for every new
project to include an analysis based on each Element in the General Plan.
My comments to lower level Staff are project specific when my general comments to Council and
upper management have not been addressed to the point that errors and omissions are at risk of
becoming fraud, waste and abuse.
It is either in the Budget or it is not. Who is funded to authorize Lina to accept my input to document
the not obsolete parts of the Conceptual Trails Plan into the GIS data base? Who is funded to
authorize Lina to make a lot-specific Project Area map for coordinated reference by Public Works,
Planning and Rec.& Parks? Gabi actually wrote "lol" (laugh out loud) when I sent her what Public
Works was using as their Encroachment Permits Map and suggested that the same divisions of the
City's Project Areas be used in the Trails Network Plan update.
I have been volunteering to draft/wordsmith all of the individual trail "narratives" ever since the
Council approved the formatting changes back in 2012. Now, Ara is saying that Council never did
that. Lord only knows what the Consultant has been doing. The draft Trails Network Plan update
was supposed to be presented in public workshops starting in June 2018.
2
That brings up the problem with the committees, Commission and the Council moving and approving
"receive and file" with comments. Staff's interpretation of the action items does not show up in the
minutes.
I am writing info similar to this to the other Council Members, individually and as a body. But, as long
as the Council cannot direct Staff to do the analysis and present a big fuzzy issue as a Study Session
Agenda Item (like the new HILLSIDE designation), Staff gets to continue to be dysfunctional in the
way of implementing the General Plan. Yes, it may be "unenforceable" in some ways. However, our
electeds, appointed citizen advisors and volunteer consultants should have the opportunity to weigh
in on the validity of the interpretation of the "big picture" before "schematics" are presented in the tone
of ... "This is what is going to be done".
It takes guts to vote NO when so much Staff Time has been invested in a particular project. What I
am looking for is a way to get a lot more "big picture" research included in every project's Scope of
Work. It is the omissions which are effectively ruining our infrastructure and wasting our Payroll and
discretionary funds.
I repeat, I agree, calling Staff incompetent is not nice however, I always couch it in with ... or, is
someone directing you to produce such incomplete Staff Reports? Either way, upper management is
dodging the bullet. Local interpretations of the Brown Act are killing "local control", not the State
Legislature. Only the Council can vote NO on a draft budget and 5-year model which does not
contain clear direction that Staff is to provide analysis of the broader consequences of each
Recommendation and the "downside of doing nothing".
After the Public Hearing is closed and the public has been silenced, the challenge will be in getting
Staff to actually implement Councils directions, whatever they may be, before the Final Budget is
presented on June 16, 2020. If it is not in the Budget, it doesn't get done.
Best regards,
SUNSHINE
RPV
310-377-8761
3
In a message dated 5/31/2020 11:04:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov writes:
Sunshine
Thank you for your extensive analysis in your email.
Ken Dyda
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ken.dyda@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov
p (310) 375-3932
Information contained in this email represents my individual position, not necessarily the position of
the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
This EH11ail conta;ns infonnation helonqing lo the City of F<ancho F'alo& Verdes, which may be privilenecJ, confidentinl and/or protected from
disclosure. The if. intended only for use of lhe individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyinq is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error. or are not an inlended recipwmt, please notify the sender immediately. ·rhank you for your assislflnce and
cooperation.
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:37 PM
To: Ken Dyda
Subject: June 2 is just another City Council Meeting. Or, will something be different?
Ken,
A "heads up" before something slips through a crack is not a criticism. Offering to help is not
a request for extra work. I have been "identifying issues" to the City Council and the City
Manager until I am blue in the face. Ara is well aware of the fact that new Staff Members are
not taught how to use the Trails Network Plan to identify trail preservation and enhancement
opportunities. As is Elias. If Council didn't see through Ara's assurance that the latest "final"
NCCP" would not close any more trails", than I have to agree with a not-credited quote which
recently circulated on Facebook. "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them that
they have been fooled."
The RPV City Council knew exactly what they were doing in 2003 through 2005. (More than
just the contract with PVPLC.) The Council has been getting fooled ever since unless you
agree that Staff should be trashing our infrastructure.
4
It is not Jaehee Yoon's fault that she presented a total debacle to the Planning Commission in
relation to the application to develop a single family residence at 28160 PVDE. The general
errors and anomalies resulting from the new OPEN SPACE-HILLSIDE designation in the
Official Land Use Map have not been resolved. The Official Zoning Map has not been
updated to be in compliance with the updated General Plan. The existing Trails Network Plan
provides everything Jaehee needed to know to negotiate trail improvements on this site. She
just didn't know to look it up and consult with trail use advisors.
The Planning Commission is really in a jamb with this one and the Applicant has been terribly
misled for two years. Any decision the Planning Commission makes, this decision will be
appealed to City Council and you will be in the same jamb. More money wasted and the
whole community loses quality of life.
I said so during the General Plan update review. I said so during the NCCP update reviews. I
say so for at least one item on nearly every City Council Agenda. By non-disclosure, Staff is
taking the development of this City in a direction which the City Council has not discussed and
agreed upon. The errors of omission are what concern me the most.
I was not criticizing Megan when I pointed out that what the Council needs to be addressing is
the current validity of the RPV Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP). I was not requesting
that she do more work than she should otherwise be doing. Tinkering with how the ERAP is
being implemented without considering whether or not the plan is accomplishing valid goals is
what I took you to mean by "piecemealing". I have been calling them "half-baked"
Recommendations.
Choosing who to vote for in the last three elections was very difficult because none of the
candidates would state what they meant by "leading the City in the right direction". "Fiscally
conservative" should mean more than not committing to spend more than our projected
income. Whatever happened to "getting the most bang for our buck"? Fixing only one part of
something while ignoring another parts is not cost effective. No, despite what Ara told Eric,
the PVDE Roadway Safety Project is not the Trails Network Plan. These are two pieces in a
puzzle which Staff should be making every effort to put together
Megan and Jaehee are either following Upper Management's lack of understanding about
what it takes to preserve and enhance all of the things which make RPV special or, they are
following the State of California's Agencies' efforts to convert the whole Peninsula into a no
humans allowed nature preserve. When Staff does not maintain "living" primary plans like the
Official Zoning Map, does not consult the City Council for direction about major direction
options like encroachment permits until a trauma occurs and does not include a status report
and recommendation on our plethora of other plans like the ERAP along with their
5
recommendations to spend more Staff Time/cash money on outsider initiatives, they are
not working on the best interests of your constituents.
I gag every time you vote ... "reluctantly, Yes". My commitment to trails is recognized as a
threat to whatever is to be gained by not maintaining existing trails and not pursuing trail
connection improvements. My interest in Wildfire Management and emergency evacuation
routes is also being diluted/diverted.
It is not just because I live in the active landslide that I have noticed the progression of
exclusions in the Landslide Mitigation Project. It is not just because I have an interest in trail
connections. Portuguese Bend just happens to be the epitome of how Staff subdivides citizen
interests so that they accomplish the least and spend the most on "schematics". How many
times have you heard Elias say ... "Don't worry about the details. It is just a schematic." and
then, acceptance of a bid for construction lands on your Consent Calendar?
The design for any "work" in Portuguese Bend/Abalone Cove should include consideration of
the goals in the Coastal Specific Plan, the goals in the Trails Network Plan, the goals in the
Parks Master Plan, the goals in the NCCP, the goals in the Wildfire Management Plan as well
as basic emergency preparedness. Wildlife Agency Permits or no Wildlife Agency Permits,
this professional services agreement is not going to address any chance of our ever getting
emergency vehicles across Barkentine Canyon, Vanderlip Canyon, LeFevre Canyon, Altamira
Canyon, Portuguese Canyon, Ishibashi Canyon and/or Paintbrush Canyon in a disaster. The
"taking of habitat" to restore this "essential infrastructure" will never be considered as
"appropriate development". $600,000.00 for what the "Wildlife Agencies" Permits were touted
as going to save us in streamlined paperwork. Another unanimous vote in favor.
E. Consideration and possible action to award a professional services agreement to Chambers Group, Inc. for
the preparation of environmental documents in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act
for the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project (Dragoo)
Recommendation: 1) Award a professional services agreement, in an amount not to exceed $292,289.30,
to Chambers Group, Inc. for the preparation of environmental documents in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act for the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project; and, 2) Approve an
additional appropriation in the amount of$292,289.30 from MeasureR funds to cover costs associated with
the preparation of the environmental documents.
Have you never noticed that the Staff Recommendation usually includes more than what is
stated in the Agenda Item title?
6
RPV culture is being nudged out by attrition, calculated neglect and professional services
agreements. I am ever so sorry that you think that slapping me on the wrist about who I share
information with is going to get me to shut up. I expect to live longer than you do and had
great hopes that what you and "Save Our Coast" created as the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
would outlast us both.
Tuesday evening will be most interesting. Since Megan did not respond to your request for
additional information in all Staff Reports, it is up to the City Manager. 'Nuf said? Nope. The
Budget is still before you. What is "additional work" and what is to be expected? X years with
in-house GIS and Staff still can't figure out which trails are existing and which ones are
"conceptual". . .. S
In a message dated 5/29/2020 4:04:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov writes:
Sunshine
Your commitment to "Trails" is well recognized.
You have every right and obligation to identify issues to the city manager and the council. It is
inappropriate to direct/request staff for additional work.. Stafflooks to the management to
direct their work. Suggestions for additional input for an oversight should be brought to the
attention of management not criticism of staff.
Ken Dyda
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ken.dyda@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov
p (310) 375-3932
Information contained in this email represents my individual position, not necessarily the
position of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
This f>rnuil rnes:,;age contains inforrna\ion to the City oi f\ancho Palos Verde:;, which be privik::(Jed. confidential and/or
urotected from disclosure. ·rhe iniomwtion is lor use of the individual or Unauthorized dissemination,
;1istribulion, or is strictly prohibitud. It you this email in error. or are not an recipient, please notify ltkl sunder
irnrnediately. you for your assistance and cooperation.
7
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 3:01PM
To: Ken Dyda
Subject: More to it then that. Re: For you regarding June 2 Council Item 4
Errors and omissions
Ken,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to restate an ongoing observation. As you
know, I have been working with Staff and the City Councils of all four of the
Peninsula's cities for a few decades. In the process of pursuing LA County's vision of
connecting the Peninsula's farm roads, fire roads and other "social trails" into one
continuous trail around the Peninsula along the lines of our four PV Drives, several
people, primarily equestrians, learned how to help Staff produce their Staff
Reports. Robert Ryan was the Mayor of RPV when he dubbed us "Trails Junkies".
The Sierra Club got involved and designed the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network which
envisioned alternate routes for emergency evacuation, distance of recreational loops
and avoiding the isolation of wildlife gene pools. It turned out that preserving and
enhancing this network was more political than physical. Therefore, more Trails
Junkies learned how to help Staff identify off-road circulation opportunities which
would otherwise have been missed in proposed development and public works
projects.
My ongoing observation is that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes no longer welcomes
this assistance. And, the first place it got blocked was from the City's Budget. The
most recent observation is that offers of information and notices of potential errors or
omissions are taken as criticism.
My email to Megan was not a criticism. I was giving her an opportunity to provide the
Council with more in-depth background about the ongoing, fiscal consequences, of the
decision you, as electeds, are being asked to make.
I understand the full implication of the Energy Reduction Plan. Therefore, I think that
Council should be presented with its track record along with the opportunity to throw
more money at it.
8
I also pointed out that she had not provided your requested analysis of "the downside
of doing nothing". If Ara did not pass along your request to his Staff, then this is a
criticism of him which you can either pursue or not.
This actually all comes down to a criticism of Council for as long as you keep
supporting Staff Recommendations which do not present the lost opportunities. A
second time for two NO votes on PVDE is a glimmer of hope. I'm trying to help Staff
pull it together before they write their Staff Reports. I sent a similar, personal note to
Jaehee Yoon about the residential application on PVDE. I got a similarly useless
"thank you" from her and a similar "don't criticize Staff' from Octavia Silva.
I still have not been contacted in response to my testimony about the trees and
deadwood which are not at the east end of the landslide nor are they in the
Preserve. I provided a map with my late correspondence which as usual, had no
influence on Council's discussion. What is your expectation when Ara tells the Council
he "will get back to you"?
How much of all this should I put into the Public Record in relation to your June 2
Agenda Items 1, 2, 3 and 4? I'll submit my requests to "participate" over the
weekend .
... S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 5/28/2020 9:49:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov
writes:
Sunshine
I appreciate your desire to understand the full implication of the Energy Reduction
Plan. As you noted, I have asked for additional information. I expect it will be coming
soon.
I would also appreciate it if you would send your criticisms of any staff member to the
council and city manager. It is their place to review the complaint and take action IF
necessary. Staff is, after all, responsible to the city manager and in turn to the
council. Complaining directly to a staff member and questioning their work
assignment directly is not appropriate.
9
Ken Dyda
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ken.dyda@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov
p (310) 375-3932
Information contained in this email represents my individual position, not necessarily
the position of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
Thl:,; (Hnaii rnessaqe cont«ins iniorrnation
end/or frorn dbclosure. The information
>;;;,,nw>n!lim distribution, or
please notify U1e sender
of Rancho Palo\> Verdes, which may be privileoecL confidential
only for use ot the individual or entity named. Unauthorized
received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient.
'"-'.o.Kt»nN> and cooperation.
10
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Wednesday, May 27, 2020 11:36 AM
Elias Sassoon; Terry Rodrigue; Cory Linder; Lukasz Buchwald
Jesse Villalpando; CC; CityCierk; PC; EPC
Heads up on job descriptions and funding in the Budget
Hi Elias, Terry, Cory and Lukasz,
I truly hope that you all got to spend some "Holiday time" over this crazy weekend. Now is the time to
wake up and smell the rebellion. Each of you are equally to blame for the "load of crap" which got
presented to the Planning Commission as the development application for 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East.
It doesn't matter who is the City Manager as long as you four are willing to avoid contributing your expertise
toward the notion of providing for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes on a project by project basis.
This whole email chain started with a heading of ... unimproved roadsides. No place is safe. However,
people use them. The Palos Verdes Peninsula also has a network of off-road circulation corridors which
contribute toward our emergency preparedness, recreation and even help avoid the isolation of wildlife
gene pools.
Too much money has been wasted on separate projects which do not present our decision-makers with an
analysis of all interests expressed in each of the General Plan's Elements. The "new normal" has
produced an IT way to let more people see what is going on at the Citizen Advisory Committee level. Our
new Emergency Preparedness Coordinator even knows how provide a link from the Agenda to his Staff
Reports which the public, in the past, could only get for Council and Planning Commission meetings. Not
that "Late Correspondence" ever seems to produce any additions, clarifications or corrections in Staff's
verbal presentation.
Add to that a comprehensive analysis of the "downside of doing nothing" per Council request.
The Council's Strategic Plan for 2019 was a joke. I am looking to the four of you to find a way to share
what you interpret as your Department's role in Council's more specific Action Items which they have
started adding to their Receive and File Motions. For instance, what do each of you expect to contribute to
the documentation of the "more inspections" by the Fire Department in the way of identifying trails which
are to be maintained as TYPE 2 or TYPE 3 and which City owned properties are to be cleared of old
growth fire fuel this year? The Emergency Preparedness Committee may not do this for you.
1 /.
Each of our nine project areas of the City have the same infrastructure needs and wants. That
is ... "functional" plus some "niceties". No place will ever "be safe" and no program will ever be
"sustainable". Your job is to get the best result for the tax payer dollars you consume. "The best" is
defined by the City's General Plan and clarified by our City Council's decisions. As time goes by,
Government Agency Staffs have been providing Elected Representatives with less and less
comprehensive analysis of the alternatives. Specific questions get answered with generalities, obfuscation
or ... "We'll get back to you."
You four are facing two deadlines in June of 2020. The Staff Recommendation for the FY 20-21 Budget
and the Staff Recommendation for development at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East. If you can't get your
heads together and divert the impending train wrecks on PV Drive East, you had better get your heads
together and answer my question which our new Director of Finance dodged. State the money you need,
now. "I wasn't in the Budget" has lost its traction as an excuse for Staff errors and omissions.
Here are Trang's helpful hints on how to find the answers. I look forward to seeing your individual input in
the upcoming Planning Commission and City Council Staff Reports. I am always available to respond to
your requests for clarification .... S 310-377-8761
Subject: RE: What is and isn't in the draft budget?
Date: 5/26/2020 11:27:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: Tnguyen@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: CC@rpvca.gov, CityCierk@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good morning Ms. Sunshine,
The FY 19-20 budget is available on the City's website. You can click on this
link bJtg:/lrgvc_c:t .. g_ov/D_QcumentCenterNiew~14760/F'(19-20-AdoQted-Budget-PDF?bidld= to view
the budget book. The details of the budget are in the justification pages for each department. For FY 20-21,
the City has completed two budget workshops that included a review of the General Fund and the Capital
Improvement Program, held a preliminary budget meeting, and there will be public hearings on June 2 and
June 16. You can also view all the staff reports (April 13, April 27, May 19) related to budget
at bJ];r//rt;?V9a:gov[772/C~~ing:_\[jd~o-and-Agen.Qa~. The FY 20-21 budget book with details will
be available at the end of August. As for who will be notified if the work is not funded, the City Council and
the public will be notified if a program is not being funded during the budget process. Any projects that
come up after the budget process will be taken to the City Council for consideration.
2
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
Thank you for your continuous support and I hope you had a wonderful weekend.
Trang Nguyen
Director of Finance
Subject: What is and isn't in the draft budget?
Date: 5/25/2020 12:36:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: tnguyen@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Trang,
I am writing directly to you because at this late stage in the FY 20-21 Budget process, I still can't find
whether or not certain "action Items" are adequately funded. It appears that each Item requires Staff Time
from multiple departments/divisions and there is no identified "holder of the purse strings" to make sure
that work is coordinated in a timely and cost-effective manner. Please advise how I can look up what was
in the FY 19-20 Budget and what is proposed for FY 20-21. Who should get a "heads up" if this work is not
funded? TNX. Sunshine 310-377-8761
1. Living Documents. Our General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, Parks Master Plan, Trails Network Plan
and now our Natural Communities Conservation Plan, all contain "Goals and Policies". Whenever
progress toward a Goal is made, particularly when the recording of a document with the LA County
Recorder or a "Ribbon Cutting Ceremony takes place, the primary Document is to be wordsmithed/updated
and official maps, GIS'd.
2. Encroachment Permits. Public Works has a document called the ENCROACHMENT PERMITS MAP.
It is not "lot specific". It divides the City into nine "Project Areas". Recently, I have seen a computer-
generated map with similar City divisions for Residential Roadway Rehabilitation which impacts a lot of
3
encroachments. Also, Staff has been working on updating the Trails Network Plan which includes a
Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) that divides the City into five Areas. Given that the preponderance of the
non-motorized circulation in RPV is under the management of the Public Works Department, it has been
suggested that the trails and the roadways preservation and enhancement activities use the same "Project
Areas Map". Council has requested a focused area study on our encroachment history and policies. The
northern portion of Palos Verdes Drive East is in the CTP's area five and the Encroachment Permit's area
8. This portion of PVDE is not covered in the City's STREET STANDARDS STUDY. All this info is to be
integrated and available via our GIS data base and web site.
3. Non-motorized circulation and emergency preparedness infrastructure maintenance. Some of this is
covered by the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee's priority recommendations. Smaller
projects/needs/wants are to be included with the design/scope of work of proposed projects which impact
the same geographic area. For instance, Altamira Canyon erosion control, Abalone Cove habitat planting,
California Coastal Trail blufftop trail completion across Altamira Canyon and landslide remediation are all
being pursued on essentially the same five acres of City owned land.
Subject: More on ROW encroachments, NOW
Date: 5/24/2020 8:34:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: cc@rpvca.gov, cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Cc: trodrigue@rpvca.gov, jyoon@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Council Members,
There is an urgent matter coming back to the Planning Commission. This is a residential development
application which has been in "the system" so long that Staff asked the Commission to ask the Applicant
for a time extension rather than deny the project.
28160 PVDE is either the result of a City Planner working in a vacuum or a City Planner being directed to
move the project forward without consideration for the community she works for. Either way, driveways
onto an arterial highway, permits for permanent encroachments in the public ROW, no consideration for
off-road circulation, no proposal for traffic calming, conflicting codes for grading on extreme slopes, no
early consultation with trail user advisors, no comment on Wildfire Management and Fire Department input
4
on only the access to the structure, not to mention all the requests for variances for other "wants" ... does
not make for a "quality project".
Since this lot did not get declared "unbuildable" when the application first arrived at the Planning counter, I
sure hope that our City Attorney can come up with a way for the Planning Commission to get us out of this
jam. Then, I hope that there is funding in the proposed FY20-21 budget for the Public Works Dept to get a
grip on the day to day needs for our City's infrastructure to be "preserved and enhanced" as a residential
community as opposed to just a nature preserve here in paradise.
Tick tack, ... S
Subject: May 12, 2020 Planning Commission Agenda Item 2, PVDE
Date: 5/11/2020 1 0:44:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: pc@rpvca.gov, jyoon@rpvca.gov, trodrigue@rpvca.gov
Cc: david.lukac.us@gmail.com, pvpasofino@yahoo.com, jeanlongacre@aol.com, ehunter2@aol.com, amcdougall1 @yahoo.com,
stoneladybug@sbcglobal.net, robert.gonzalez@ladwp.com, cc@rpvca.gov, imac@rpvca.gov, tsc@rpvca.gov, fac@rpvca.gov,
esassoon@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello RPV Planning Commissioners,
Neither Jaehee, Terry nor many of you know me very well. I am delighted that Jaehee included some of
my old correspondence in the current Staff Report. My retirement avocation as a "trails junkie" is to point
out errors and omissions hopefully, early enough in the entitlements process that the character of the
Peninsula can be salvaged.
Thank you for volunteering to try and make sense of it all.
Page 1. ZONING: Staff is using the change in Codes which represent the new OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE
designation. The current Zoning Map is more obsolete than the Trails Network Plan on this particular site.
The OPEN SPACE-HAZARD designation no longer applies.
5
Pages 2 and 26. SPECIFIC PLAN: Although it is mentioned later in the Staff Report, page 2 is where
Staff should have informed the Planning Commission that this property is in one of the City's Equestrian
Overlay Districts (otherwise known as a "Q Zone"). You should know what the implications are. The
subsequent text should describe the extent to which Staff encouraged the applicant to take advantage of
the incentives offered by the City to preserve the "character" of this sub-section of the City. (Did you notice
that horsekeeping on an adjacent property will be adversely impacted by this proposed development?)
Pages 3 and 10. This notion of offering a reduced front yard setback on a yet to be clarified "hillside
property" is news to me. It certainly was not mentioned in the Staff Report which recommended that
amendments to this Code be approved or I would have screamed bloody murder. A variance to reduce the
front setback even further is complicated by the request for permanent use of the public right of way. The
Staff Report is not clear about the mix of non-conforming setbacks being measured from the edge of the
existing pavement versus from the edge of the public right of way.
Oh! What Staff calls an "unnamed tributary of the Miraleste Canyon Creek" is on the USGS Maps and this
project's Engineer's Drawings as Dodson Canyon. This curve really needs a "landmark name". It is not as
bad as Deadman's Curve and worse than the curve "at Bronco". How Staff implements City Council's
Policy about landmark naming is a whole other topic.
Page 9. Adding direct private driveway access to an arterial highway is to be avoided. This application
requests two in addition to other variances.
Pages 10 and 25. Where is the 8 foot wide space for the roadside, unpaved, non-motorized circulation
which the Public Works Department has conditioned? The City's Conceptual Trails Plan (last updated in
1993) was Phase 1 of the ongoing update of the City's Trails Network Plan. It is not a "stand-alone
document". In 2012, Council Adopted a list of policies and formatting changes which have not yet
produced a public vetting of Staff's interpretations of them. One is that there should be clearance on both
sides of all roadways in Q Zones, which accommodates off-pavement circulation by pedestrians and
equestrians. That includes keeping foliage trimmed back, space around mailboxes and space around
parked cars within the public right of way and on private roadway easements. The Community
Development Department appears to be unaware of this infrastructure amenity goal. There should also be
a condition that the property owner provide and maintain an anti-skid surface on all paved driveways which
cross the roadside between the edge of the ROW and the improved roadway. The Public Works
Department has neglected to specify what an "8' wide passage" means. Specifying a trail TYPE would
address trail tread width, foliage clearance/obstructions (prism), limits on steepness of grade and line of
sight. Space for passage does not necessarily produce a functional trail. The Trails Network Plan update
and the PV Drive East Roadway Safety Project has not yet produced an updated "narrative" nor a
schematic design for Trail C18 all across this Q Zone.
Noon is approaching so I am not going back to search. Privacy screening is mentioned somewhere. What
is not addressed is the that privacy screening is to be provided on one's own property and that "wildfire
mitigation/hardening of a structures line of defense" (tree and shrub trimming), now applies to 200 feet out,
all around.
6
Thank you again, for volunteering to be Citizen Advisors. Your options for how to deal with this totally
incompatible proposal appear to have become terribly limited.
SUNSHINE RPV 310-377-8761
7
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Megan,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
rriday, May 29, 2020 4:24 PM
Megan Barnes
CC; CityCierk; PC; Jaehee Yoon
Re: For you regarding June 2 Council Item 4 and Late Correspondence
My note was not a request for information for myself. Nor was it meant to be shared with anyone else
besides Councilman Dyda. For a long time now, Staff has been presenting Council and the Planning
Commission with reports and recommendations which do not present an analysis of all of the implications
in the recommended action. It is Council who needs to know the answers to my questions. If you don't
provide them, the Council is at risk of making a poor decision and the community at large will suffer the
consequences.
I copied Councilman Dyda because he is the one who asked the City Manager to provide the "downside of
doing nothing" in future Agenda Reports. This gives you the opportunity to respond to his request and him
the opportunity to thank the City Manager for having heard the request.
So sorry that it is now in the Public Record that neither of you saw it that way. Unless, of course, you add
the answers to your oral presentation. My objective is to enable my elected representatives to make
informed decisions and at the same time avoid having Staff come across as thoughtless. Now is your
chance to be prepared, come what may, during the meeting .... S 310-377-8761
PS: Ordinarily, when would the new Council mix get to review the pro's and con's of continuing to pursue
the Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP)?
In a message dated 5/28/2020 5:58:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, mbarnes@rpvca.gov writes:
Good Evening Sunshine,
Thank you for reaching out, your email will be included in late correspondence for Tuesday's City Council
meeting.
1
The item before the council is not a commitment to joining Clean Power Alliance and launching service, but
consideration of taking the first steps in the process of joining, including the completion of a feasibility study.
The council could go forward with the study, but choose not to join Clean Power Alliance. The council is also
not being asked to discontinue the ERAP.
Joining Clean Power Alliance presents an opportunity for the City to reduce its carbon emissions by giving
residents the option of increasing the amount of renewable energy powering their homes. If the council
ultimately chose not to join Clean Power Alliance -which could only happen after Clean Power Alliance
approved adding the City as a member-RPV residents and businesses would continue to receive their
electricity service from Southern California Edison. SCE's default power mix already contains 36%
renewable energy and SCE has called for providing 80% carbon-free power by 2030.
If the council ultimately does choose to join Clean Power Alliance, RPV residents and businesses would
have the ability to opt out and return to SCE service at any time.
Thank you,
Megan Barnes
2
From: Megan Barnes
Sent:
To:
Thursday, May 28, 2020 5:58 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: For you regarding June 2 Council Item 4
Late correspondence for Item 4.
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:53 PM
To: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Subject: For you regarding June 2 Council Item 4
Hello Megan,
Your Staff report is missing two important discussions. What is the "downside of doing nothing" and what
would be the consequences of discontinuing the Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP)?
Is spending $15,000.00 going to help our residents decide how much more money they are willing to invest
in reducing our somewhat unfathomable "carbon footprint"?
Personally, I would prefer that what I pay for City and County Services was a lot more closely tied to an
actual service like removing dead wood on City property which if it burns will produce a lot worse than
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). I'm still looking for that line item in the draft FY 20-21 Budget.
I will submit a request to speak just in case you don't cover this in your oral presentation.
Best regards,
SUNSHINE
RPV
310-377-8761
1
"'---·-·-···-··
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, June 1, 2020 8:34 AM
Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Item #4 -CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
From: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 8:05AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M.
Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Dez Mys
<dezmys@gmail.com>
Subject: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
City Council Members
Additional commentary re CPA
First, regardless of your individual opinions you certainly do not want the residents to feel this is being
expedited with a false sense of urgency. Do not pass at this meeting!
Certainly the City Attorney must have reviewed a proffered agreement and noted to City Council all risks.
We believe the CPA stipulates you can opt-out, (which applies to residents),
who can be charged a fee. This can be misleading to Councils, because
cities once a contract is consummated can not just simply "opt out" of the
contract (our review determined).
Most important it seems the contract may ambiguously hide the true cost
from the city that seeks to exit. It is prudent and necessary that the City
must determine the absolute costs to exit.
CPA has noted they will sell energy to residents cheaper than SCE
because they stipulate they can "create" green energy cheaper than SCE.
Quite a statement but the City must have a contractural detailed
commitment to such a general statement thus it is certain proof of such a
stipulation seems mandatory.
1
Simply if this cannot be contractually committed the business model falls
apart and requires the City to fund the gap on the back-end. The stoic
imperative is that such a situation must be contemplated and provided for
in any agreement i.e, the City should NOT be obligated to "fund the gap".
Eminent Domain rights in the contract must not allow the CPA to claim
resident property. Frankly it is amazing that such a clause is even
proposed.
Will a contract exclude the City from CPA's liabilities?
If the City is forced to buy power contracts the additional cost should be
borne by CPA.
The CPA should be providing full access to their documents that PROVE
they have access to green power as claimed. They should provide all of
the following documents allowing the City to conduct proper due
diligence:
1. CPA's unredacted Power Source Disclosure (PSD) reports; to ensure the power is
green.
2. Price information of the cost of CPA's power sources.
3. CPA's full disclosure of any of any unbundled RECs (Type 3 energy).
4. Copies of all hydroelectric contracts.
5. Copies of all contracts for carbon free attributes.
6. Copies of all contracts for environmental attributes.
I must say not withstanding this is a personal opinion RPV does not need this involvement
and agreement.
Hope this helps!
Bill
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, June 1, 2020 8:35AM
Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig
FW: RPV Staff report does not include the contract
From: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 8:35AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kit Ruona <cjruona@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; David M.
Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; Dez Mys
<dezmys@gmail.com>
Subject: RPV Staff report does not include the contract
All,
When CCA/CP A was presented in PVE in 20 17 -the City Council killed it because of the
controversial clauses on the contract; like eminent domain, termination clause, etc.
It is important these same negative and harmful clauses be given the same attention by both PVE
and RPV councils. I believe such attention will lead to the same termination of consideration as in
2017 byPVE.
Also I believe the staff reports may not include the complete contract the Councils will consider
adopting?
Please give the proposed agreement very serious attention as the details are important to
understanding why this was killed in 2017 and should be again by both City Councils.
https://rpv.granicus.com/Meta Viewer.php?view id=5&event id=1666&meta id=83183
Bill
1
1.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, June 1, 2020 8:46AM
Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Subject: Item #4 -CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
From: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 4:04 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: cjruona@cox.net; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Robert Nelson
<nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; David M. Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Dez Mys <dezmys@gmail.com>
Subject: Subject: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
City Council Members
I want to add my support for what Kit provided you below. There is no need to have an outside entity search for RPV to
provide what they "call green energy"!
Especially when there is a provision stipulating "Eminent Domain" which is "the right of a government or its agent to
expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation."
A third party should not be given such authority for our city.
I also understand this entity (agent) has asked for a decision by the end of June.
I also find such a requirement ("attempt") sounds somewhat like coercion thus such a request does create serious
concern that such a decision without much greater review is certainly and specifically inappropriate.
Please do not pass this without much more review as a comprehensive and detailed study is needed, hopefully including
public forums.
As what I have sent you In this email is fairly simplistic I will send you later today or early tomorrow some more
commentary for you consideration.
Bill Patton
On May 31, 2020, at 2:56 PM, cjruona@cox.net wrote:
City Council-
1
I recently became aware of the subject matter of your agenda item #4 for your meeting this Tuesday, June 2nd. As I
understand it this concerns setting city policy effecting how power is purchased & delivered to Rancho Palos
Verdes. This is a big deal. This should be a conversation held at various venues to educate the citizens as to the
advantages & disadvantages of this. Transparency is critical. I will anxiously await what each member of the council has
to say regarding this & their positions. During this unsettling time in our community it does not appear to be the best
time to decide an issue like this.
C. J. "Kit" Ruona
2
1.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence for Item 4.
Megan Barnes
Monday, June 1, 2020 8:52AM
CityCierk
FW: Subject: Item #4 -CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
From: William Patton [mailto:billpatton21@icloud.com]
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 8:51AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: cjruona@cox.net; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Robert Nelson
<nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; David M. Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; Dez Mys <dezmys@gmail.com>
Subject: Subject: Item #4-CC meeting on 6/2/20, Clean Power Alliance (CPA)
City Council Members
My concluding thought to you regarding CPA.
The Devil is in the Details-if you are cognizant and informed I believe you will vote NO!
Bill
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, June 1, 2020 8:48AM
Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Item 4
From: cjruona@cox.net <cjruona@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com>
<nelsongang@aol.com>; Patton William <billpatton21@icloud.com>; David M. Koch <davidkoch@cox.net>; 'Dez Mys'
<dezmys@gmail.com>
Subject: Item 4
City Council-
! recently became aware of the subject matter of your agenda item #4 for your meeting this Tuesday, June 2nd. As I
understand it this concerns setting city policy effecting how power is purchased & delivered to Rancho Palos
Verdes. This is a big deal. This should be a conversation held at various venues to educate the citizens as to the
advantages & disadvantages of this. Transparency is critical. I will anxiously await what each member of the council has
to say regarding this & their positions. During this unsettling time in our community it does not appear to be the best
time to decide an issue like this.
C. J. "Kit" Ruona
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, June 1, 2020 12:02 PM
cc
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
CityCierk
FW: Speaker Request
CPA bullets.docx
Late Correspondence for tomorrow's meeting.
Thank you
Teri
From: Steve Zuckerman <stevez@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 11:50 AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Speaker Request
Thank you Teresa.
Will all of the city council be physically present at Hesse Park?
Also, please confirm my understanding that I should wear a face mask if I physically attend the meeting-both
while I am seated in the audience and when I am addressing the council.
In the meantime, please provide the council members with the attached list of items that I will be referencing
in my address.
Thank you again
-Steve Zuckerman
From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 8:57AM
To: Steve Zuckerman <stevez@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Speaker Request
Hello Mr. Zuckerman-
! am just following up .. did you want to participate remotely or will you be in attendance at Hesse Park?
Teri
From: Steve Zuckerman <stevez@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:29 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Speaker Request
1
Ms. Takaoka
My name is Steven Zuckerman, and I reside at 6 Horseshoe Lane, RHE CA. I am RHE's city council's
designated member of the Board of Directors of the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, and I would
like to request an opportunity to speak to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council with respect to agenda item no.
4
at the forthcoming June 2 city council meeting. Please advise.
Thank you very much for your kind attention to this request. -Steven Zuckerman
Get Outlook for iOS
2
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Based upon our experience as a member of the Clean Power Alliance, I would like to share the following:
1. Choice is good. Joining the Clean Power Alliance is an opportunity to let your residents choose for
themselves between remaining with SCE or enjoying one of the three additional options provided by
the Clean Power Alliance:
1. Save money on the CPA's Lean Power choice that in itself has a cleaner power content
that standard SCE power.
2. Pay the same price as Edison's standard rate for Clean Power that is 87% carbon free
{61 %wind and solar and 27% hydraulic with only 13% from untraceable generation
sources).
3. Pay only about $4.40 more per month for the average residential billing for 100% Green
renewable power.
2. CPA's program has been very successful with extremely high customer satisfaction. Although our
city chose the 100% option for our residential default, less than 8% of our households have opted
out.
3. Customer transition to the CPA is virtually seamless because SCE continues to distribute the
electricity and bill customers in the customary monthly billing format.
4. CPA provides local programs and community projects that will enhance grid resiliency, fund
municipal and community electrification (EV chargers and clean back-up for essential community
facilities), and create skilled, local area employment by building community solar projects that will
result in $220 million in local investment over the next five years that will leverage otherwise
unavailable state and federal funding.
5. The CPA is governed by elected officials from all of its member cities, which provides transparency
and enhanced customer access to both operations and policy.
6. The CPA is efficient. Its large purchase profile and low overhead result in very low, 3.39%,
operational expenses that are only 59% of the average for all other community choice aggregators.
7. The CPA is proven. Over 10 million Californians in over 170 local jurisdictions already enjoy the
benefits of Community Choice Aggregation. Locally, the governing bodies of over 31 municipalities
(that include all of the beach cities from Redondo Beach through Malibu) and all of the
unincorporated areas in los Angeles and Ventura Counties have joined the Clean Power Alliance.
And, on September 17th of last year, the San Diego city council approved its own regional CCA that
will include, at their option, all ofthe cities in San Diego County.
8. The CPA is safe. Just like the investor owned utilities, the CPA is subject to the oversight of the
CPUC, the California Energy Commission, and CAISO, the California Independent operator that
manages our electrical grid. And not one of the ten Community Choice Aggregation programs that
have been formed since 2007 have been dissolved, while, in the meantime, Pacific Gas and Electric
has filed for bankruptcy, SCE showed a nearly one-half billion dollar loss in 2018, and San Diego
Power and Electric has had a credit downgrade
Rolling Hills Estates has had an extremely positive experience by providing more choice for our residents;
and there won't be any future action that we will ever be able to take that will more effectively reduce
our carbon footprint and fulfill the sustainability goals of our general plan. As a neighboring admirer of
RPV, I encourage you to join the CPA and enjoy these same benefits.
Steve Zuckerman
6 Horseshoe Lane
Rolling Hills Estates