Word Document PDF Document

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E-4329

RESOLUTION

Resolution E-4329. Southern California Edison (SCE).

PROPOSED OUTCOME: This Resolution approves, in part, and denies, in part, SCE's request to install distribution system terminal equipment (not including wires) above ground and not underground for new line and service extensions. SCE's request is approved for private premises, but is denied without prejudice with respect to public rights of way at this time. If SCE wishes to propose amending its rules with respect to above-ground equipment in public rights of way, SCE is required to file an application for that purpose.

ESTIMATED COST: None.

By Advice Letter 2334-E filed March 27, 2009 and Supplemental Advice Letter 2334-E-A Filed on March 12, 2010.

__________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

SCE's proposal to delete the applicant and customer option of placing new or modified distribution system terminal equipment underground under Tariff Rules 2, 15 and 16 is approved as requested in AL 2334-E-A for private property. These rule changes apply to equipment such as transformers, switches, capacitors, and junction bars (Equipment) on applicant and customer premises only. Rule 20 is unaffected.

The portion of SCE's proposal to delete the underground equipment option, with respect to public rights of way, is denied without prejudice. Protests to SCE's advice letter raise a number of factual, legal, and policy questions that are inappropriate for resolution via an informal advice letter process. If SCE wishes to propose application of its proposed rule changes to public rights of way, it must file a formal application with the CPUC.

BACKGROUND

Current Tariff

SCE's current Rule 15, Distribution Line Extensions, and Rule 16, Service Extensions, allow for applicants to choose underground installation of wires and Equipment at additional cost to the applicant.

Proposed Tariff Changes

SCE proposes to delete the option for underground installation of Equipment. SCE proposes to insert the following language into Rule 2 - Description of Service, Rule 15 - Distribution Line Extensions, and Rule 16 - Service Extensions.

Under SCE's proposal, the distribution conductors themselves will still be located above or below ground according to existing Rules 15, 16, and 20.

Past Commission support of pad mount design

Prior to the Commission's approval of Rule 16 language identifying pad mount Equipment as part of SCE's standard installation, the Commission issued Decision (D.) 92-03-065 which supported SCE's position concerning pad mount Equipment by stating that SCE's "standard transformer in a residential subdivision is a pad mount transformer." Thus, the Commission has already approved above-ground facilities as the default option, but has allowed underground equipment in some circumstances where requested.

Advice Letter AL 2334-E

The original AL 2334-E dated March 27, 2009 proposed deletion of the Equipment undergrounding option for all distribution system Equipment. AL-2334 was protested by 24 cities, several State Assembly and Senate members, and various governmental agencies and associations. These and new parties filed comments on the Commission's draft resolution E-4241. On February 25, 2010 the CPUC withdrew draft resolution E-4241 awaiting a modified proposal from SCE.

On March 12, 2010, SCE filed Supplemental Advice Letter 2334-E-A. Supplemental AL 2334-E-A commits SCE to consult with local government entities prior to installation of Equipment, and describes SCE's outreach to protesting parties including local governments and building industry representatives. Subsequent to filing its original advice letter, SCE was encouraged by the Commission to conduct a workshop and other outreach to stakeholders, and SCE did so. Other aspects of the SCE proposal remain basically unchanged in the supplemental Advice Letter 2334-E-A.

NOTICE

Notice of AL 2334-E and AL 2334-E-A was made by publication in the Commission's Daily Calendar. SCE states that a copy of the Advice Letter was mailed and distributed in accordance with Section 3.14 of General Order 96-B.

PROTESTS

SCE requests that CPUC not reopen the protest period because this supplemental AL merely limits what SCE previously proposed and because protests have been filed on the previous more expansive proposal. We have considered the protests on the previous version of the AL and the comments on the withdrawn draft resolution, E-4241, in drafting this resolution. Therefore, we agree not to reopen the protest period for the supplemental advice letter. This resolution is, however, being recirculated for a full comment period by interested parties.

DISCUSSION

Energy Division has reviewed the supplemental AL 2334-E-A. The section below presents analysis and rationale for Commission disposition of the issues raised in the advice letter, as well as a discussion of issues raised by protests to the original advice letter and comments on the withdrawn Draft of this Resolution.

Advisability of Installing Underground vs. Above-Ground Equipment

In general, SCE's proposal to move more toward installation of above-ground Equipment, where technically feasible, is advised, as discussed further below.

Disadvantages of below-ground equipment installations

Distribution Equipment in underground enclosed spaces (vaults, enclosures, etc.) is generally more difficult to install and maintain than above-ground Equipment. Although rare, Equipment failures in these underground spaces can occur and require significant safety precautions to repair.

Operating, maintaining and repairing below-ground Equipment in confined underground enclosures is difficult work. Electric service outages last longer than those occurring above ground since it takes longer to locate and repair a failed underground component. Once located, complex safety procedures are required for vault entry including heat scans for hot spots and testing for gases.

Often water or contaminants must be trucked away before electrical work starts, and the facilities steam or pressure washed.

Equipment degradation is more likely below-ground because of corrosion when Equipment is submerged in run-off water and contaminants.

Advantages of above-ground equipment installations

Electrical service may be restored sooner when Equipment is located above ground than when it is installed in below-ground structures. Routine maintenance takes longer, for example when multiple vaults are accessed for circuit switching each one must be opened and tested for gases.

While underground installations are relatively safe with proper precautions, transformers and other Equipment failures involving high pressures and hot gas can be catastrophic. Moving away from underground installations advances safety goals and reduces concentration of contaminants.

Some SmartGrid technologies, which enhance reliability, require that controls and antennas be located above ground, to support integrating them into SCE's electrical system.

Existing underground Equipment operating normally will remain below ground

Where SCE has existing underground primary voltage distribution Equipment installed in below-ground structures, the Equipment will and should continue to be operated and maintained below ground. Should existing below-ground Equipment fail and result in an unplanned outage, service will be restored on an emergency basis using below-ground Equipment when replacement Equipment is available.

Aesthetic Considerations

SCE says that it has assembled a team to research various options which would make pad mounted Equipment better blend, visually, into the surrounding landscape. Other utilities, vendors, and cities have been surveyed for relevant ideas. Safety, Equipment performance (heat dissipation, corrosion, etc.), operability, inspection, installation and replacement are issues that must be considered simultaneously for this Equipment.

SCE has developed a catalog of various approved aesthetic improvement options available to customers and developers to help minimize the visual impact of above-ground pad mounted Equipment. The catalog (Above Ground Equipment Initiative Aesthetic Improvement Manual or AIM) includes aesthetic treatments and enhancements for above-ground Equipment, such as use of certain colors, screening and landscaping. Aesthetic treatments may be available, at the customer's expense, subject to tariffs and applicable safety laws and regulations. SCE states it is open to suggestions from its customers and will evaluate them and include them in the catalog as options, upon approval.

In addition, several parties raise the issue of graffiti abatement for above-ground facilities. In all cases, SCE is responsible for the abatement of any graffiti on its facilities. SCE should respond within 48 hours (two business days) to any requests for graffiti abatement, absent inclement weather or other extenuating circumstances.

Issues Related to Placement of Above-Ground Facilities in Public Rights of Way (ROW)

Protesters to the original advice letter and commenters on the withdrawn Draft Resolution E-4241 raise significant legal, policy, and factual issues with respect to the application of SCE's new above-ground proposal to public rights of way. As summarized below, these issues relate to compliance with local, state, and federal laws, CPUC authority, easement costs, and aesthetic considerations. Due to the complexity of these issues and the significant number of protests, disposition of such matters is inappropriate for the informal advice letter process with respect to the public right of way.

Thus, this Resolution denies SCE's requested rule changes for above-ground Equipment installations in the public rights of way at this time. Application of the proposed rule changes is only authorized for private property via this Resolution. If SCE wishes to propose application of the rule changes to public rights of way, SCE must file an application to do so.

Compliance with local, state and federal laws governing vehicular and pedestrian safety

Protesters stated that use of the public ROW for pad mounted Equipment could impede traffic, restrict parking, impede sight at intersections and driveways, and be exposed to vehicle strikes. Furthermore, cities are obligated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for clearances. Natural disasters may increase the liability from damage to above-ground Equipment.

SCE responded that these concerns arise where its concept of "technically feasible" is not understood. Sometimes there is no room for above-ground Equipment and SCE repeats that, since it holds public safety paramount, it will neither place Equipment above ground where there is not enough space, nor in areas that would impede traffic or ADA compliance. The size of SCE's Equipment is comparable to other utility equipment, such as telecommunication cabinets, and some of it is smaller than a traffic signal control box.

SCE prefers private easements from the requesting applicant for service over public ROW installations, and states that its pad mounted Equipment enclosures meet rigorous industry standards for the safety and security of employees and the public. It asserts that these considerations are not new since more than 80% of all SCE service connections made over the last two years have been above ground and met SCE's design standards for being "technically feasible".

Where SCE is choosing to move Equipment above ground, SCE states it would not bring an eminent domain action to obtain an easement but would negotiate with a property owner. If an easement cannot be obtained at a reasonable price, there is often more than one candidate property where Equipment can be electrically located. Otherwise SCE states that it will consult with the city for an acceptable installation above ground in the public ROW.

Aesthetic Concerns

Protesters stated that the underground clearance requirements of General Order (G.O.) 128 could prevent effective visual screening of above-ground facilities and that graffiti would be unsightly. Their suggestions to reduce visual impact included sufficient set back from the curb, and placement of Equipment in side yards.

SCE acknowledged that above-ground Equipment creates visual impact but when located in new developments, it can be designed outside public areas and screened with plantings. SCE stated these means will be incorporated in its Aesthetic Improvement Manual. Where relocating Equipment to above ground, SCE states that it plans to continue close consultation with affected stakeholders and to evaluate new industry trends , including film application of landscape scenes and use of portable planters for camouflaging. SCE has contracted with an abatement vendor for removal of graffiti blight within 48 hrs of notification.

SCE believes that most of the concerns of Protesters are sincere but misplaced or misinformed. SCE states that safety of employees and the public is paramount and SCE says that Protesters seek to force a choice between aesthetics and safety. According to SCE, where Equipment serves multiple customers, the aesthetic concerns of a few could adversely impact service reliability for many.

CPUC authority over design location

A number of Protesters claim that:

SCE disputed the claims by local governments of absolute authority in matters relating to the broad authority given by the California Constitution to the CPUC to supervise and regulate public utilities, and it asserted that, relative to local governments, the CPUC's jurisdiction is paramount and exclusive. California courts have held that matters of "statewide concern," such as the design and construction of a utility's electrical infrastructure, are not subject to a "checkerboard of regulations" by local governments. The CPUC has implemented legislative mandates with rules and policies governing the construction and operation of above and below-ground electric facilities, such as General Orders (G.O.) 95, 96, 128, 131-D, and policy documents.

SCE stated that two CPUC decisions affirmed the CPUC's exclusive jurisdiction over power lines and other distribution facilities which local government cannot preempt. D.88642 denied Woodside's authority to require PG&E to underground a distribution system while upgrading it. D.96-02-024 denied the City of Santa Barbara's regulation of lower voltage lines, because the CPUC had "fully occupied the field of electric power line regulation," including all "transmission lines, power lines, distribution lines, substations and facilities." With regard to the electric facilities at issue in the Decision, the Commission stated that "local permit regulation[s] [are] preempted."

SCE also cited California appellate court decisions to refute the Protesters' claims. SCE cited Southern California Gas Co. versus City of Vernon, which rejected the City of Vernon's broad claim to regulate facilities in the public ROW. The Court interpreted PU Code Section 2902 to give the city authority over the location of facilities, control of traffic, and the repair of public streets, but not over the design, type, or construction of the distribution facilities themselves.

SCE also cited Leslie versus Superior Court, where the court ruled that Ventura County could enforce against SCE the grading standards in the county code because state housing law expressly required the cities to adopt minimum standards for it. The court found that the state housing law and the CPUC's mandate were of "equal dignity" and noted that the CPUC had never "purported to exercise its authority over" the construction, maintenance or grading of access roads.

Therefore SCE stated that these cases show that the municipalities can neither mandate the design and construction of Equipment, nor whether those facilities are placed above or below ground. The CPUC's jurisdiction is exclusive because there is no statewide law or policy of "equal dignity."

Nevertheless, pursuant to PU Code Section 6294, SCE states it would comply with local jurisdiction regulations that pertained to health and safety relating to the above-ground installation of electrical distribution Equipment. For example, SCE would: comply with local regulations prohibiting the installation of facilities where it would impair a motorists' vision around corners, comply with the ADA when locating facilities within the public ROW, and obtain non-discretionary local permits and approvals for construction and operation of electrical facilities, where not inconsistent with the CPUC's areas of exclusive jurisdiction.

SCE concluded that the CPUC has affirmed its primary jurisdiction over placing Equipment above-ground. SCE has also committed to continuing consultations with local governments about where to place facilities. The Commission has made clear on numerous occasions that utilities are expected to engage in meaningful dialogue with local agencies before finalizing the location of facilities.

Easement costs

Protesters are also concerned that SCE wants to save money by locating Equipment on public ROW, especially in retrofit projects. Protesters say that SCE has the means to acquire private easements and to enforce eminent domain.

SCE countered that, while it has the right to install Equipment in the public ROW under franchise agreements; it tries to avoid it because it has greater rights on private easements, which applicants must provide at no cost as a condition of service under existing Rules 15 and 16.

We note that a lower rate base and rates result from any capital cost savings that accrue to SCE from placing Equipment in the public ROW instead of acquiring easements. SCE would pay for an easement only when relocating Equipment not dedicated to a specific customer.

As stated above, due to the complexity of the legal, factual, and policy issues raised by the protesters with respect to applicability of the rule changes in the public rights of way, this aspect of SCE's proposal is denied without prejudice in this Resolution. SCE's proposed rule changes are approved for applicability only to private property at this time.

SCE should consult with Building Industries Association (BIA)

BIA is not opposed to SCE's proposal, but asked SCE to clarify these issues:

SCE largely responded to BIA's grandfathering (transitioning) concerns, but made no commitment to extend grandfathering to match certain pending legislation on tentative tract maps expiration.

SCE reiterated the need for developers to convene early meetings with the utility and city to reduce the possibility of last-minute issues, and SCE committed to continue working with cities and developers to coordinate solutions. This process would include optimally locating and sizing of transformers.

We note that BIA's concerns deal primarily with the logistics and timing issues of the proposed tariff changes. SCE responded adequately to these concerns but SCE's tariffs must also specify the events determining project schedules, and they must use the same terminology as SCE's filed forms.

SDG&E and IBEW support SCE's proposal

SDG&E supports SCE's AL based on its own decades-long experience with pad mounted Equipment for new services. SDG&E notes that subsurface Equipment often must be de-energized for servicing and therefore requires longer and geographically larger outages. According to SDG&E, the number of submersible Equipment manufacturers has declined, affecting availability. They also state that reliability of subsurface Equipment is negatively affected by the collection of water with contaminants, which also pose environmental hazards and breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Subsurface Equipment is 3 to 4 times more expensive than pad mounted Equipment.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) also supports SCE's AL in the interests of safety for its members, and shorter outages, and stated that it raised these issues with SCE in the first place. IBEW states that the changes would avoid high risk environments where members have experienced life-changing or fatal injuries from working inside electrical vaults. IBEW echoed SCE's commitment to working with cities and developers to minimize the visual impact of pad mounted Equipment, and mentions that the utilities of the Cities of Riverside and Azusa are among many utilities that have changed or are changing to pad mounted Equipment designs only.

Transition plans for above-ground installations on private property as authorized in this Resolution

Upon Commission approval of this Resolution, the types of above-ground equipment described above for installation on private property will be required to be located in above-ground pad mounted structures in new installations when technically feasible, whether designed by SCE or third-party developers.

Following a transitional grace period of 90 days after the effective date of this filing, SCE will no longer accept customer or developer requests for underground distribution system installations that call for specific pieces of electrical equipment (all primary-voltage electrical distribution system equipment, including, but not limited to, transformers, switches and fuses, capacitors, and junction bars) to be installed in below-ground structures in circumstances where it is technically feasible to install the equipment above ground on private property. Customers, developers, and governmental entities requesting SCE to install underground distribution systems would be required to utilize above-ground equipment if it is not to be located in the public right of way.

SCE believes the proposed Transitional Grace Period of 90 Days, coupled with Stakeholder Outreach activities, will allow customers ample time to prepare for this change and meet above-ground equipment design requirements on private property. SCE should implement this change in an effective and orderly manner.

Implementation (again, for private property only) will consist of a change in design requirements that will, following the Transitional Grace Period of 90 Days after the effective date of this filing, affect new residential and commercial developments, as well as customer- and applicant-driven capacity increases (such as remodels and changes of use).

COMMENTS

Public Utilities Code section 311(g) (1) provides that this resolution must be served on all parties and subject to at least 30 days public review and comment prior to a vote of the Commission. Section 311(g) (2) provides that this 30-day period may be reduced or waived upon the stipulation of all parties in the proceeding.

The 30-day comment period for the draft of this resolution was neither waived nor reduced. Accordingly, this draft resolution was mailed to parties for comments on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 and will be placed on the Commission's agenda no earlier than 30 days from that date.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This Resolution is effective today.

I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held on April 22, 2010; the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

I.D.# 9316

March 23, 2010 E-4329

TO: PARTIES TO SCE's ADVICE LETTER 2334-E-A

Enclosed is draft Resolution E-4329 of the Energy Division. It will be on the agenda at the April 22 Commission meeting. The Commission may then vote on this Resolution or it may postpone a vote until later.

When the Commission votes on a draft Resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend, modify or set it aside and prepare a different Resolution. Only when the Commission acts does the Resolution become binding on the parties.

Parties may submit comments on the draft Resolution.

An original and two copies of the comments, with a certificate of service, should be submitted to:

Honesto Gatchalian/Maria Salinas

Energy Division

California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

A copy of the comments should be submitted to:

Werner Blumer

Energy Division

California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Fax: 415-703-2200

Email: wmb@cpuc.ca.gov

Any comments on the draft Resolution must be received by the Energy Division by April 10, 2010. Those submitting comments must serve a copy of their comments on 1) the entire service list attached to the draft Resolution, 2) all Commissioners, and 3) the Director of the Energy Division, on the same date that the comments are submitted to the Energy Division.

Comments shall be limited to five pages in length plus a subject index listing the recommended changes to the draft Resolution, a table of authorities and an appendix setting forth the proposed findings and ordering paragraphs.

Comments shall focus on factual, legal or technical errors in the proposed draft Resolution. Comments that merely reargue positions taken in the advice letter or protests will be accorded no weight and are not to be submitted.

Replies to comments on the draft resolution may be filed (i.e., received by the Energy Division) on April 16, 2010, 6 days after comments are filed, and shall be limited to identifying misrepresentations of law or fact in the comments of other parties. Replies shall not exceed five pages in length, and shall be filed and served as set forth above for comments.

Late submitted comments or replies will not be considered

Julie Fitch

Director

Energy Division

Enclosure: Certificate of Service

Service List

Honesto Gatchalian

FIRST

LAST

TITLE

ORGANIZATION

STREET ADRESS

CITY

ST.

ZIP

 

E-MAIL

                   

Patrick

Lavin

Business Manager

IBEW

600 N. Diamond Bar Blvd.

Diamond Bar

CA

91765

 

www.ibew47.org

Fassil

Fenikile

AT&T CA Regulatory

 

525 Market Street, Room 1925

San Francisco

CA

94105

 

fassil.t.fenikile@att.com

Ross

Johnson

AT&T CA Regulatory

 

525 Market Street, Room 1944

San Francisco

CA

94105

 

regtss@att.com

Ron

Van Der Leeden

Director - Rates Revenues & Tariffs

Sempra Energy Utilities

8330 Century Park Court

San Diego

CA

92123

 

rvanderleeden@semprautilities.com

Robert A.

Risso

Chief Admin. Officer

City of Bell

6330 Pine Ave.

Bell

CA

90201

   

Daniel

Schiada

Director of Public Works

City of Benicia

250 East L Sreet

Benicia

CA

94510

   

Donna

Landeros

City Manager

City of Brentwood

708 Third Street

Brentwood

CA

94513

   

James A.

Biery

Director, Dept. of Public Works

City of Buena Park

P.O. Box 5009

Buena Park

CA

90622

   

Vince

Brar

Sr. Assistant City Manager

City of Cerritos

P.O. Box 3130

Cerritos

CA

90703

   

Andrew

Weissman

Mayor

City of Culver City

9770 Culver Blvd

Culver City

CA

90232

   

Greg

Gubman

Acting Community Development Director

City of Diamond Bar

21825 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar

CA

91765

   

Mario A.

Guerra

Mayor

City of Downey

P.O. Box 7016

Downey

CA

90241

   

Steve

Freedland

Mayor

City of Hidden Hills

6165 Sprign Valley Road

Hidden Hills

CA

91302

   

Travis K.

Hopkins, PE

Director of Public Works

City of Huntington Beach

P.O. Box 190

Huntington Beach

CA

92648

   

Bruce E.

Channing

City Manager

City of Laguna Hills

24035 El Toro Road

Laguna Hills

CA

92653

   

Bob

Ring

Mayor

City of Laguna Woods

24264 El Toro Road

Laguna Woods

CA

92637

   

Patrick H.

West

City Manager

City of Long Beach

333 West Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach

CA

90802

   

Craig

Beck

Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency

City of Long Beach

333 West Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach

CA

90802

   

Douglas C.

Holland

City Attorney

City of Palm Springs

3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way

Palm Springs

CA

92262

   

Troy L.

Butzlaff

City Administrator

City of Placentia

401 Chapman Ave.

Placentia

CA

92870

   

Steven E.

Hayman

City Manager

City of Rancho Sant Margarita

22112 El Paseo

Ranch Santa Margarita

CA

92688

   

Timm

Borden

Deputy Director of Public Works

City of San Jose

200 E. Santa Clara St., T5

San Jose

CA

95113

   

Dave

Adams

City Manager

City of San Juan Capistrano

32400 Paeso Adelanto

San Juan Capistrano

CA

92675

   

Nasser

Abbaszadeh

Public Works Director

City of San Juan Capistrano

32400 Paeso Adelanto

San Juan Capistrano

CA

92675

   

Steve

Apple

Community Development Director

City of San Juan Capistrano

32400 Paeso Adelanto

San Juan Capistrano

CA

92675

   

Paul D.

Brotzman

Director of Community Development

City of Santa Clarita

23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300

Santa Clarita

CA

91355

   

Carol

Jacobs

City Manager

City of Stanton

7800 Katella Ave,

Stanton

CA

90680

   

Christopher G.

Norman

Assistant City Attorney

City of Thousand Oaks

2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Thousand Oaks

CA

91362

   

Douglas C.

Holland

Attorney

Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart

555 Anton Blvd., Suite 1200

Costa Mesa

CA

92626

 

DHOLLAND@WSS-LAW.COM

Paul D.

Arevalo

City Manager

City of West Hollywood

8300 Santa Monica Blvd.

West Hollywood

CA

90069

   

Steven H.

Helvey

City Manager

City of Whittier

13230 Penn Street

Whittier

CA

90602

   

Laurie

Newman

Executive Director

Westside Cities Council of Governments

5002 So. Chariton Ave.

Los Angeles

CA

90056

 

laurienewman.wsccog@gmail.com

Penny

Lilburn

Mayor

City of Highland

27215 Base Line

Highland

CA

92346

   

Laura

Stotler

   

25820 Parada Drive

Valencia

CA

91355

 

Liv2plan@yahoo.com

Akbar

Jazayeri

VP of Regulator Operations

SCE

2244 Walnut Grove Ave.

Rosemead

CA

91770

 

AdviceTariffManager@sce.com

Bruce

Foster

Sr. Vice President c/o Karyn Gansecki

SCE

601 Van Ness Ave., Suite 2040

San Francisco

CA

94102

 

Karyn.Gansecki@sce.com

Brian M.

Starr

Deputy Executive Director

BIA Orange County Chapter

17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170

Irvine

CA

92614

 

bstarr@biaoc.com

Benjamin

Siegel

Assistant to the City Manager

City of Lake Forest

25550 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100

Lake Forest

CA

92630

 

bsiegel@ci.lake-forest.ca.us

Brian

Mineghino

Office of Ass'blymember Warren Furutani

55th District

4201 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 327

Long Beach

CA

90807

 

www.assembly.ca.gov/furutani

Zev

Yaroslavsky

Los Angeles County Supervisor

821 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration

500 West Temple Street

Los Angeles

CA

90012

 

zev@bos.lacounty.gov

Benjamin

Saltsman

Planning Deputy

821 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration

500 West Temple Street

Los Angeles

CA

90012

   
                   

Top Of Page