Agenda packet, regular meeting — Orinda City Council, April 19, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

Policy 3.3: Downtown Residential Use. Promote and allow multifamily residential uses within Orinda’s Downtown.

Policy 3.4: Shared Housing. Encourage the sharing of housing units by homeowners seeking to age in place or supplement their income. Shared housing can provide an important resource for seniors, young adults, and others in the community who cannot afford their own home or apartment.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 185
Policy 3.5: Extremely Low-Income Households. Ensure compliance with state regulations regarding zoning for emergency shelters and other provisions to ensure housing opportunities for extremely low-income Orinda households or those residents who are in crisis or in need of emergency assistance.

Policy 3.6: Development Agreements. On a case-by-case basis, consider the use of development agreements in larger residential projects as a mechanism for generating funding for affordable housing or providing affordable units within new market-rate projects.

Policy 3.7: Special-Needs Housing. Promote the development of special-needs housing, such as housing for seniors; housing for persons with physical, developmental, or mental disabilities; housing for extremely low-income persons, and female-headed households.

Implementing Actions
Action 3.A: Shared Housing Program. Participate in the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) housing’s “Shared Housing” or some similar program as a way to improve housing opportunities for lower-income seniors and extremely low-income Orinda residents.

Work with ECHO, which serves residents throughout the East Bay. The shared housing program matches persons needing housing with homeowners who have available space.

The City will explore the feasibility of engaging ECHO or some similar organization to start a comparable program in Orinda. ECHO also provides counseling on shared living, supportive services, and information and referral, as well as educational workshops on home sharing. Implementing this program will support the City’s housing mobility efforts to increase access to high-resource neighborhoods in Orinda for extremely low-income households in Orinda and from other areas of Contra Costa County that otherwise could not afford to live in Orinda, including single seniors on fixed incomes, persons with physical or developmental disabilities, and young adults seeking employment.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Within one year of adopting the Housing Element, or by June 2024, connect with ECHO or similar organization to establish a shared housing program in Orinda. Develop an outreach program to inform Orinda residents about the shared housing program by December 2024.

Funding Source: CDBG, General Fund
Quantified Objective: Connect 20 eligible persons in existing Orinda homes through the shared-home program to reduce displacement risk for lowerincome households and assist in housing mobility for eligible households.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 186
Action 3.B: Extremely Low-Income Housing. Encourage additional housing resources for extremely low-income Orinda residents, particularly seniors and persons with physical or developmental disabilities, through a variety of actions, including:
● Facilitate and encourage the construction of housing affordable to extremely lowincome households by assisting nonprofit and for-profit developers with financial and/or technical assistance in a manner that is consistent with the City’s identified housing needs.
● Provide financial support annually, as available, to organizations that provide counseling, information, education, support, housing services/referrals, and/or legal advice to extremely low-income households, persons with disabilities, and persons experiencing homelessness.
● Expand regulatory incentives for the development of units affordable to extremely lowincome households and housing for special-needs groups, including persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), and individuals and families in need of emergency/transitional housing.
● The City will provide financial support annually, as available, to organizations that provide counseling information, education, support, housing services/referrals, and/or legal advice to extremely low-income households to mitigate risk of displacement and support housing stability for extremely low-income households, persons with disabilities, and persons experiencing homelessness.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing; as projects are processed by the Planning Department.

Following the update of the Development Code (Actions 1.G and

1.H), review the Development Code and revise as needed annually.

By December 2024, outreach to organizations that support extremely low-income residents to understand funding needs, and review and prioritize local funding at least twice in the planning period, and support expediting applications on an ongoing basis.

Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objectives: Assist 20 extremely low-income households to reduce displacement risk.

Action 3.C: Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. The City will also coordinate with the Regional Center of the East Bay to inform Orinda families of the resources available to them and to explore incentives so that a larger number of future housing units include features that meet the needs of persons with developmental disabilities and other special needs.

The City will continue to support the development of small group homes that serve developmentally disabled adults and will work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable H.1.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 187
housing developments. The City will coordinate housing activities and outreach with the Regional Center for the East Bay and encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, to increase housing mobility opportunities and pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing; Meet with disability providers by December 2023 and annually coordinate with regional offices and developers to pursue housing opportunities.

Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objectives: 10 housing units for persons with disabilities to reduce displacement risk.

Action 3.D: Developmental Disability Services. The City will work with the Regional Center for the East Bay to implement an outreach program that informs families within the city about housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. The program could include the development of an informational brochure, including information on the City’s website, and/or providing housing-related training for individuals/families through workshops.

The City will then meet with disability service providers, including the Regional Center for the East Bay, to identify whether there is unmet demand anywhere in the city. If an unmet need is realized, work with providers to secure funding to expand services for persons with disabilities.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Development of an outreach program within one year of adopting the Housing Element (or by December 2024) and meet with disability providers by June 2023. If an unmet demand is realized, work with providers to secure funding to expand services by March 2024.

Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objectives: 10 housing units for persons with disabilities to reduce displacement risk.

Action 3.E: Objective Design Standards. Adopt objective design standards that target the Downtown Precise Plan and Housing Opportunity Sites to support the development of Downtown Orinda as an attractive, mixed-use, and walkable center for Orinda.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Contra Costa County Conservation and Development Division
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 188
Timeframe: Adopt objective design standards with adoption of the comprehensive Zoning Code update within 3 years and 120 days from January 31, 2023, implement after adoption.

Funding Source: Senate Bill 2 Grant
Quantified Objective: 300 units over the planning period; of these, 200 units in high opportunity areas to promote access to resources and mobility for target households.

Action 3.F: Shared Parking Regulations. Consider adopting shared parking regulations where it can be demonstrated that there will be no parking shortages.

This action will study provisions to allow sharing of parking where it can be demonstrated that the overall demand for the project can be met without spillover onto nearby streets.

For example, residential guest parking could be shared with office or retail parking. These provisions might also consider the feasibility of shared parking agreements that enable the use of off-site parking lots.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Public Works/Engineering Timeframe: December 2024
Funding Source: General Fund
GOAL 4: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Reduce governmental constraints to the production and preservation of housing in Orinda.

Policies
Policy 4.1: Development Standards. Ensure that the development standards expressed in the City’s zoning regulations support the types of uses and activities listed as permitted or conditionally permitted in the Zoning Ordinance, including housing.

Policy 4.2: Approval Processes. Ensure that Orinda’s permitting and approval processes do not unduly constrain or delay the construction of housing. City procedures should be consistent with Permit Streamlining Act requirements and should not include unreasonable fees or regulations.

Implementation Actions
Action 4.A: Amend Development Standards to Remove Constraints. The City will amend the Municipal Code to review and revise standards, as needed.
● Emergency Shelters: Allow sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii)).

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 189
● Multifamily Residential: Remove the “Additional Use Regulations” for multifamily housing in the Residential Medium Density (RM) district, allowing this use by right and remove the use permit requirement in the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district to allow this use by right.
● Residential Care Facilities: Allow residential care facilities, regardless of size, in all zones that permit residential uses of the same type, in accordance with the City’s definition of family.
● Single-Room Occupancy Units: To encourage housing mobility, define single-room occupancy (SRO) units and allow them in the DC (Downtown Commercial) zoning district with a use permit, in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(1). ● Transitional and Supportive Housing: Allow supportive housing as a permitted use without discretionary review in zones where multifamily and mixed-use developments are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)).
● Low-Barrier Navigation Centers: Allow low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless by right in zones that allow for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, per Government Code Section 65662.
● Employee/Farmworker Housing: Allow employee/farmworker housing that serves six or fewer persons as a single-family structure and permit it in the same manner as other single-family structures of the same type in the same zone and across all zones that allow single-family residential uses. The amendment will also treat employee/farmworker housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds as an agricultural use and permit it in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone, in compliance with the California Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6).

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by December 2024.

Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: 30 units; of these, encourage 20 units in areas with close proximity to resources and services to improve access to opportunity for lower-income and special-needs persons.

Action 4.B: Development Review and Processing Procedures. The City will continually seek to improve development review and procedures to minimize the time required for review and project approval. This reduction in time will reduce the cost to developers and may increase housing production in the city. The City will also annually review and reduce fees as necessary to ensure they do not constrain development.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Contra Costa County Building Department Timeframe: Annually review and revise, starting in June 2023.

Funding Source: General Fund
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 190
Action 4.C: Building Code. As new uniform codes are adopted every three years by the California Building Standards Commission, the City will review and revise its building codes for current compliance and adopt the necessary revisions to further local development objectives.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Contra Costa County Building Department Timeframe: Annually review and update the City’s building codes and as new codes are adopted by the State of California.

Funding Source: General Fund
Action 4.D: Infrastructure Availability. The City will coordinate with the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) annually and as projects are proposed and apply for funding from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, or other funding programs, as available, to fund design plans and infrastructure improvements for affordable housing projects.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Annually coordinate with EBMUD and apply for grants annually and as Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) are released.

Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: Expansion of water and sewer services to ensure all sites included in the sites inventory have water and sewer readily available.

GOAL 5: FAIR HOUSING
Promote equal housing opportunities for all Orinda residents, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color.

Policies
Policy 5.1: Promote Mixed-Income Neighborhoods. The City shall promote mixed-income neighborhoods with an equitable distribution of housing types for people of all incomes throughout the City by encouraging new affordable housing in high resource areas.

Policy 5.2: Prohibit Discrimination. Prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing to anyone on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, disability, sex, familial status, marital status, or other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 commencing with Section 12900 of Division 3 of Title 2), Government Code Section 65008, and any other state and federal housing and planning law.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 191
Implementing Actions
Action 5.A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). In compliance with California Government Code Sections 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), 65583.2(a) (AB 686), develop a plan to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH). The AFFH plan shall take actions to address significant disparities in housing access and needs for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability and any other characteristic protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8, commencing with Section 12900, of Division 3 of Title 2), Government Code Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

Specific actions include:
● Implement the following strategies to affirmatively further fair housing in coordination with the efforts of this action.
− Strategies to facilitate housing mobility/expand affordable housing in high opportunity areas: Actions 1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 1.D, 1.E, 1.F, 2.D, 3.A, 3.B, 3.E, and 4.A. − Strategies to reduce or prevent displacement/place-based revitalization strategies: Actions 1.E, 2.A, 2.B, 2.C, 2.E, 3.B, 3.C, and 3.D. ● Pamphlets on fair housing laws and procedures will be made available at City Hall and the library, and information on fair housing requirements will be incorporated in the City’s newsletter. Promote the availability of multi-lingual resources by ensuring that City-provided services and materials are available in languages other than English or that they make clear the availability of interpretation or translation services. This information should also be available via the City’s website. The City’s Planning Director will be identified as the point of contact in the event a fair housing complaint is received, with referrals provided to the Contra Costa Housing Authority or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, as necessary. ● Work with fair housing providers that serve Orinda residents on an annual basis to track fair housing complaints and identify areas of fair housing law in need of increased enforcement. Provide information about fair housing choices to residents by distributing fair housing materials upon request and contracting with a fair housing rights nonprofit to provide fair housing services on an ongoing basis, including fair housing complaint intake, investigation, resolution, general housing (landlord/tenant) counseling, mediations, assistance, referrals, and resolution. ● Annually host outreach events throughout the community at local gathering places such as parks, grocery stores, libraries, and more to recruit underrepresented groups to participate in the public outreach process and apply to committees through coordinating with service providers and posting information in grocery stores and public buildings.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 192
● Meet with disability service providers, including the East Bay Regional Center, to identify whether there is unmet demand anywhere in the city by June 2023. If an unmet demand is realized, work with providers to secure funding to expand services by March 2024.
● Meet with developers within one year of Housing Element adoption to identify mechanisms to encourage construction of housing units suitable for persons with disabilities (no age restriction). Strategies may include incentives such as fee waivers, parking reductions, or density bonuses.
● Support affordable housing development for special-needs groups throughout the city to increase access to high resource areas, particularly in areas that are predominantly single-family residential. The target populations of this include seniors; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; female-headed households; and homeless persons to reduce the displacement risk for these residents from their existing homes and communities.
● Annually meet with neighboring cities, the County, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing unmet services to persons with disabilities, unhoused populations, and extremely lowincome households, including development of homeless shelters and related services.

Initiate collaboration by December 2023.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing; post information annually in the City’s newsletter; update and redistribute informational materials as needed; translate and make materials available by December 2023.

Funding Source: General Fund
GOAL HE-6: ENERGY CONSERVATION
Promote energy efficiency in existing and new housing development to support energy conservation in Orinda.

POLICY
Policy 6.1: Encourage the use of energy conservation features in residential construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling.

Implementing Actions
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 193
Action 6.A: Promote Energy Conservation. Promote energy efficiency in existing housing and new development:
● PG&E offers assistance to low-income households who want to make their homes energy efficient through the Energy Savings Assistance Program ● EBMUD offers free conservation items to single and multi-family households, including shower diverters, hose nozzles and both bathroom and kitchen faucet aerators ● Encourage developers to be innovative in designing energy-efficient homes and improving the energy efficiency of new construction.
● Promote the EDMUD Customer Assistance Program that assists qualified low-income residents with one-time water bill payments as well as eligible homeless shelters ● Promote California’s Low-Income Weatherization Program, which provides low-income households with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and energy efficiency upgrades at no cost to residents
Responsible Agency: Planning and Building and Safety Departments Timeframe: Make information available on the City’s website and in public places, such as City Hall, by July 2023.

Funding Source: General Fund, SCE, and SoCalGas funding sources.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 194

7.3 Summary of Quantified Objectives
Quantified objectives estimate the number of units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved/preserved by income level during the planning period. The quantified objectives do not set a ceiling on development; rather, they set a target goal for the City to achieve based on needs, resources, and constraints. Each quantified objective is detailed by income level, as shown in Table 6-1.

TABLE 6-1 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Action Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
RHNA 186 186 215 215 557
New Construction
Action 1.A 50 139 100 98 60
Action 1.B 50 250 258
Action 1.C 50 250 258
Action 1.D 9 10 19 19 6
Action 1.E 25 25
Action 1.F 15 15 20
Action 1.H 25
Action 3.C 5 5
Action 3.E 65 77 98 60
Action 4.A 10 10 10
Rehabilitation
Action 2.B 10 10
Action 2.C 15 15
Conservation
Action 2.D 10 15
Action 2.E1
Action 3.A 5 5 10
Action 3.B 20
Action 3.D 5 5
Source: City of Orinda, March 2022
1 As replacement units are identified.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 195
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 196

APPENDIX A - SITES INVENTORY DETAILS

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 197
Site Maps
FIGURE 5-2 ORINDA SITES INVENTORY
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 198
FIGURE 5-3 ORINDA SITES INVENTORY – QUADRANT 1
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 199
FIGURE 5-4 ORINDA SITES INVENTORY – QUADRANT 2
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 200
FIGURE 5-5 ORINDA SITES INVENTORY – QUADRANT 3
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 201
FIGURE 5-6 ORINDA SITES INVENTORY – QUADRANT 4
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 202
Current Moderate and Above Moderate Sites
TABLE A-1 MODERATE AND ABOVE MODERATE SITE CAPACITY
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 2 273083039 RL RL-6 0.63 4 Moderate
3 273100072 RL RL-6 1.65 10 Moderate
4 273081041 RL RL-6 0.29 2 Moderate
5 273081043 RL RL-6 0.29 2 Moderate
6 273083030 RL RL-6 0.25 1 Moderate
7 273083031 RL RL-6 0.09 1 Moderate
8 273083032 RL RL-6 0.10 1 Moderate
9 273083033 RL RL-6 0.10 1 Moderate
10 273081029 RL RL-6 0.31 2 Moderate
11 273065053 RL RL-6 0.13 1 Moderate
12 273082001 RL RL-6 0.18 1 Moderate
13 273081021 RL RL-6 0.06 0 Moderate
14 273082042 RL RL-6 0.32 2 Moderate
15 273100031 RL RL-6 0.38 2 Moderate
16 273082006 RL RL-6 0.17 1 Moderate
17 273100030 RL RL-6 1.30 8 Moderate
18 273100039 RL RL-6 0.12 1 Moderate
19 273100049 RL RL-6 0.39 2 Moderate
20 273100040 RL RL-6 0.14 1 Moderate
21 273100038 RL RL-6 0.78 5 Moderate
22 273100041 RL RL-6 0.14 1 Moderate
23 273100027 RL RL-6 0.23 1 Moderate
24 273100042 RL RL-6 0.14 1 Moderate
25 273100043 RL RL-6 0.13 1 Moderate
26 273072009 RL RL-6 0.12 1 Moderate
27 273071006 RL RL-6 0.11 1 Moderate
28 273072015 RL RL-6 0.12 1 Moderate
29 273100044 RL RL-6 0.11 1 Moderate
30 273072014 RL RL-6 0.13 1 Moderate
31 273075003 RL RL-6 0.02 0 Moderate
32 273100026 RL RL-6 0.61 4 Moderate
33 273072013 RL RL-6 0.14 1 Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 203
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 34 273100045 RL RL-6 0.12 1 Moderate
35 273075007 RL RL-6 0.16 1 Moderate
36 273100025 RL RL-6 0.14 1 Moderate
37 273072010 RL RL-6 0.17 1 Moderate
38 273072012 RL RL-6 0.11 1 Moderate
39 273072011 RL RL-6 0.09 1 Moderate
40 273100024 RL RL-6 0.23 1 Moderate
41 273075008 RL RL-6 0.13 1 Moderate
42 273100046 RL RL-6 0.17 1 Moderate
43 273100048 RL RL-6 0.10 1 Moderate
44 273100047 RL RL-6 0.24 1 Moderate
45 273073022 RL RL-6 0.07 0 Moderate
46 273083027 RL RL-6 0.34 2 Moderate
47 273082019 RL RL-6 0.11 1 Moderate
48 273076019 RL RL-6 0.19 1 Moderate
49 273083002 RL RL-6 0.11 1 Moderate
50 273082020 RL RL-6 0.12 1 Moderate
51 273063011 RL RL-6 0.10 1 Moderate
52 273081001 RL RL-6 0.08 0 Moderate
53 273063012 RL RL-6 0.31 2 Moderate
54 273063014 RL RL-6 0.18 1 Moderate
55 273063023 RL RL-6 0.06 0 Moderate
56 273064008 RL RL-6 0.19 1 Moderate
57 273064012 RL RL-6 0.06 0 Moderate
58 273064014 RL RL-6 0.09 0 Moderate
59 273065005 RL RL-6 0.10 1 Moderate
60 273065026 RL RL-6 0.05 0 Moderate
61 273065031 RL RL-6 0.09 1 Moderate
62 273065032 RL RL-6 0.10 1 Moderate
63 273065034 RL RL-6 0.08 0 Moderate
64 255250020 RL RL-10 0.43 2 Moderate
65 255240024 RL RL-10 0.01 0 Moderate
66 264075024 RL RL-10 0.21 1 Moderate
67 264083015 RL RL-10 0.17 1 Moderate
68 264081018 RL RL-10 0.21 1 Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 204
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 69 264081019 RL RL-10 0.21 1 Moderate
70 264081020 RL RL-10 0.21 1 Moderate
71 264081021 RL RL-10 0.21 1 Moderate
72 264081017 RL RL-10 0.22 1 Moderate
73 264081016 RL RL-10 0.23 1 Moderate
74 264081015 RL RL-10 0.21 1 Moderate
75 264081014 RL RL-10 0.41 1 Moderate
76 264081022 RL RL-10 0.77 3 Moderate
77 264081013 RL RL-10 0.21 1 Moderate
78 264075003 RL RL-10 0.11 0 Moderate
79 264075004 RL RL-10 0.22 1 Moderate
80 264075005 RL RL-10 0.11 0 Moderate
81 264082005 RL RL-10 0.17 1 Moderate
82 264082004 RL RL-10 0.18 1 Moderate
83 264082003 RL RL-10 0.17 1 Moderate
84 264082014 RL RL-10 0.32 1 Moderate
85 264082002 RL RL-10 0.24 1 Moderate
86 264075016 RL RL-10 0.04 0 Moderate
87 264082051 RL RL-10 0.54 2 Moderate
88 264081009 RL RL-10 0.07 0 Moderate
89 264072002 RL RL-10 0.17 1 Moderate
90 264062003 RL RL-10 0.09 0 Moderate
91 271312009 RL RL-12 2.30 7 Moderate
92 271340030 RL RL-12 0.93 3 Moderate
93 271340029 RL RL-12 0.60 2 Moderate
94 271340028 RL RL-12 0.82 2 Moderate
95 271340027 RL RL-12 1.00 3 Moderate

25.57 118
96 270450013 RL RL-20 2.92 5 Above Moderate
97 270150033 RL RL-20 5.77 10 Above Moderate
98 270450012 RL RL-20 2.68 5 Above Moderate
99 270290024 RL RL-20 3.81 7 Above Moderate
100 270460005 RL RL-20 3.87 7 Above Moderate
101 270460004 RL RL-20 1.92 3 Above Moderate
102 273270005 RL RL-20 2.73 5 Above Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 205
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 103 270353001 RL RL-20 2.06 4 Above Moderate
104 270032014 RL RL-20 0.58 1 Above Moderate
105 273140014 RL RL-20 1.11 2 Above Moderate
106 273260004 RL RL-20 0.98 2 Above Moderate
107 273140015 RL RL-20 0.92 2 Above Moderate
108 273120041 RL RL-20 0.80 1 Above Moderate
109 269190004 RL RL-20 3.30 6 Above Moderate
110 268200038 RL RL-20 0.50 1 Above Moderate
111 265110009 RL RL-20 0.85 1 Above Moderate
112 265110008 RL RL-20 1.72 3 Above Moderate
113 264240025 RL RL-20 0.53 1 Above Moderate
114 265034001 UT RL-20 0.81 1 Above Moderate
115 264230016 RL RL-20 0.52 1 Above Moderate
116 265153018 RL RL-20 0.77 1 Above Moderate
117 264110021 RL RL-20 1.83 3 Above Moderate
118 262022017 RL RL-20 0.50 1 Above Moderate
119 263132017 UT RL-20 0.99 2 Above Moderate
120 267020008 RL RL-20 5.08 9 Above Moderate
121 262060001 RL RL-20 0.60 1 Above Moderate
122 262170019 RL RL-20 1.23 2 Above Moderate
123 262170018 RL RL-20 1.51 3 Above Moderate
124 270470002 RL RL-20 0.00 0 Above Moderate
125 273092039 RL RL-20 0.37 1 Above Moderate
126 265051013 RL RL-20 0.34 1 Above Moderate
127 262010048 RL RL-20 0.27 0 Above Moderate
128 262043019 RL RL-20 0.23 0 Above Moderate
129 267020002 RL RL-20 0.33 1 Above Moderate
130 264130007 RL RL-20 0.07 0 Above Moderate
131 272230001 RL RL-20 0.72 1 Above Moderate
132 271020013 RL RL-20 0.08 0 Above Moderate
133 272200008 RL RL-20 3.06 5 Above Moderate
134 272200009 RL RL-20 1.86 3 Above Moderate
135 272210015 RL RL-20 0.24 0 Above Moderate
136 272210011 RL RL-20 2.36 4 Above Moderate
137 272192002 RL RL-20 0.58 1 Above Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 206
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 138 272100005 RL RL-20 0.47 1 Above Moderate
139 272100020 RL RL-20 1.22 2 Above Moderate
140 272090030 RL RL-20 0.66 1 Above Moderate
141 272041001 RL RL-20 0.48 1 Above Moderate
142 272070016 RL RL-20 0.79 1 Above Moderate
143 272050057 RL RL-20 0.52 1 Above Moderate
144 272041014 RL RL-20 1.81 3 Above Moderate
145 270383006 RL RL-20 0.45 1 Above Moderate
146 270180009 RL RL-20 7.42 13 Above Moderate
147 270301014 RL RL-20 4.71 8 Above Moderate
148 270180007 RL RL-20 2.73 5 Above Moderate
149 269072016 RL RL-20 0.70 1 Above Moderate
150 269072017 RL RL-20 0.67 1 Above Moderate
151 270230008 RL RL-20 0.34 1 Above Moderate
152 270020016 RL RL-20 1.17 2 Above Moderate
153 270410005 RL RL-20 5.43 9 Above Moderate
154 270420002 RL RL-20 1.57 3 Above Moderate
155 270353003 RL RL-20 0.63 1 Above Moderate
156 270420004 RL RL-20 4.47 8 Above Moderate
157 270020013 RL RL-20 1.00 2 Above Moderate
158 270222020 RL RL-20 1.13 2 Above Moderate
159 270031009 RL RL-20 0.52 1 Above Moderate
160 270372024 RL RL-20 0.89 2 Above Moderate
161 270372027 RL RL-20 0.79 1 Above Moderate
162 270201011 RL RL-20 0.57 1 Above Moderate
163 269090013 RL RL-20 0.48 1 Above Moderate
164 269132015 RL RL-20 1.42 2 Above Moderate
165 270123015 RL RL-20 0.35 1 Above Moderate
166 270150021 RL RL-20 3.01 5 Above Moderate
167 270131013 RL RL-20 0.54 1 Above Moderate
168 269132013 RL RL-20 1.41 2 Above Moderate
169 270100021 RL RL-20 0.13 0 Above Moderate
170 269132002 RL RL-20 0.47 1 Above Moderate
171 269100017 RL RL-20 0.44 1 Above Moderate
172 269151016 RL RL-20 1.22 2 Above Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 207
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 173 273120048 RL RL-20 0.84 1 Above Moderate
174 273120042 RL RL-20 0.81 1 Above Moderate
175 273092029 RL RL-20 0.02 0 Above Moderate
176 270071006 RL RL-20 0.27 0 Above Moderate
177 270080012 RL RL-20 1.75 3 Above Moderate
178 269010020 RL RL-20 0.48 1 Above Moderate
179 269202046 RL RL-20 0.27 0 Above Moderate
180 268190026 RL RL-20 0.02 0 Above Moderate
181 268400025 RL RL-20 1.41 2 Above Moderate
182 268181002 RL RL-20 0.26 0 Above Moderate
183 268182010 RL RL-20 0.06 0 Above Moderate
184 268181003 RL RL-20 0.06 0 Above Moderate
185 268220001 RL RL-20 3.03 5 Above Moderate
186 268251014 RL RL-20 0.02 0 Above Moderate
187 268141007 RL RL-20 0.11 0 Above Moderate
188 265070012 RL RL-20 0.28 0 Above Moderate
189 265070015 RL RL-20 1.21 2 Above Moderate
190 265110007 RL RL-20 0.17 0 Above Moderate
191 265070010 RL RL-20 3.46 6 Above Moderate
192 265070008 RL RL-20 2.39 4 Above Moderate
193 265070014 RL RL-20 1.27 2 Above Moderate
194 265060011 RL RL-20 0.40 1 Above Moderate
195 265052023 RL RL-20 0.39 1 Above Moderate
196 265100013 RL RL-20 0.21 0 Above Moderate
197 265100012 RL RL-20 0.36 1 Above Moderate
198 265080004 RL RL-20 0.22 0 Above Moderate
199 265060010 RL RL-20 0.45 1 Above Moderate
200 265052022 RL RL-20 0.65 1 Above Moderate
201 265070003 RL RL-20 7.17 12 Above Moderate
202 265052021 RL RL-20 0.41 1 Above Moderate
203 265070007 RL RL-20 2.33 4 Above Moderate
204 265060009 RL RL-20 0.48 1 Above Moderate
205 265090020 RL RL-20 0.41 1 Above Moderate
206 265080005 RL RL-20 0.27 0 Above Moderate
207 265052002 RL RL-20 0.25 0 Above Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 208
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 208 265060007 RL RL-20 0.66 1 Above Moderate
209 265080020 RL RL-20 0.63 1 Above Moderate
210 265060008 RL RL-20 0.20 0 Above Moderate
211 265040004 RL RL-20 0.31 1 Above Moderate
212 265080021 RL RL-20 0.54 1 Above Moderate
213 265080019 RL RL-20 0.50 1 Above Moderate
214 265090019 RL RL-20 0.93 2 Above Moderate
215 265052009 RL RL-20 0.40 1 Above Moderate
216 265040005 RL RL-20 0.24 0 Above Moderate
217 265080016 RL RL-20 0.53 1 Above Moderate
218 265080009 RL RL-20 0.36 1 Above Moderate
219 265040008 RL RL-20 0.38 1 Above Moderate
220 265080010 RL RL-20 0.30 1 Above Moderate
221 265051006 RL RL-20 0.77 1 Above Moderate
222 265090021 RL RL-20 2.80 5 Above Moderate
223 268032003 RL RL-20 0.58 1 Above Moderate
224 264210004 RL RL-20 0.04 0 Above Moderate
225 268043007 RL RL-20 0.59 1 Above Moderate
226 264250012 RL RL-20 0.51 1 Above Moderate
227 264230004 RL RL-20 0.52 1 Above Moderate
228 265090028 RL RL-20 0.50 1 Above Moderate
229 264190008 RL RL-20 0.08 0 Above Moderate
230 264230005 RL RL-20 0.43 1 Above Moderate
231 264102015 RL RL-20 0.74 1 Above Moderate
232 264230001 RL RL-20 0.91 2 Above Moderate
233 264190019 RL RL-20 0.20 0 Above Moderate
234 268120017 OS RL-20 43.16 75 Above Moderate
235 264190017 RL RL-20 0.22 0 Above Moderate
236 264190018 RL RL-20 0.15 0 Above Moderate
237 265153001 RL RL-20 0.99 2 Above Moderate
238 264102024 RL RL-20 0.55 1 Above Moderate
239 268063010 RL RL-20 0.56 1 Above Moderate
240 264091007 RL RL-20 0.28 0 Above Moderate
241 264200020 RL RL-20 0.31 1 Above Moderate
242 262010016 RL RL-20 0.36 1 Above Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 209
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 243 264170023 RL RL-20 0.47 1 Above Moderate
244 264110019 RL RL-20 0.59 1 Above Moderate
245 264091006 RL RL-20 0.12 0 Above Moderate
246 264081023 RL RL-20 2.47 4 Above Moderate
247 264110016 RL RL-20 1.82 3 Above Moderate
248 264091020 RL RL-20 1.77 3 Above Moderate
249 262032007 RL RL-20 0.34 1 Above Moderate
250 260181005 RL RL-20 0.29 1 Above Moderate
251 251193001 RL RL-20 0.21 0 Above Moderate
252 262042019 RL RL-20 0.16 0 Above Moderate
253 251010014 RL RL-20 3.55 6 Above Moderate
254 262131009 RL RL-20 0.15 0 Above Moderate
255 260181006 RL RL-20 5.16 9 Above Moderate
256 262121013 RL RL-20 0.23 0 Above Moderate
257 262131014 RL RL-20 0.72 1 Above Moderate
258 262121012 RL RL-20 0.47 1 Above Moderate
259 260012001 RL RL-20 0.23 0 Above Moderate
260 264050001 RL RL-20 0.95 2 Above Moderate
261 264020016 RL RL-20 0.61 1 Above Moderate
262 260152004 RL RL-20 0.50 1 Above Moderate
263 262102024 RL RL-20 0.23 0 Above Moderate
264 263143004 RL RL-20 0.43 1 Above Moderate
265 263142023 RL RL-20 0.87 2 Above Moderate
266 264020009 RL RL-20 0.43 1 Above Moderate
267 263143007 RL RL-20 0.65 1 Above Moderate
268 262074005 RL RL-20 0.61 1 Above Moderate
269 262231018 RL RL-20 0.66 1 Above Moderate
270 263141003 RL RL-20 0.35 1 Above Moderate
271 262112014 RL RL-20 0.68 1 Above Moderate
272 262220032 RL RL-20 0.07 0 Above Moderate
273 262231006 RL RL-20 0.51 1 Above Moderate
274 263040018 RL RL-20 0.02 0 Above Moderate
275 262170012 RL RL-20 0.88 2 Above Moderate
276 263060012 RL RL-20 0.51 1 Above Moderate
277 263080018 RL RL-20 0.07 0 Above Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 210
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 278 262192020 RL RL-20 0.33 1 Above Moderate
279 263080018 RL RL-20 0.43 1 Above Moderate
280 263040020 RL RL-20 0.02 0 Above Moderate
281 262272002 RL RL-20 0.19 0 Above Moderate
282 263040019 RL RL-20 0.01 0 Above Moderate
283 262262016 RL RL-20 0.19 0 Above Moderate
284 266340015 RL RL-20 0.63 1 Above Moderate
285 271130010 RL RL-40 0.98 1 Above Moderate
286 271130011 RL RL-40 0.82 1 Above Moderate
287 271130018 RL RL-40 0.69 1 Above Moderate
288 271130016 RL RL-40 1.93 2 Above Moderate
289 271130015 RL RL-40 1.66 1 Above Moderate
290 271130014 RL RL-40 3.52 3 Above Moderate
291 266280027 RL RL-40 1.49 1 Above Moderate
292 266250046 RVL RL-40 2.81 2 Above Moderate
293 263020020 RL RL-40 0.27 0 Above Moderate
294 272020013 RL RL-40 1.74 2 Above Moderate
295 251192013 RL RL-40 1.02 1 Above Moderate
296 251191017 RL RL-40 0.98 1 Above Moderate
297 260021006 RL RL-40 0.94 1 Above Moderate
298 263030010 RL RL-40 0.55 0 Above Moderate
299 263151036 RL RL-40 0.00 0 Above Moderate
300 260080001 RL RL-40 0.62 1 Above Moderate
301 263030004 RL RL-40 0.96 1 Above Moderate
302 263040028 RL RL-40 2.36 2 Above Moderate
303 261200017 RL RL-40 0.86 1 Above Moderate
304 261060024 RL RL-40 0.01 0 Above Moderate
305 261191007 RL RL-40 1.05 1 Above Moderate
306 261090004 RL RL-40 1.22 1 Above Moderate
307 261060018 RL RL-40 1.56 1 Above Moderate
308 261080013 RL RL-40 0.89 1 Above Moderate
309 261090006 RL RL-40 2.74 2 Above Moderate
310 261100006 RL RL-40 1.36 1 Above Moderate
311 266032003 RL RL-40 0.19 0 Above Moderate
312 266142004 RL RL-40 0.48 0 Above Moderate
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) CITY OF ORINDA 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 2022 211
Site # APN GPLU Zoning Acres Realistic Capacity Affordability 313 261041002 RL RL-40 1.30 1 Above Moderate
314 261110005 RL RL-40 0.92 1 Above Moderate
315 266102016 RL RL-40 1.93 2 Above Moderate
316 266142012 RL RL-40 0.61 1 Above Moderate
317 266210027 RL RL-40 0.03 0 Above Moderate
318 266220033 RVL RL-40 1.64 1 Above Moderate
319 266190003 RL RL-40 1.67 1 Above Moderate
320 266370001 RL RL-40 6.26 5 Above Moderate
321 266230034 RVL RL-40 1.60 1 Above Moderate
322 261180025 RL RL-40 0.69 1 Above Moderate
323 261090005 RL RL-40 5.29 5 Above Moderate
324 261080010 RL RL-40 0.92 1 Above Moderate
325 265140010 RL RVL-E 0.54 0 Above Moderate
326 267020005 RVL RVL-E 60.20 5 Above Moderate
327 265120005 RVL RVL-E 0.01 0 Above Moderate
328 265110002 RL RVL-E 1.49 0 Above Moderate
329 265130009 RVL RVL-E 4.63 0 Above Moderate
330 265130017 RVL RVL-E 1.21 0 Above Moderate
331 265130010 RVL RVL-E 2.06 0 Above Moderate
332 265130005 RL RVL-E 0.20 0 Above Moderate
333 265140001 RVL RVL-E 1.85 0 Above Moderate
334 265130012 RVL RVL-E 2.63 0 Above Moderate
335 265130013 RVL RVL-E 0.54 0 Above Moderate
336 265130014 RVL RVL-E 1.00 0 Above Moderate
337 265130002 RVL RVL-E 6.73 1 Above Moderate
338 265153013 RL RVL-E 0.52 0 Above Moderate
291.54 465
Source: City of Orinda, March 2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Draft Housing Element (2748 : Draft Housing Element) 22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563

LATE CORRESPONDENCE

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LATE CORRESPONDENCE – APRIL 5, 2022
Name Page
Nick Waranoff 2-24
Owen Murphy 25
Additional Correspondence after initial
submittal
Nick Waranoff 26-27
1 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Ann Parnigoni; Brandyn Iverson; Willy Mautner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek; John Smith; [email protected] Cc: Julie Tamayo; Drummond Buckley; Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Amy Worth; Nick Kosla Subject: Do you want affordable housing built, or just zoned for? Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 7:19:04 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
An important but overlooked detail concerning the Housing Element is this:
zoning a sufficient number if acres at the “default density” of at least 20 d.u./acre satisfies the Housing Element requirement for zoning for lower income housing, but does little or nothing to cause affordable housing to be built. A developer is free to build market rate housing on a site zoned at 20 d.u./acre. In fact, the city cannot require that affordable housing be built anywhere.

The city CAN, however, enact an inclusionary ordinance requiring that at least 15% of new units in any development be affordable. Many jurisdictions, including Lafayette, have such an ordinance, whose wording can be a starting (or ending) point for drafting such an ordinance for Orinda. Admittedly, state law requires that developers have an alternative, such as an in lieu fee, but an inclusionary ordinance is better than nothing.

I urge you to enact an inclusionary ordinance.

An inclusionary ordinance has only a limited effect. A 15% inclusionary ordinance means that almost 5,000 new housing units would have to be built to achieve the RHNA + buffer of 734 lower income units. If we rely on an inclusionary ordinance for moderate income units, that adds 269 units; Orinda would need to add an additional 1,800 units to obtain 269 moderate income units. At 2.5 to 2.9 people per housing unit, you are looking at a range of population increase of 12,500 (5,000 times 2.5) to 19,720 (6,800 times 2.9).

Thus, reliance on an inclusionary ordinance could potentially double the city’s population in eight years.

A better way to get affordable housing built is to increase the density on sites where the owners, such as churches, are motivated to make more than 15% of their units affordable, and who are not interested in the in lieu fee alternative.

Give the churches the tools they need to build the amount of affordable housing we need.
2 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) Of course, if you don’t really care about whether lower income and moderate income units are actually built, and only care about creating a compliant Housing Element, you can ignore this email.

Nick Waranoff
3 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Ann Parnigoni; Brandyn Iverson; Willy Mautner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek; John Smith; Robert Hubner Cc: Julie Tamayo; Drummond Buckley; Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Amy Worth; Nick Kosla Subject: A fork in the road for the housing element and affordable housing Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:12:06 PM
Attachments: projected population increase based on housing element.xlsx affordable housing analysis v.8.xlsx
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Orinda is facing a fork in the road regarding the housing element and affordable housing. Which approach will Orinda choose: the developer-driven approach or the church-based approach.

The developer driven approach
One approach is the developer driven approach, which is being taken by the city’s staff. Under this approach, the city will seek certification of its housing element, insofar as affordable housing is concerned, by zoning a sufficient number of acres at a density of at least 20 d.u./acre (called the “default density”), to satisfy its RHNA. Note that this zoning does not require that affordable housing be built on the parcels so zoned. Affordable will be built, if at all, as a percentage of a housing development proposed by a developer, if a developer chooses to take advantage of SB35 or the density bonus law. For example, if a developer invokes SB35 and includes 10% affordable housing, a 100 unit project would have 10 affordable units. Stated differently, to meet the RHNA low income requirement of 632 units, we would need 6,320 units built under SB35. A developer invoking the density bonus law to satisfy the low income RHNA with 15% affordable, would build 4,215 units of which 15% or 632 would be low income.

Orinda might be able to obtain certification of a housing element by zoning sufficient acres at 20 d.u./acre to meet its RHNA. But no affordable housing would or legally could be required to be built. Developers could take advantage of the new density (proposed to be 30 and 25 units/acre, depending on location) and increased height limits and build only market rate housing.

The affordable housing “can” would be “kicked down the road.” In the meantime, Orinda would suffer the penalties from a lack of issuance of building permits for affordable housing.

The economic analysis prepared for the city concluded that only density bonus projects were likely feasible. See Figure 6 on page 13. https://link.edgepilot.com/s/d0d3f873/HrvtNK9PwkmXhs_rDSahmA? 4 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) u=https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo A developer invoking the density bonus law sets aside a percentage of affordable units and in return has a right to unlimited waivers plus limited concessions. Usually, height limits and density are increased in density bonus projects. The developer gets to build six to ten times as many total units as affordable units.

Notably, the economic analysis assumed a negligible amount of affordable housing would be built: 68 units. See Figure 2.
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/d0d3f873/HrvtNK9PwkmXhs_rDSahmA? u=https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo By implication, affordable housing (the remaining 564 units) would be deferred, and the city would take the risk of the penalties attendant on a lack of affordable housing being built.

Orinda is facing a huge population increase if it relies on the developerdriven approach. It would be relying on developers to comply withSB35 use density bonuses, AND build sufficient market rate units (six to ten times as many total units as affordable units) to meet Orinda’s RHNA.

Over the eight year term of the Sixth Cycle of the Housing Element, under the developer-driven approach, the increase in the population of Orinda would be between 15,864 and 18,402, depending upon whether you assume 2.5 or 2.9 people per housing unit. It was 2.71 in the 2020 census. https://link.edgepilot.com/s/85cfe6ae/-5Twb2R-Z0OvF7n0LlrLMg? u=https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/orindacitycalifornia/INC11021 9 This result happens because the developer can build six to ten times the number of affordable units. (A density bonus project would reduce the effective rate to 10% because the added units need not be affordable.) This would lead to a population increase of 22,915 to 26,581.

A variation of the developer-driven approach would result if Orinda adopted an inclusionary zoning ordinance. Under such an ordinance, a developer would be required to include 15% (the maximum allowed by state law) affordable units.

This would remove some developer discretion about whether to include any affordable housing, but would create the same massive population increase.

Drummond Buckly has the undersigned that staff is not planning to propose an inclusionary ordinance.
5 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) Church based approach
A better solution – one that would avoid this massive population increase – would be to rely on the churches. To do so, however, Orinda would need to upzone church properties to a higher density than the 20 d.u./acre that staff proposes. Churches can be relied upon to provide more than 10% or 15% affordable housing in a project (they would likely build, or partner with an affordable housing developer to build, only affordable housing). This approach could satisfy Orinda’s low and moderate income RHNA without a massive number of market rate units. The churches have enough acres/space. See attached spreadsheet, that shows that zoning the church sites at 30 d.u./acre would yield 634 units, two more than the low income RHNA, and zoning at 60 d.u./acre would add enough units to cover the affordable moderate income category.

This approach would eliminate the need to add a total number of units equal to

6.67 times, or as much as 10 times, the number of affordable units under the “developer driven” approach.

Nick Waranoff
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. 6 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 A B C D
Housing Element analysis of Orinda's populaton increase By: Nick Waranoff
Version 1 3-28-2022 notes
Reduces mod category per Staff report for Feb 15, 2022, Packet Pg. 101 RHNA PLUS BUFFER: units needed PER PRESENTATION 11-16-2021 SLIDE 28 low income 734
moderate 215 household income up to $150,000 or two Orinda teachers above moderate 696
RHNA RHNA total if 15% inclusionary total if effective 10% inclusionary very low and low 734
current capacity
(per staff report) 64
pending
(per staff report) 38
net needed 632 4,215 6320
add moderate 215 1,434 2,150
add above mod 696 696 696
7 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) 28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
ABCD
total new units 6,345 9,166
total population
increase at 2.5 per unit 15,864 22,915
total population
increase at 2.71 per unit 17,196 24,840
total population 18,402 26,581
increase at 2.9
8 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 A B C D
Capacities of 4 Church sites for Affordable Housing
By: Nick Waranoff
Version 8 2/12/2022 notes
Reduces mod category per Staff report for Feb 15, 2022, Packet Pg. 101 RHNA PLUS BUFFER: units needed PER PRESENTATION 11-16-2021 SLIDE 28 low income 734
moderate 215 household income up to $150,000 or two Orinda teachers above moderate 696
Site total acres
Holy Shepherd 3.218 has not confirmed interest
St. Marks 4.477
St John 4.943 adjacent to Orinda Oaks Park
St. Stephens 5.48
total acres 18.118
densities proposed
per acre by Nick W. 80 60 35
total units at each 1449.44 1087.08 634.13
density proposed by Nick W.

RHNA w/25% buffer at 80 d.u./acre w/25% buffer at 60 d.u./acre w/25% buffer at 35 d.u./acre very low and low 734 734 734
9 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) 28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 A B C D
current capacity
(per staff report) 64 64 64
pending
(per staff report) 38 38 38
net needed 632 632 632
total units at each 1449.44 1087.08 634.13
density proposed by Nick W.
surplus
units after
accommodating
low income 817.44 455.08 2.13
moderate income 215 215 215
surplus available 602.44 240.08 -212.87
for above moderate
(negative-shortage)

CONCLUSIONS

1. Entire low income RHNA+BUFFER can be accommodated at 4 church sites at 35 d.u./acre (cell D42) 10 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) 55 56

A B C D

2. Entire low and mod income RHNA +BUFFER can be accomodated at 4 church sites at 60 d.u./acre (cell C42) 3 11
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Ann Parnigoni; Brandyn Iverson; Willy Mautner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek; John Smith; Robert Hubner Cc: Julie Tamayo; Drummond Buckley; Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Amy Worth; Nick Kosla Subject: April 5, 2022 Agenda: Housing Element: Should Orinda enact an inclusionary ordinance requiring that a percentage of a new development include affordable housing Date: Thursday, March 31, 2022 12:10:49 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Should Orinda enact an inclusionary ordinance requiring that a percentage of a new development include affordable housing, or should Orinda kick the affordable housing “can” down the proverbial road? Planning Director Drummond Buckley has advised the undersigned that “The Draft Housing Element will not have an inclusionary housing ordinance as a program, but it could be added into the final Housing Element based on feedback from the Council, Planning Commission and public during the public review process.” (Email dated March 29, 2022 10:27 AM)
Mr. Buckley also wrote that SB35 and the density bonus law would be an incentive for affordable housing. Upon further investigation, however, it appears that, at least until 2027 or thereabouts, under SB35 as applied to Orinda, a developer would need to make 50% of the units affordable to qualify under that law for ministerial, streamlined approval subject only to objective standards. The consensus is that a 50% affordable requirement precludes a project from “pencilling out.”
I write to start a discussion over whether Orinda should have an inclusionary ordinance that would require new housing projects to make 15% of the units affordable. There should be a discussion about whether this is limited to low income, or also includes moderate income.

Many cities, including Lafayette, have inclusionary ordinances requiring that a specified percentage of any new housing project include affordable housing.

See this link: https://link.edgepilot.com/s/19003ed8/oyPovKsDoU_b9- p2i4utsg?u=https://www.lovelafayette.org/city-hall/city-departments/planningbuilding/housing/lafayette-s-housing-efforts Here is a link to HCD’s October 21, 2019 technical assistance memo:
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/4a48a413/pkUqMSbD5UGReEBuNUQkYA? u=https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housingelement-memos/docs/ab_1505_final.pdf 12 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) As I have previously explained, Orinda can perhaps get a Housing Element certified, insofar as its low income housing RHNA is concerned, by zoning sufficient acres at the “default density” (a minimum of 20 d.u./acre) to satisfy the RHHA (plus buffer). However, that zoning does not require that any units before low income.

What are the pros and cons of an inclusionary ordinance? An inclusionary ordinance would, by contrast, require that a new housing project include a percentage of affordable units. (Note that under AB 1505, alternatives must nevertheless be allowed.) Thus, an inclusionary ordinance would increase the likelihood that at least some low income or moderate income housing would be built.

Causing some affordable housing to be built would, many believe, be the “moral” or right thing to do.

Also, to the extent affordable housing actually got built, it would help Orinda avoid the penalties that result from a lack of such housing actually being built.

Further, taking the long view, to the extent that housing development proceeds in the short run without including affordable housing, it will become more difficult in the future to accommodate affordable housing, because the currently-available land will have been used for market rate housing.

Staff is apparently relying on the density bonus law to provide a sufficient incentive for a developer to include some affordable housing. Although the EPS economic study did find that density bonus projects were “likely feasible” ( https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a0fb9db5/9mgLoYsHdUO9j0M4WcmBeg? u=https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo at Figure 6, page 13), its analysis is seriously flawed. The most notable flaw is its assumption that rents would average $4,499 per month. ( Id. See Figure 4 on page 11.) This assumption is double the going rate in the area.
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/fac2683c/E51t0OWKsUCoIqBnm1Z1xg? u=https://enewspaper.eastbaytimes.com/?publink=137f1a65a_13483b2 It follows that the conclusion of “likely feasible” is “likely wrong.” Alternatively, if a housing element can be certified without an inclusionary 13 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) ordinance, the affordable housing “can” might be kicked down the road, and dealt with at a later time. Such an approach, of course, runs the risk of state penalties if insufficient affordable housing is actually built.

Discussion of info that an HE must contain and Orinda’s failure to provide that info
“The inventory sites that have potential for residential developed can include non-vacant and underutilized sites (Section 65583.2(b)(3)). The element must include an explanation of the methodology for determining the realistic buildout potential of these sites within the planning period (Section 65583.2(g)).”
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/2f115a93/9RsgTV4MHUCXTo04RkHXMg? u=https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml Orinda has not presented any “explanation of the methodology” as is required. “If the inventory identifies non-vacant sites to address a portion of the regional housing need allocation, the housing element must describe the additional realistic development potential within the planning period. The analysis must describe the methodology used to establish the development potential and consider all of the following: 1) the extent existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, 2) the jurisdiction's past 15 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) experience converting existing uses to higher density residential development, 3) the current market demand for the existing use, including an analysis of any known existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, 4) development trends, 5) market conditions, and 6) availability of regulatory and/or other incentives, such as expedited permit processing and fee waivers or deferrals.”
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/2f115a93/9RsgTV4MHUCXTo04RkHXMg? u=https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml Orinda has not presented any analysis of any of the six required considerations.

Especially missing is #3.
“Existing Uses — The housing element must demonstrate non-vacant and/or underutilized sites in the inventory that can be realistically developed with residential uses or more-intensive residential uses at densities appropriate to accommodate the regional housing need (by income) within the planning period. The housing element must describe all existing uses (such as surplus school site, operating business, nursery, etc.) and evaluate the extent these uses would constitute an impediment to new residential development. Among other things, this analysis includes considerations for the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any known existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and could include other market conditions that would encourage redevelopment of the property like the condition or age of existing uses, or valuation. For example, an analysis might describe an identified site as being developed with a 1960’s strip commercial center with few tenants and, therefore, a good candidate for redevelopment, versus a site containing a newly opened retail center that is unlikely going to be available for residential development within the planning period.”
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/2f115a93/9RsgTV4MHUCXTo04RkHXMg? u=https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml Orinda has not presented any of the highlighted information.

This failure is shown most dramatically in “description” column in Table 5-4. (Page 133.) There is no mention of substance of the meetings/discussions 16 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) referred to. No mention of existing leases. No mention of whether owners are interested in converting their properties to residential use. There is no showing that that site can be “realistically developed” into residential use.

The same failure is present in the discussion of “opportunity sites” in Section

5.7.3 on page 136 and Table 5-5 on page 138. In fact, the Miramonte site (Table 5-5 (page 138)) cannot be counted (187 low income units) because the HE explicitly says “The City had conversations with the school district regarding housing development but no decisions have been made.” (Page 136.) It follows that there is no showing that that site can be “realistically developed” into residential use; the opposite is shown.

Section 5.7.5 on pages 141-42 does not adequately cure this flaw; it only addresses the city’s limited history with non-commercial sites. Nothing about commercial tenancies. Nothing about the specific commercial tenancies. For that reason, the following statement is misleading:

5.7.5 Development of Nonvacant Sites The City has a track record of developing affordable and market-rate housing on non-vacant sites, including church property, school district-owned sites, and other parcels that have underdeveloped and or underutilized land, including the former City’s library.

The nonvacant sites in the DPP are commercial sites, and the City HAS NO TRACK RECORD of redevelopment of such sites for residential uses.

Note that staff has all but abandoned the notion of residential over commercial units; staff is leaving open the possibility that residential uses will occupy ground floor.
“Action 1.A. Downtown Precise Plan….Ensure (a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low-
and very low-income regional housing need can be
accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses, or (b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the low- and very low-income regional housing need on sites designated for mixed-uses, all sites designated for mixed-uses must allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project.” (Page 176, third bullet point.)
17 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) Thus, the original intent of the DPP – commercial “revitalization” of downtown (a notion never defined and thereby able to garner broad if misguided support) - - is unlikely to be realized.

Conclusion and suggestions for a compliant HE
For the foregoing reasons, Orinda’s Draft Housing Element Public Comment Draft April 2022 released 3-31-2022 cannot legally be certified by HCD, and will not be certified.

As investigation into the nonvacant sites proceeds, it will become apparent that the capacity proposed by Placeworks and staff is excessive and unrealistic, and will not pass muster with HCD.

Accordingly, what needs to happen is for the density, height, and resulting capacity of the church sites and CalTrans site to be increased, to provide the needed capacity.

The CalTrans site is particularly important; it is 10 acres of vacant land that, if rezoned to 80 d.u./ac (rather than the 40 proposed by staff), could accommodate 800 low and moderate income units, essentially the city’s entire RHNA for those categories. A density of 80 d.u./acre is not unreasonable; staff previously proposed a higher density for country club plaza and is proposing 75 for the BART parking lot. (Table 5-5, page 149.) There are no nearby neighbors to object to such density.

Of all of the sites listed in the HE, the church sites, to the best of my knowledge, are the only sites where the owners responded favorably to a city survey asking if they were interested in affordable housing. As such, they are especially important to obtaining certification of the HE, for the reasons stated above. The city should be maximizing that opportunity.

I believe all of the church sites south of downtown (see Table 5-4, p. 138*, and Figure 5-4, p. 139) could easily accommodate greater density and a higher height limit. The St. John’s Lutheran Church (C-4 among the opportunity sites listed in the Table and Figure) is particularly appropriate because it abuts Orinda Oaks Park. The graving goats are unlikely to object. And insofar as anyone may be concerned about slightly taller buildings within sight of a park, please consider the massive number of expensive, high rise residential building along Fifth Avenue and Central Park West in New York City.

For the foregoing reasons, the Draft HE should be revised. 18 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) Nick Waranoff
*the sixth column in Table 5-5 is mislabelled
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. 19 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Ann Parnigoni; Brandyn Iverson; Willy Mautner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek; John Smith; Robert Hubner Cc: Julie Tamayo; Drummond Buckley; Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Amy Worth; Nick Kosla Subject: Agenda April 5, 2022: Draft Housing Element: BART letter dated March 7, 2022 is a game changer requiring a rewrite of the Housing Element
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:40:19 PM
Attachments: BART TOD - Housing_element_letter_20220307_Final.pdf Importance: High
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Agenda April 5, 2022: Draft Housing Element: BART letter dated March 7, 2022 is a game changer requiring a rewrite of the Housing Element The Draft Housing Element (“HE”) needs to be completely done based on a letter from BART dated March 7, 2022.

The Draft states, “As noted in a letter from BART on March 7, 2022, the BART Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Work Plan identifies the Orinda station in the mid-term phasing plan with an estimated timeframe of 2025-2030. While this would be within the Housing Element planning period, the challenges with ownership and other constraints may not likely result in housing development during the 6th Cycle.” BART’s position is a complete reversal from the previous discussions with BART in which BART advised the City that BART was not interested in housing on the BART parking lots. Based on the prior discussions, consideration of the BART lots was deferred.

Now, however, BART has changed its position. Orinda cannot afford to rely on staff’s speculation that housing “may not likely result” on the BART lots during the 6th Cycle; i.e., 2023-2031: the period covered by the Housing Element, because of the risk of being overwhelmed by population growth. If housing wasn’t likely, BART would not have included Orinda in its March 7, 2022 letter.

As I have previously shown, the current Draft of the Housing Element creates a risk of doubling Orinda’s population. And that assumed no housing on the BART lots.

There are approximately 14.5 acres of parking lots useable for housing. See Table 5-5, page 138, “assumed acreage” column. Assume, as the city does, 75 20 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) d.u./acre minimum. See same Table; see also section 5.7.4 of the HE, page 141. Thus, 1,087 units could be built. At an average of 2.71 people per unit (Orinda’s average per 2020 census), that would add an additional almost 3,000 people. Orinda cannot take the risk, and there is no reason to take the risk, of even more people being added to our population.

THIS IS A GAME CHANGER.

The HE needs to be completely rethought, with the 1,087 possible BART units replacing the same number of units currently in the Draft HE. Orinda cannot control what BART does, or when BART does it. But Orinda can save the downtown businesses that have served us so very well for decades, by removing all units in the Downtown Precise Plan from the HE.

Nick Waranoff
21 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) March 7, 2022
Hello,
BART is aware that all Bay Area jurisdictions are actively working on updating their Housing Elements to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers, as required by the State of California. As part of the process, local governments are required to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment. As such, cities and counties with BART stations may be considering BART land in their inventories. Building on our recent conversations about the development potential and timing of implementing transit-oriented development (TOD) projects on BART land, we wanted to reach out and confirm your community’s goals with respect to development at the station(s) in your community.

BART acknowledges that public land, including ours, can play an important role in addressing the region’s housing crisis. However, given BART’s limited staffing resources and very limited funding sources for structured parking that is often required to open up BART’s land for development, it would be challenging for BART’s TOD program to support the development of all the land that might be included in various jurisdiction’s housing elements during the planning period of 2023-2031. Understanding that including our land in a housing element does provide a good opportunity to initiate housing development with the support of the community, we would like to ensure that local jurisdictions are prepared to partner with us on addressing the barriers that may exist at a particular station.

In an effort to support our local jurisdiction partners as they go through the process of updating their Housing Elements, we encourage you to review BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Program Work Plan ( TOD Work Plan, 2020) before considering BART’s land for your 2023-2031 Housing Element as it identifies BART’s prioritized sites for TOD implementation. The TOD Work Plan incorporated input from many local agency staff on preferred timing for project initiation and the types of projects they wanted to see in BART’s station areas.

The first step in creating the TOD Work Plan was to determine how BART was tracking towards meeting the TOD program performance targets that were adopted by BART’s Board of Directors in 2016. The next step was to prioritize station areas based on three criteria:

1. Market readiness for TOD

2. Local support for TOD

3. Infrastructure needs

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
2150 Webster Street, P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6000
2022
Rebecca Saltzman

PRESIDENT
Janice Li

VICE PRESIDENT
Robert Powers

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTORS
Debora Allen
1ST DISTRICT
Mark Foley
2ND DISTRICT
Rebecca Saltzman
3RD DISTRICT
Robert Raburn, Ph.D.
4TH DISTRICT
John McPartland
5TH DISTRICT
Elizabeth Ames
6TH DISTRICT
Lateefah Simon
7TH DISTRICT
Janice Li
8TH DISTRICT
Bevan Dufty
9TH DISTRICT
www.bart.gov
22 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) Taking into consideration BART staff and resources, the final step was to categorize undeveloped station areas by the following timeframes for initiating development:

For station areas categorized as Near-term in BART’s TOD Work Plan, we support including the stations in your Housing Element, if that is your goal.

For station areas categorized as Mid-term in BART’s TOD Work Plan, we would like to have further discussions with you about the timing of development before it is included in Housing Element. BART will most likely not be able to initiate development at all the station areas in the Mid-term category within the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, so further discussions with you are necessary to better understand what would need to occur to realistically develop the site. We understand that there are new rules regarding how often a site can be included in a housing element and we want to ensure that we are coordinating on the timing of development to meet both BART’s goals and those of the local jurisdiction.

For station areas categorized as Long-term in BART’s TOD Work Plan, we do not intend to develop the station area within the current Housing Element planning period of 2023-2031. BART does not recommend including our station area in your Housing Element at this time. However, the TOD Work Plan will be updated on a regular basis, and we are happy to coordinate with you if the intention is to include this site in a future Housing Element. If you still plan to include our land in the current Housing Element cycle, please let us know so that we can have further conversations about what would need to happen to initiate development.

The timing of initiating development at a particular station area may be affected by many factors, including BART’s transit operational needs and funding availability to complete the project in a timely 23 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) manner. Over the next several years, BART will consider availability of local funding to support development, especially affordable housing, as a key factor in advancing projects.

Additionally, BART will be seeking projects that can be rapidly delivered through seamless coordination with local jurisdiction staff as a key factor in advancing sites to development. One example will be cooperation on finding BART parking and access solutions that maximize development on highly desirable land near station entrances by minimizing the number of structured parking stalls. In this example, creative solutions could include options such as shared, on-street parking, and district parking as well as significant investment in access infrastructure and programs to reduce overall parking demand. In the event a high level of BART parking is necessary, outside funding sources will need to be identified.

Delivering TOD projects is complex and requires productive partnerships between BART and local jurisdictions and we look forward to working with you to realize our shared goal of increasing the amount of housing near transit.

Sincerely,
________________________________________
Val Joseph Menotti
Chief Planning and Development Officer
24 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) Date: April 3, 2022
To: Orinda City Council
From: Owen Murphy, Orinda Citizen
Re: Housing Element Draft (version dated 3/31/2022)
Thank you for affording Orinda citizens the opportunity to review this public document. This draft includes valuable Orinda facts, is well-formatted and is seemingly constructed by experienced hands (Placeworks?) in “HCD-speak”, for maximum impact in Sacramento, as it should be.

Here are a few overall thoughts and some specific comments.

1.) Please omit the comment on Page 132, effectively stating that “some sites are evaluated up to 85 units/acre in the EIR”. Why does HCD need to know this? It only undermines the fundamental Housing Element proposal of 25 units/acre (in DO areas) and 30 units/acre (in DC areas). Leaving in the 85 units/acre comment can only cause problems for Orinda. There is no upside and a huge downside. Don’t put this into the minds of HCD!!!

2.) Unlike Orinda’s existing Housing Element, which specifies a maximum building height of 35 feet, this draft seems to omit a specific measure of building height. This is a most important matter, especially for those residential neighborhoods abutting the DC and DO areas. Omitting a specific number now, seems like a deliberate attempt to muffle public input until it is “too late” to do so.

3.) Page 103 notes that Orinda citizen input tended to argue for affordable housing sites o be spread around the city (i.e. church properties, etc). Only outsider organizations argued for jamming the affordable housing into the DC and DO areas. Yet it was this corporate, outsider input, not the citizen input, that has been incorporated into this draft. Why? This calls for more public discussion and dialogue at the city council level.

4.) The BART TOD guidelines are scary: 75 units/acre and a building height >= 5 stories. This draft seems to whistle past the graveyard, even though BART itself claims that their plans (2025) fall well within this Housing Element window (2023-2031). Is it prudent to avoid BART development or just convenient and wishful thinking, for this cycle?

5.) It makes this citizen uneasy that the Housing Element, Safety Element and EIR, which should be well-coordinated, do not seem to be so. For example, I have written and spoken in the past, regarding the potential danger along Moraga Way if the “BevMo Block” goes to high density residential zoning. The Safety Element (wildfire threat, evacuations paths, etc) should be a powerful consideration to keep Sacramento-based, HCD of a reasonable mind. Can Housing and Safety Elements be presented and reviewed simultaneously, as a package, in Sacramento? Thank you again for opportunity to comment.
25 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) View this email in your browser
From: Winnie Mui
To: "Nick Waranoff"; Drummond Buckley
Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Draft Housing Element quick question Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:53:15 PM
Yes, both are. The existing use of each DPP site is listed in Table 5-4.

From: Nick Waranoff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:35 PM
To: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Draft Housing Element quick question CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Please let me know
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 9:19 PM
To: 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]>; 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Draft Housing Element available Is either DPP 5 or DPP 8 the Orinda Motors business location/garages? Nick Waranoff
From: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:09 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Orinda - Draft Housing Element available 26 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) From: Drummond Buckley
To: Julie Tamayo
Subject: FW: Orinda motors
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 4:37:40 PM
Attachments: RE City of Orinda - Draft Housing Element quick question.msg Hi Julie,
This came in this afternoon and I didn't notice that you were not copied. Please post this to the agenda and email it to the Commission as additional correspondence. It's okay to take care of this right before the meeting or even after the meeting starts if you don't have time to do it before then.

Thanks,
Drummond
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Waranoff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 2:30 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Cc: Ann Parnigoni <[email protected]>; Robert Hubner <[email protected]>; Willy Mautner <[email protected]>; Brandyn Iverson <[email protected]>; Lina Lee <[email protected]>; John Smith <[email protected]>; Marian Jelinek <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Orinda motors
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! Winnie has confirmed that Orinda Motors is on the rezone and demolish list. See attached. Contrary to what Jason Moody advised me approx. one year ago.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Moody <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:24 PM
To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Orinda motors
Built around -- we assume it is preserved
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:10 PM
To: Jason Moody <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Orinda motors
>
>
> I cannot tell from the presentation what the fate of Orinda motors would be? Would it be demolished or built around?
>
> Nick Waranoff
27 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Late Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda
Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 2022
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 2
Presentation Overview
» Housing Element Overview and Contents
» Public Outreach
» Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Sites Inventory » Housing Element Actions
» Project Schedule
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 3
Housing Element Overview
» It’s required!
• One of eight mandated General Plan elements
• Heavily regulated by State law
• Must be reviewed and certified by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
» State sets schedule for Housing Element updates
• This upcoming 6th cycle Housing Element has an 8-year timeframe
• Planning period: 2023-2031
• Housing Element due date: January 31, 2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 4
Housing Element Contents
Review of
Previous
Programs
Housing
Needs
Assessment
Fair
Housing
Assessment
Adequate
Sites
Analysis
Housing
Constraints Programs
Community Engagement
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 5
Public Outreach
Service Provider Interviews (7 Agencies) August/September 2021 Housing Feasibility Stakeholder Meeting September 2021
Stakeholder Focus Group September 2021
Community Workshop October 2021
Balancing Act – Online Sites Tool December 2021 – February 2022 Planning Commission/City Council Study Sessions November 2021 City Council Meeting – Review sites February 2022
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 6
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
» Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
• State law requires HCD to determine total regional housing needs • The RHNA is the number of units each jurisdiction is required to plan for in each Housing Element Update
» HCD provided a regional allocation to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
• ABAG established a methodology to distribute the regional allocation amongst each county and each jurisdiction
• Units are divided by affordability tiers (very low, low, moderate and above moderate) H.1.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 7
More About RHNA
» The RHNA for the upcoming housing element is increased significantly (498% increase) • 2015-2023 Housing Element Cycle (current): 227 units
• 2023-2031 Housing Element Cycle (upcoming): 1,359 units (587 lower income units) » The City should plan for additional sites (buffer) to avoid a “no net loss” situation for the Lower income RHNA
• A Net Loss would occur if a site planned for housing is developed at a different number and income level than identified in the Land Inventory, and if the remaining undeveloped sites on the list cannot address the remaining RHNA
• If a site on the Sites Inventory receives building permit(s) prior to June 30, 2022, it will be removed from the inventory for the upcoming Housing Element
» Planning for a 25% buffer would mean identifying sites to accommodate at least 734 lower income units H.1.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 8
Orinda’s 6th Cycle RHNA
Income Category Income Range City of Orinda
Housing Element Planning Period: 2023-2031
Very Low Income*
(<50% of Median Income) < $68,500
587
Low Income
(50-80% of Median Income) $68,501 - $109,600
Moderate Income
(80-120% of Median Income) $109,601 – $150,700 215
Above Moderate Income
(>120% of Median Income) > $150,701 557
Total 1,359
*It is assumed that 50 percent of very low-income units will be for extremely low-income households.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 9
Non-Vacant Site Selection
» HCD requires additional supporting analysis for non-vacant sites:
• Examples of similar recent redevelopment trends in the community and/or region
• The impact of local market conditions on redevelopment or reuse strategies • A description of incentives that can encourage and facilitate additional residential development
• Site specific factors, as shown on the next slide
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element)

INSERT TITLE HERE
Additional Criteria - Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Non-Vacant/
Underutilized Site
Low Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Owner interest,
common ownership
Likely to develop by
2031
Land value compared
with improvement
value
Current uses anticipated to
discontinue or move
elsewhere, expiring leases
Building
Age/Condition
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 11
Meeting the RHNA – Current Site Capacity
e Number
Site # Location Acreage
Proposed
Capacity
(Units)
Current
Use
Income
Category
1 Santa Maria
Church

2.4* 48 Church Lower
NA Multiple
Sites

25.57 118 Vacant Moderate
NA Multiple
Sites
291.54** 465 Vacant
Above
Moderate
*The full site acreage including the church is 9.4 acres. Development would be assumed to develop on vacant land adjacent to the church which could total 2.4 acres. **Southwood Valley – will be reduced to 18 units based on open space requirements for the site. Will reduce capacity to 408 units.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 12
Meeting the RHNA –
Approved/Proposed Projects
Location Acreage
Proposed
Capacity
(Units)
Status
Income
Category
Countryhouse
Memory Care

1.4 38
Approved
January
2021
Above
Moderate
Vista Verde Senior
Housing

4.86 52 Pending
Approval
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Total 90
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 13
Projected Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
» Relying on HCDs projection
methodology
Year ADU Production
2018 4
2019 7
2020 9
2021 21
Annual Average 10 ADUs
Projected Over 8 years 80
» ABAGs Affordability methodology
Income Category Affordable
Percentage
Unit
Allocation
Very Low 30% 24
Low 30% 24
Moderate 30% 24
Above Mod. 10% 8
100% 80
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 14
Projected Deficit with Current Sites Inventory
* Includes capacity from vacant low-density parcels
Income Category RHNA
25%
RHNA
Buffer
RHNA
with
Buffer
Current Site
Capacity
Approved/
Proposed
Projects
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity
Identified
Shortfall
Very Low 372
147 734 48 38 48 134 (453)
Low 215
Moderate 215 -- 215 118* 13 24 155 (60)
Above Moderate 557 -- 557 465* 39 8 512 (45)
Total 1,359 147 1,506 631 90 80 801 (558)
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 15
Possible Rezones to Meet the RHNA
» Downtown Precise Plan sites
» Opportunity Sites:
• Church sites
• School sites
• Government sites
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 16
Downtown Precise Plan
– Rezone Capacity
Zoning Location
Proposed
Capacity
(Units)
Income
Category
DPP-1 – DPP-8 County Club Plaza 47 Lower
DPP-9 – DPP-13 Bevmo Block 36 Lower
DPP-14 Masonic Lodge 16 Moderate
DPP-15 – DPP-29 Downtown
Commercial
18 82
60 Lower
Moderate
Abv. Moderate
DPP-30 – DPP-43 Downtown
Office 190 Lower
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 17
Opportunity Sites – Rezone
Capacity
Site
Number Location Possible
Units
C-1 St. Stephen's Church Site 27
C-2 Holy Shepherd Lutheran Church
Site 21
C-3 St. Mark's Church Site 45
C-4 St. John Orthodox Church Site 33
S-1 Miramonte School Site 187
G-4 Caltrans – Gateway 245
Total Capacity (lower income) 558
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 18
Other Sites Analyzed
Under EIR
Site
Number Location
Potential
Capacity
(Units)
S-2 Sleepy Hollow Site - OUSD 48
G-1 EBMUD - Bear Creek Rd 51
G-2 Caltrans BART - Eastern Lot 325
G-3 Caltrans BART - Western Lot 764
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 19
BART Sites
» Possible constraints to consider:
• Timing: BART identified site as mid-term phasing with an estimated timeframe of 2025- 2030 • Ownership: Owned by Caltrans and subject to BART easement • Density/Height: BART would be unlikely to consider anything below the 5-story, 75 du/ac specified in their TOD plan for Orinda’s station
• Both Parking Lots: It is assumed that BART would request that both parking lots are considered together as one.
• Parking: Likely a loss of parking spaces for BART users, even though the station is classified as “auto dependent” (at this time BART is focusing on stations that are less dependent on parking)
• Development Standards: City will be in a better position if it develops a specific plan for the site before rezoning; the recommendation is that this should be considered when the next (7th) cycle Housing Element is prepared.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 20
Senate Bill 9 – Housing Development Approvals
» Legislation:
 Up to two primary units to be allowed by-right on all lots in single-family zones  Urban lot splits to be allowed within urbanized areas on certain lots • Impacts on the Housing Element Update Process:
 Must depend on HCD guidance - released at the end of March  Will not be used to meet the lower income RHNA
» New Housing Element Action 1.H:
• Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) – The California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. Expand homeownership opportunities by allowing property owners to split a single-family zoned lot into two lots and/or place up to two housing units on a single-family zoned lot.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 21
Projected Surplus with Rezone Capacity
*50 percent of the shortfall, or 227 units will be met on sites that allow for exclusively residential development
Income Category RHNA
25%
RHNA
Buffer
RHNA
with
Buffer
Identified
Shortfall
DPP
Rezone
Capacity
Opportunity
Rezone
Capacity
Total
Capacity
w/Rezone
Surplus with
25% Buffer
Very Low 372
147 734 (453)* 290 558 982 248
Low 215
Moderate 215 -- 215 (60) 98 -- 253 38
Above Moderate 557 -- 557 (45) 60 -- 572 15
Total 1,359 147 1,506 (558) 448 558 1,807 301
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 22
Housing Element Action Items
» 2023-2031 Housing Element includes 25 Actions:
• 1 action continuing without modifications
• 10 actions modified
• 14 new actions
» Proposed changes to the actions were made as a result of comments received, along with changes in State law
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 23
Actions to Address New State Law
» SB 166: Requires local governments to maintain enough land to meet the RHNA. [Action 1.G No Net Loss of Housing Capacity]
» AB 686: Requires local governments to include a goal and programs to affirmatively further fair housing. [Action 5.A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing]
» AB 1397: Allow housing developments with at least 20 percent affordable housing by-right, consistent with objective development and design standards, on lower-income vacant sites identified in the sites inventory that have been counted in two previous housing cycles or lower-income nonvacant sites counted in one previous housing cycle. [Policy 1.5 Sites Included in Multiple Housing Cycles]
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 24
Actions to Address New State Law
» AB 2162 and SB 48 requires local governments to update their zoning codes to allow emergency and supportive housing, along with reduced parking requirements for these projects.
» Allow low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless by right in zones that allow for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, per Government Code Section 65662.
» Comply with California Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6).
[Action 4.A: Amend Development Standards to remove constraints] H.1.c
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 25
Continuing and Modified Actions
» Continuing:
• Action 3.F: Shared Parking Regulations
» Modified:
• Action 1.D: Promotion of ADUs
• Action 1.G: No Net Loss of Housing
Capacity
• Action 2.B: Housing Rehabilitation
• Action 2.C: Home Maintenance and
Repair Program
• Action 2.D: Participation in First-Time
Home Buyer and MCC Programs
• Action 3.A: Shared Housing Program
• Action 3.B: Extremely Low-Income
Housing
• Action 3.C: Assistance for Persons with
Developmental Disabilities
• Action 4.C: Building Code
• Action 6.A: Promote Energy Conservation
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 26
New Actions
» Action 1.A: Downtown Precise Plan
» Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
» Action 1.C: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
» Action 1.E: Multifamily Development
» Action 1.F: Support Affordable Housing
Development
» Action 1.H: Senate Bill 9
» Action 2.A: Preservation of At-Risk
Housing Units
» Action 2.E: Replacement Housing
» Action 3.D: Developmental Disability
Services
» Action 3.E: Objective Design Standards
» Action 4.A: Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
» Action 4.B: Development Review and
Processing Procedures
» Action 4.D: Infrastructure Availability
» Action 5.A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City of Orinda | Housing Element Update | 27
Potential Actions
» Consider adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance H.1.c
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element)

INSERT TITLE HERE
Project Schedule
We are here
Milestones Estimate Date
Project Kick- Off August 5, 2021
Prepare Administrative Draft Housing Element August 2021 – March 2022 City Council Meeting – Site Feedback February 15, 2022
Release Public Draft Housing Element (30-40 days) March 31, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2022
City Council Meeting April 19, 2022
Submit Housing Element to HCD (90-day review) May 2022
Submit Housing Element to HCD (2nd review 60-days) September 2022 Planning Commission and City Council Adoption Hearings December 2022 and January 2023 Submit Final Adopted Housing Element to HCD –Certification (60-days) January 2023 – March 2023 H.1.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) Thank you
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: April 5, 2022 Planning Commission Presentation (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.d
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.d
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.d
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.d
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) H.1.d
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2748 : Draft Housing Element) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: April 19, 2022
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation Entity
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Report, Discuss, and Determine Whether to Consider Possibly Joining a Community Choice Aggregation Entity, Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Whether to Request that Marin Clean Energy of Other Community Choice Aggregation Entity Make a Presenation at a Future City Council Meeting.

BACKGROUND: On March 1, 2022, as a Matter Initiated, the City Council requested a future agenda item to discuss the possibility of revisiting a prior decision to not join a Community Choice Aggregation entity such as Marin Clean Energy.

DISCUSSION: Through Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), which is authorized under state law, communities can join together to pool (or aggregate) their electricity load in order to purchase clean energy and develop local projects and programs on behalf of their residents and businesses. Aggregators work in partnership with the region’s existing Investor-Owned Utility (IOU), which continues to deliver power and maintain the grid. In 2016 and 2017, the possibility of forming a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) provider for Contra Costa County was initiated by the County and reviewed by cities in the County with the matter being taken up by all cities and being on a number of Orinda City Council agendas (Attachment A). Ultimately, the County and many cities opted to join Marin Clean Energy, though the City of Orinda elected to not participate in a CCA. Attached is a current MCE Contra Costa Fact Sheet (Attachment B) which indicates that all but 4 Contra Costa cities are currently MCE members.

As another point of reference, the City of Fairfield in Solano County is the most recent city to have joined MCE, and select staff reports from their consideration are attached (Attachment C).

According to the California Community Choice Association website (https://cal-cca.org/) there are four operational models of CCAs:

Joint Powers Authority – A JPA is an independent, public agency that operates a CCA on behalf of its member municipalities. JPAs are a common legal structure in California for the administration of cooperative multi-jurisdictional programs.

MCE, Peninsula Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and Sonoma Clean Power are examples of CCAs that operate with the JPA model.

H.2
Packet Pg. 377
Single Jurisdiction – A city or county individually establishes and operates a CCA as an enterprise fund within the municipality. This model has the same benefits of the JPA model, but differs in that the City (or County) retains full program autonomy and all revenue. San Francisco and San Jose are examples of cities that have implemented CCA under the single jurisdiction model.

Hybrid JPA – Under a hybrid JPA, communities can contract for the services they need to operate a CCA by joining an existing joint-powers authority as an associate member. CalChoice is an example of a JPA, formed by the cities of Lancaster and San Jacinto, that offers a range of CCA services to cities that join as associate members. According to CalChoice, the hybrid JPA assists with CCA implementation, operation, and administration, while allowing jurisdictions to maintain local control over CCA programs.

Commercial Vendor Package – Under this model a private company manages the CCA on behalf of local government(s). King City Community Power is the only operational CCA program in California that has implemented CCA under this model.

Should the City Council wish to consider joining a CCA, staff believes joining one of the existing JPA would be the best course, with MCE being the most likely one given the commonality of member interests.

NEXT STEPS: If the Council determines it wishes to further consider joining a Community Choice Aggregation entity, it is recommended that a next step be to request the MCE or other entity make a presentation at future City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as a result of this item. There would be staff time and City Attorney costs to pursue joining a CCA if the Council opts to do so in the future.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. MCE FAQs 3.10.2022
B. Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts
C. Fairfield Staff Reports
D. RBK CCA Ltr to Orinda Council 4.8.22
E. Communication from Gene Gottfried
Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.2
Packet Pg. 378
H.2
Packet Pg. 379
MCE FAQ’s for the City of Orinda, 3/9/22
This document was prepared for the Orinda Community to better understand MCE service.

Please reach out to Leanne Hoadley, [email protected] or Mariela Herrick [email protected] with any questions.

Table of Contents
Introduction: Who is MCE?
How much city staff time is required when joining MCE?
Who governs and administers MCE?
Are there sub-committees to the MCE Board of Directors? Can cities consolidate their Board representation?
Do MCE’s member communities assume any financial risk or obligation for participating in MCE? What happens if a City decides to leave MCE and the JPA? MCE Rates
What is Community Choice Aggregation (CCAs)?
Why is MCE an Opt out Model?
Why is there an opt out fee?
Frequently Asked Questions:

How do I know that MCE is actually procuring 60% or 100% renewable energy on my behalf? Does MCE replace PG&E?
What is MCE’s Finance Strength?
Are any tax dollars used to finance or operate MCE?
Will I still receive bills from PG&E?
MCE Enrollment - Public Outreach
What is Net Energy Metering (NEM)?
How does MCE’s NEM program work?
Benefits of Joining MCE Service: Programs and Services
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: MCE FAQs 3.10.2022 (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation Introduction: Who is MCE?
MCE is a public, not-for-profit electricity provider that gives all PG&E electric customers (residential, commercial, and municipal) the choice of having 60% to 100% of their electricity supplied from clean, renewable sources—such as solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal, and hydroelectric—at competitive rates. MCE, as with all CCA’s, is regulated by the state regulatory agencies, such as the CPUC and CEC.

MCE’s mission is to confront the climate crisis by eliminating fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions, producing renewable energy, and creating equitable community benefits.

MCE offers renewable power at stable rates, significantly reducing energy-related greenhouse emissions and enabling millions of dollars of reinvestment in local energy programs. MCE currently serves more than one million residents and businesses in 37 Bay Area communities in Solano, Napa, Marin and Contra Costa Counties.

How much city staff time is required when joining MCE?
Very little. MCE manages and supports the entire enrollment process of a new city joining MCE, with guidance from the city. MCE creates a city-specific and comprehensive Community Action Plan, which includes timelines, media plans, key association and local leadership meetings, event and sponsorships, public meetings, etc. City staff will be consulted on all aspects of our planning, but are not required to lend extensive staff time.

Who governs and administers MCE?
MCE is governed by a 31-member Board of Directors representing each of the member communities that it serves. MCE’s local government structure ensures public transparency. The Board conducts its business in monthly meetings that are always open to the public. For more information about our Board and Committee meetings, please see the Meeting Archive.

Are there sub-committees to the MCE Board of Directors? Yes, there are two Board committees, the Technical Committee and the Executive Committee.

Board Committee Members are elected by vote of the Board of Directors at a public meeting. As of March 10, 2022, both Board Director Gina Dawson with the City of Lafayette and Board Director Teresa Onoda with the Town of Moraga are currently serving on the Technical Committee.

Can cities consolidate their Board representation?
Yes. Member communities have the option to consolidate their Board representation with a neighboring community. For example, in Napa county Supervisor Wagenknecht represents all of the member cities in the county of Napa and there are cities in Marin County that also consolidate their Board representative.

Do MCE’s member communities assume any financial risk or obligation for participating in MCE?
No. The cities and counties have firewalled their general funds through the formation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The debts and liabilities of the JPA do not extend to the member cities and counties. This firewall is protected by state law.

What happens if a City decides to leave MCE and the JPA? In our state’s opt-out model, a city can decide to opt out one, several or all of their municipal accounts from MCE at any time. Likewise, any resident or business can choose to opt out of H.2.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: MCE FAQs 3.10.2022 (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation MCE service at any time. If, alternatively, a city council voted to leave the JPA, the city residents and businesses would no longer be eligible to remain MCE customers, and would no longer have the choice to continue to have 60% to 100% renewable power purchased on their behalf.

As part of a new community joining MCE, power will be purchased on behalf of the new customers. If a jurisdiction were interested in withdrawing their entire jurisdiction from the JPA, the jurisdiction could be responsible for reimbursing MCE for the long-term energy contracts purchased on behalf of the jurisdiction. It may be possible with advanced notice, for MCE to make adjustments to short-term energy contracts. If another new jurisdiction is joining MCE near the same time, the energy purchased on behalf of the existing jurisdiction could be transitioned to the new jurisdiction.To date, no community has left MCE’s JPA nor has any community in California voted to leave.

MCE Rates
As of March 1st, 2022, based on a typical usage of a residential customer in our service area MCE customers total bill costs are approximately 8% lower than PG&E rates.

What is Community Choice Aggregation (CCAs)?
The California energy crisis of 2000-01 motivated cities and counties to want more transparency and control over the energy contracts being entered into and the rates being paid by their communities. One of the outcomes was the 2002 legislation Assembly Bill 117 Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), which authorized “customers to aggregate their electrical loads as members of their local community with community choice aggregators”.

MCE was California’s first Community Choice Aggregation agency. Today, there are 24 operational CCAs in California.

CCAs allow cities and/or counties to aggregate electrical loads of their residents, businesses, and municipal facilities to purchase energy on their behalf. Each CCA is administered with the mission to provide alternative electricity service to their local investor-owned utility (IOU) and to reflect its community’s preferences for energy procurement and local energy programs.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: MCE FAQs 3.10.2022 (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation Why is MCE an Opt out Model?
State law has determined the opt-out model to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to receive the benefits provided by Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs such as MCE, and to maximize cost-effectiveness for all customers.

Why is there an opt out fee?
There is no cost to opt out during the120-day notice period for new communities --60 days before the start of service and 60 days afterwards. After that, MCE charges a one-time administrative fee ($5 fee for residents and $25 fee for businesses) to cover the administrative cost of returning customers to PG&E service. Note: If the $5 fee causes a financial hardship, the MCE Customer Center representatives have authorization to waive this fee.

Frequently Asked Questions:
● How do I know that MCE is actually procuring 60% or 100% renewable energy on my behalf?
We are required to report to the California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission on an annual basis to verify the amount of renewable energy procured for our customers. This is the same standard used by other California utilities, such as PG&E, for verification purposes. Learn more about MCE’s verified renewable energy procurement from our most recent Power Content Label. ● Does MCE replace PG&E?
No. PG&E continues to provide all gas services, electric delivery, billing, and power line maintenance. MCE only replaces the electric generation services with 60-100% renewable energy at competitive rates.
● What is MCE’s Finance Strength?
MCE has achieved two investment-grade credit ratings, which helps MCE secure power at better rates. We have received “A” S&P and “BBB+” Fitch ratings. ● Are any tax dollars used to finance or operate MCE?
No, MCE does not receive tax dollars. MCE is funded by the revenue received from our customers based on the electricity they use.
● Will I still receive bills from PG&E?
Yes. All MCE customers are still PG&E customers. PG&E provides electric delivery services for MCE customers, like meter reading and power line maintenance. PG&E will continue to send your electric bill, which will include MCE electric generation charges.

MCE’s electric generation charges replace PG&E’s electric generation charges and account for the source of your energy. MCE is buying and building cleaner electricity supply for you. Learn more about billing.
● MCE Enrollment - Public Outreach
MCE begins enrollment planning soon after receiving approval from the CPUC that a new jurisdiction is approved to join the CCA. We will begin developing the Community Outreach Plan and schedule regular check-ins with designated city staff to keep them informed and collect input on outreach recommendations. ● What is Net Energy Metering (NEM)?
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: MCE FAQs 3.10.2022 (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation NEM is the billing mechanism used to credit customers with on-site renewable energy generation. NEM is the netting out of your energy produced vs. energy used. For MCE customers, PG&E NEM and MCE NEM processes occur in parallel. Starting in 2022, enrollment of NEM customers in new service areas will occur in the month of the individual NEM customer’s PG&E true-up date – not necessarily in April with all nonNEM customers ● How does MCE’s NEM program work?
Credits accrue at retail rates and are applied toward your monthly bills during the year; any remaining retail credits are zeroed out at cash-out. Annual surplus generation is Credited at 2x the average wholesale rate (double what PG&E offers) on MCE's annual cash out each spring. Additionally, billing occurs monthly and retail credits for excess generation are applied toward bills as they accumulate.

Benefits of Joining MCE Service: Programs and Services
100% Renewable Deep Green Service: By opting up to MCE’s Deep Green service, all of the power needed for your home or business comes from 100% non-polluting wind and solar power produced here in California.

MCE’s Workforce Education & Training program matches local contractors with pre-qualified job seekers. MCE pre-qualifies trained workers by partnering with local workforce development programs. MCE then matches them to contractors that need staff. MCE pays the job seekers for on-the-job experience to help them to gain future employment.

MCE has supported approximately 5,000 California construction jobs and 160+ operations and maintenance jobs that are temporary, but last the lifetime of the generating project. Additionally, MCE has supported 1.4 million labor hours; over 800,000 of these are union labor.

More information on MCE’s Energy and Cost Savings Programs: MCE has created programs to help customers save money and energy. By partnering with MCE, Orinda residents and businesses have access to participation in programs, such as:
● Residential Energy Savings offering free energy-saving tool kits, and home assessment and upgrades.
● Electric Vehicle rebates are available for income-qualified residents. MCE’s electric vehicle rebate is $3,500 and can be combined with other rebates such as the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.
● Electric Vehicle Charging Station rebates for commercial and multifamily properties.

MCE’s electric vehicle (EV) charging station rebates help workplaces and multifamily properties save significantly on hardware and installation costs. Our free technical assistance also provides you with an EV charging expert and electrician to make your project a reality.
● Small and medium business rebates and free energy assessments. ● Strategy Energy Management offering comprehensive energy management planning for commercial, agriculture and industrial customers.
● Programs to lower monthly utility bills are available to help MCE customers reduce their monthly energy bill, get caught up on late payments, and lower their energy usage.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: MCE FAQs 3.10.2022 (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item:

Date:

Department:
1-2
January 19, 2016
Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Discuss the Community Choice Aggregation options, including the programs sponsored by Contra Costa County, Marin Clean Energy and Alameda County.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review, discuss, and receive comments regarding the request from Contra Costa County to explore Community Choice Aggregation options and Direct Staff to Explore the Options by Approving a Request from Contra Costa County to Obtain Data for a Community Choice Aggregation Study.

BACKGROUND:

On November 19, 2015, the City received a request from Contra Costa County for authorization to obtain City electric load data from PG&E for a Community Choice Aggregation Study.

Assembly Bill (AB) 117 (2002) established Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) in California. CCA is a mechanism through which electrical consumers that normally can only access "bundled" electricity service (supply, transmission, and distribution) through a single utility can elect to procure electricity from an alternative supplier. AB 117 describes essential CCA program elements and requires the State's utilities to provide certain services to CCAs, including transmission, distribution, metering, and billing.

CCA allows local governments to purchase and/or develop clean power on behalf of their residents, businesses, and municipal accounts. CCA is an energy supply model that works in partnership with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to deliver renewable electricity, maintain the energy grid, and provide customer service and billing. Locally, Marin and Sonoma Counties have already established Community Choice Aggregation programs, Marin Clean Energy (MCE) in 2008 and Sonoma CleanPower in 2011.

In October 2015, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors directed County staff to research the County's options for implementing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA).

Two initial steps in the research process are for the County to collect electrical demand data for each city and the unincorporated area from the current electrical supplier, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and for the County to perform a study to analyze electrical demand and estimate electrical rates that might be charged under CCA. 10f4
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a The County has requested the assistance of cities in obtaining electrical demand data and funding a portion of the research (Attachment A). In order for the County to collect demand data for Orinda from PG&E, the City must provide authorization. In addition, the County is requesting that interested cities contribute funds to support the cost of a technical study, which could amount to approximately $15,000 for Orinda.

Potential benefits of CCA include increased local control over electricity supply, increased supply of renewable energy, and the potential for reduced electricity rates. The following table summarizes the status of Community Choice Aggregation in Contra Costa Communities.

Community Status
Antioch CCC and MCE Pending re: NRG project
Brentwood CC mtg 1-26-16 - Pending
Clayton CC mtc 1-19-16 - Pending
Concord Council approved County request - 1-12-16
Danville Council approved County request - 1-12-16
EI Cerrito Currently an MCE Member
Hercules CCC authorized
Lafayette CC mtg 1-25-16 - Pending - MCE Queue
Martinez Information not available
Moraqa Pendinq - Leaning towards MCE
Oakley CCC approved also interested in MCE
Pinole CC mtg 1-19-16 - Pending
Pittsburg Information not available
Pleasant Hill Council approved County request - 12-7-15 Richmond Currently an MCE Member
San Pablo Currently an MCE Member
San Ramon Council approved County request - 1-12-16
Walnut Creek CCC approved also interested in MCE
SUMMARY:

In addition to the option of joining the research process for Contra Costa County, there is an option of joining an established Clean Energy Program such as Marin Clean Energy or the soon to be established Alameda County, East Bay Clean Power.

On November 4, the County presented an overview of CCA and outlined the schedule of activities that needed to be implemented to lay the groundwork for a Contra Costa County JPA. Representatives from MCE and Alameda County also attended the meeting on November 4 to answer questions regarding their programs. Additionally, at the December Mayor's Conference, Contra Costa County representative Jason Crapo announced the outreach to cities and briefly described the proposed program. Staff is recommending that the City Council respond to the request, and authorize the County to collect electrical demand data for Orinda and approve the expenditure of up to $15,000 toward the technical study.
20f4
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a There are three alternatives for the Council to consider:
• Form a new Joint Powers Authority comprised of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County
~ Local Control
~ Costs and time frames are unknown
• Form a new JPA comprised of interested jurisdictions in Contra Costa County and Alameda County (Alameda County is calling its program "East Bay Clean Power")
~ Costs and time frame is also unknown
~ Semi - local control
• Join the Community Choice Aggregation JPA established in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
~ Costs and Operations are well defined, MCE was established in 2008 and has been serving customers since 2010
~ Currently there are 15 communities and 2 counties in the JPA ~ No local control, Board impact could be minimal
~ Time frame for inclusion is currently unknown
~ Costs are waived until March 31, 2016 if a non-binding Letter of Intent is submitted before that date. If a LOI is submitted, to continue the process, Council must:
o Approve an Ordinance, Resolution and submit a
Memorandum of Understanding which provides MCE the
authority to obtain electric load data from PG&E which is binding. MCE will then conduct a Membership Analysis that includes:
../ The effect of the addition of Orinda residents on
greenhouse gas emissions, and;
../ An Electricity Generation Study that will determine if Orinda rates will remain at the same or a lower level.
../ Upon the completion of both of these litmus tests,
MCE Board votes for inclusion in the program.

NEXT STEPS:

If Council directs staff to move forward with authorizing the County to access the PG&E data, then staff will respond to the County Administrator indicating the City's interest in authorizing the County to obtain our load data from PG&E. 30f4
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a FISCAL IMPACT:

The County does not have actual cost estimates, but Orinda's costs could be approximately $15,000. Funds are not included in the City's budget, so the cost of the technical study would come from reserves.

Attachments:

Attachment A - Request for Authorization for City Electric Load Data for CCA Attachment B - Sample Letter of Support
Respectfully submitted by,
~"'L~~
Jale~S. Keeter
City Manager
Prepared by: Tanya Gilmore
Senior Managment Analyst
40f4
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a County Administrator Contra
Costa
County
City of Orinda
City Manager/City Clerk Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez, California 94553-1229
(925) 335-1080
(925) 335-1098 FAX
NOV 191015
John M. Gioia
1" District
Candace Andersen
2""District
RECEIVED Mary N. Piepho
3'd District
Karen Mitchoff
4" District
David J. Twa
County Administrator
Federal D. Glover
5'" District
November 13, 2015
Janet Keeter, City Manager
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
RE: Request for Authorization to Obtain City Electric Load Data for Community Choice Aggregation Study
Dear Ms. Keeter:

On October 13, 2015, the Board of Supervisors directed County staff to investigate three alternatives for Community Choice Aggregation in the unincorporated area of the County, and to engage cities within the County to determine the interest of cities in studying these alternatives. The three alternatives under consideration are as follows:
• Form a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) comprised of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of Community Choice Aggregation • Form a new JPA comprised of interested cities in Contra Costa County and Alameda County and its participating cities for the purpose of Community Choice Aggregation • Join the existing Community Choice Aggregation JPA established in Marin County, known as Marin Clean Energy
Please reply to this letter by January 31, 2016, to indicate your city's interest in authorizing the County to obtain your city's electrical load data from PG&E for the purpose of studying alternatives for Community Choice Aggregation, and to indicate your city's willingness to share in the cost of such a study. A sample resolution and letter of authorization are attached for your convenience; either document is sufficient to meet PG&E's approval requirements.

Attachment A
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Request for Authorization to Obtain City Load Data from PG& Background
2 Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is the practice of aggregating consumer electricity demand within a jurisdiction or region for the purpose of procuring electricity and selling it to customers.

Authorized in California State law since 2002, Community Choice Aggregation has been practiced in several states across the country for the past few decades.

CCA has benefits, costs and risks for local governments to consider. Potential benefits include increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources; lower electricity rates for residents, business and public agencies; increased competition in the electricity market; and, greater local control over decisions related to the procurement and consumption of electricity.

Costs and risks associated with CCAinclude the cost of the various start-up activities necessary to initiate service to customers and the risk these costs may not be recovered. Costs and risks will vary depending on the CCAalternatives chosen by local jurisdictions.

The investigation of CCAalternatives in Contra Costa County requires a technical study to estimate the electricity rates that would be charged to customers under the three CCAalternatives under consideration. Such a technical study requires that electricity load data for each participating jurisdiction be obtained from PG&E. Subject to direction by the Board of Supervisors, my office will initiate such a data request on behalf of participating jurisdictions within the County. The County is interested to know if your city will authorize the County Administrator to request load data on the City's behalf. Your permission for the County to request your community's electrical load data from PG&E would in no way obligate your city to participate in CCA.

Once electricltv load data is received by the County from PG&E for participating jurisdictions, this data may be used to conduct a technical study that will evaluate electricity demand within these jurisdictions to estimate the electricity rates that would be charged to customers under the three CCA alternatives being considered. The County is interested to know if the City would be willing to share in the cost of this technical study. The total cost of the study would likely be in the range of $75,000 - $150,000. The County proposes this cost would be shared among the participating jurisdictions. For example, if the County and nine cities were to share in the cost of the technical study, the estimated cost for each participating jurisdiction would be in the range of $7,500 to $15,000. Following the conclusion of this study, participating jurisdictions would evaluate its findings and decide whether to pursue one of the CCAalternatives studied. Depending on the chosen course of action, some or all of the start-up costs may be recoverable.

To assist County residents, business owners, elected officials, and other interested parties to better understand Community Choice Aggregation, the County will host three (3) workshops in West, Central and East County during the month of December. The meeting times and locations are as follows:
• December 10, Walnut CreekCity Hall,7:00 - 9:00 PM
• December 14, Hercules PublicLibrary, 7:00 - 9:00 PM
• December 16, Brentwood Community Center, 7:00- 9:00 PM H.2.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Request for Authorization to Obtain City Load Data from PG& Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jason Crapo with the County Dept. of Conservation and Development at (925) 674-7722 or [email protected]. r
...

Sincerely,

DAVID TWA
County Administrator
Enclosed: Sample load data authorization resolution and authorization letter H.2.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a [Date]
David Twa, County Administrator
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine St., 10th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Support for Electrical Load Data Request to study the feasibility of a Community Choice Aggregation Program in the County of Contra Costa
Dear Mr. Twa:

We have reviewed your letter in which you explain the County's plan to request from PG&E the County of Contra Costa's electric energy use data, i.e. electricity consumption and load data for all customer classes and customers located within the County's unincorporated land area and within the jurisdictions of the County, including [name of city]. We support this request and authorize the County of Contra Costa to receive and analyze the electrical load data on behalf of the City.

We understand that this data will be used to investigate the feasibility of electrical procurement options through a potential Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program that could cover all or part of Contra Costa County. We understand that by making this authorization and request, the City of [name of city] is not obligated to pursue any alternative electricity procurement through a CCA program in the future.

Sincerely,
[City Manager's Name]
City Manager
Cc:

Attachment B
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item:

Date:

Department:
1-2
May 3,2016
Planning
AGENDA TITLE:

Contra Costa County's Community Choice Energy Technical Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council consider a presentation by Contra Costa County on Community Choice Energy (CCE) and discuss and receive comments regarding the request from Contra Costa County to authorize up to $10,000 to participate as a Party in a Technical Study of Electrical Load Data for Community Choice Energy.

BACKGROUND:

On January 19, 2016, the City Council reviewed a request from Contra Costa County for authorization to obtain Orinda's electrical load data from PG&E for a Community Choice Aggregation Study and assist in financing the technical study (Attachment A). The City Council authorized release of the data, but did not commit to pursue Community Choice Aggregation further or authorize a financial contribution due to lack of information (Attachment B).

Since that time, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a hearing on March 15, 2016 considering three options for further pursuit of CCE alternatives (Attachment C). The Board of Supervisors chose "Option 1": Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E and conduct a technical study of the following three CCE alternatives:
• Form a new joint powers authority (JPA) of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of implementing CCE • Join Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
• Form a new JPA with Alameda County and the interested group of cities in the two-county region.

The County has begun to move forward with Option 1 by drafting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the technical study (Attachment D). A preliminary draft of the technical study RFP has also been prepared (Attachment E). The technical study will analyze electrical load data for all County jurisdictions that are not already members of MCE and therefore would be eligible to participate in a JPA. The MOU differentiates between "Parties" and "Partners." Parties include the unincorporated County as well as cities that have contributed financially to the technical study. Those jurisdictions that H.2.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a decide not to contribute financially to the technical study will be included as Partners.

Partners will not be included in the technical study RFP development, consultant selection or draft review process, but data from these jurisdictions will be analyzed as part of the study and these jurisdictions will have the option to join a JPA at a later date.

The current listing of Parties and Partners for the technical study is presented in the table below, along with financial contributions.

City Cost Sharing for Tech Study Role in Tech Study
Antioch Not participating Partner
Brentwood Yes, not to exceed $30,000 Party
Clayton Yes, not to exceed $5,000 Party
Concord Yes, not to exceed $25,000 Party
Danville Yes, not to exceed $18,000 Party
EI Cerrito Joined MCE Not Included
Hercules Not participating Partner
Lafayette Joined MCE Not Included
Martinez Yes, not to exceed $15,000 Party
Moraga Pending TBD
Oakley Not participating Partner
Orinda Pending TBD
Pinole Pending TBD
Pittsburg Yes, not to exceed $15,000 Party
Pleasant Hill Yes, not to exceed $15,000 Party
Richmond Joined MCE Not Included
San Pablo Joined MCE Not Included
San Ramon Pending TBD
Walnut Creek Joined MCE Not Included
SUMMARY:

In order to be included in the MOU as a Party rather than a Partner, Jason Crapo of Contra Costa County's Department of Conservation and Development has requested that the Council authorize a financial contribution not to exceed $10,000 by May 27, 2016 (Attachment F).

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Mr. Crapo will present the materials contained in Attachment G and will be available to respond to questions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If Orinda decides to become a Party in the MOU, the County will be responsible for paying the consultant conducting the technical study, but will request reimbursement from Orinda in an amount proportional to Orinda's 2015 population as a percentage of the overall population of all MOU parties. The maximum reimbursement expected for Orinda is $10,000. Therefore, authorization of $10,000 would be required from the City Council at this time.

The actual amount Orinda would owe the County for the City's share of the technical study will be calculated as follows:
[(Total Consultant Charges)] x [(City's 2015 Population) + (Population of all MOU parties)] = Amount of City's Reimbursement to County
This actual amount cannot be calculated at this time because it will depend on the final cost of the technical study and whether or not other undecided cities (San Ramon, Moraga and Pinole) join the MOU. A draft allocation of actual cost for the technical study is provided as Attachment H. The draft allocation for Orinda, assuming a study cost of $150,000 and assuming that all four undecided cities join the MOU, would be $4,168.

If the County decides to form a JPA for a new CCE program as a result of the technical study, Orinda could choose to participate in that JPA and would be reimbursed for the City's financial contribution to the technical study through revenues of the new CCE program.

If Orinda decides to instead be a Partner in the technical study, there will be no cost impact unless the City opts into a JPA in the future.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - City Council Staff Report, January 19, 2016 Attachment B - City of Orinda Electricity Data Authorization Attachment C - CCC Board of Supervisors Staff Report and Action, March 15, 2016 Attachment D - Draft Memorandum of Understanding
Attachment E - Draft Request for Proposals
Attachment F - CCC Request for Orinda's Decision Regarding Technical Study Attachment G - CCC Community Choice Energy Presentation Attachment H - Draft Allocation of Cost for Technical Study H.2.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Respectfully submitted by,
Daisy Allen, Assistant Planner
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item:

Date:

BACKGROUND:

On November 19, 2015, the City received a request from Contra Costa County for authorization to obtain City electric load data from PG&E for a Community Choice Aggregation Study.

In October 2015, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors directed County staff to research the County's options for implementing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA).

Two initial steps in the research process are for the County to collect electrical demand data for each city and the unincorporated area from the current electrical supplier, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and for the County to perform a study to analyze electrical demand and estimate electrical rates that might be charged under CCA. 1 af4 Attachment A
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a The County has requested the assistance of cities in obtaining electrical demand data and funding a portion of the research (Attachment A). In order for the County to collect demand data for Orinda from PG&E, the City must provide authorization. In addition, the County is requesting that interested cities contribute funds to support the cost of a technical study, which could amount to approximately $15,000 for Orinda.

Community Status
Antioch CCC and MCE Pending re: NRG project
Brentwood CC mtg 1-26-16 - Pending
Clayton CC mtg 1-19-16 - Pending
Concord Council approved County request - 1-12-16
Danville Council approved County request - 1-12-16
EI Cerrito Currently an MCE Member
Hercules CCC authorized
Lafayette CC mtg 1-25-16 - Pending - MCE Queue
Martinez Information not available
Moraga Pending - Leaning towards MCE
Oakley CCC approved also interested in MCE
Pinole CC mtg 1-19-16 - Pending
Pittsburg Information not available
Pleasant Hill Council approved County request - 12-7-15 Richmond Currently an MCE Member
San Pablo Currently an MCE Member
San Ramon Council approved County request - 1-12-16
Walnut Creek CCC approved also interested in MCE
SUMMARY:

On November 4, the County presented an overview of CCA and outlined the schedule of activities that needed to be implemented to lay the groundwork for a Contra Costa County JPA. Representatives from MCE and Alameda County also attended the meeting on November 4 to answer questions regarding their programs. Additionally, at the December Mayor's Conference, Contra Costa County representative Jason Crapo announced the outreach to cities and briefly described the proposed program. Staff is recommending that the City Council respond to the request, and authorize the County to collect electrical demand data for Orinda and approve the expenditure of up to $15,000 toward the technical study.
20f4
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a There are three alternatives for the Council to consider:
• Form a new Joint Powers Authority comprised of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County
)r Local Control
y Costs and time frames are unknown
• Form a new JPA comprised of interested jurisdictions in Contra Costa County and Alameda County (Alameda County is calling its program "East Bay Clean Power")
)r Costs and time frame is also unknown
)r Semi - local control
• Join the Community Choice Aggregation JPA established in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
';r Costs and Operations are well defined, MCE was established in 2008 and has been serving customers since 2010
)r Currently there are 15 communities and 2 counties in the JPA y No local control, Board impact could be minimal
y Time frame for inclusion is currently unknown
)r Costs are waived until March 31, 2016 if a non-binding Letter of Intent is submitted before that date. If a LOI is submitted, to continue the process, Council must:
o Approve an Ordinance, Resolution and submit a
Memorandum of Understanding which provides MCE the
authority to obtain electric load data from PG&E which is binding. MCE will then conduct a Membership Analysis that includes:
./ The effect of the addition of Orinda residents on
greenhouse gas emissions, and;
./ An Electricity Generation Study that will determine if Orinda rates will remain at the same or a lower level.
./ Upon the completion of both of these litmus tests,
MCE Board votes for inclusion in the program.

NEXT STEPS:

If Council directs staff to move forward with authorizing the County to access the PG&E data, then staff will respond to the County Administrator indicating the City's interest in authorizing the County to obtain our load data from PG&E. 30f4
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a FISCAL IMPACT:

Attachments:

Attachment A - Request for Authorization for City Electric Load Data for CCA Attachment B - Sample Letter of Support
Respectfully submitted by,
Janet S. Keeter
City Manager
Prepared by: Tanya Gilmore
Senior Managment Analyst
40f4
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a 2g orinda way ~orinda @ california g 94563
.....

January 22, 2016
David Twa, County Administrator
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street. 10lhFIoor
Martinez, CA 94553
SUbject: Support for Electrical Load Data Request
Dear Mr. Twa:

We have reviewed your letter in which you explain the County's plan to request from PG&E the County of Contra Costa's electric energy use data, i.e. electricity consumption and load data for all customer classes and customers located within the County's unincorporated land area and within the jurisdictions of the County, including the City of Orinda. At Its meeting on January 19, 2016. the Orinda City CoUncil discussed this request and authorized the County of Contra Costa to receive the electrical load data for the City of Orinda.

We understand that this data Will be used by the County to investigate the feasibility of electrical procurement options through a potential Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program that could cover all or part of Contra Costa County. The City of Orinda has not yet detennlned whether It will investigate CCA further, and would need additional information from the County before making such a detennination. I understand that by giving the County this data authOrization, the City of Orinda is not obligated to Investigate or pursue a CCA program in the future. Likewise, at this time, the City of Orinda is not offering or committing any funds towards the cost of the CCA feaslbilHy study proposed by the County. Again, the City of Orinda would need additional infonnation from the County before taking such a step.

8.i.!:lcerely, //~') .(
( _,."".r IY' J .j' ,~J",",~:i
""'-'~"-''''' , :;....~;"."'.A,.·J{'.",'·-.,.1
Jartet Keeter"
CitYManager
00: Mayor and Council
Jason Crapo, County Department of Conservation and Development.

Attachment 8
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a D.5
To: Board of Supervisors
From: John Kopchik, Director. Conservation & Development Department Contra
Costa
County
Date: March 15, 2016
Subject: Consider options for potential implementation of Community Choice Energy within the unincorporated area of the County.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

Consider the following options regarding potential implementation of Community Choice Energy (CCE) within the unincorporated area of the County:

Option 1: Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E and conduct a technical study of the following three CCE alternatives:
• Form a new joint powers authority of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of implementing Community Choice Energy • Join Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
• Form a new joint powers authority with Alameda County and the interested group of cities in the two-county region
Option 2: Proceed with the steps necessary to join Marin Clean Energy (MCE).

Option 3: Undertake an abbreviated technical study summarizing technical studies recently completed by other Bay Area cities and counties and including a comparison of tradeoff's between CCE alternatives available to the County.

APPROVE OTHER

RECOMMENDA TION OF CNTY

ADMINISTRA TOR

RECOMMENDA TION OF BOARD

COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 03/1512016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: SELECTED OPTION I

YOTE OF SI'PERYTSORS
AYE John GIOia. District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen. District II
Supervisor
Man N PIepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff. Distr ict IV
Superv isor
Federal D Glover. District V
Supervisor
[hereby cerufv that this IS a true and correct COPy of an action taken and entered on the rnmutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown
ATTESTED: March 15,2016
David.l. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June Mcl-luen, Deputy
Contact: 925-674-7722
cc Attachment C
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a FISCAL IMPACT:

Option 1: Technical Study
The estimated cost of the activities associated with partnering with cities within the County to conduct a technical study of Community Choice Energy is $400,000. This includes an estimated $225,000 in consulting services and $175,000 in County staff costs to manage the project. Staff recommends that the cities be proposed to share in the cost of the technical study consultant, which would reduce the County's overall cost to $300,000.

These costs would include an amendment to the County's current consulting services contact with LEAN Energy to increase the contract limit by $75,000 to assist DCD with obtaining electrical load data from PG&E, refining the scope of the technical study and developing the RFP, evaluating proposals from consultants for conducting the technical study, interpreting the results of the technical study and reporting the findings of the technical study to cities, the JOC and the Board of Supervisors. LEAN Energy would also assist County staff in conducting community outreach activities to provide information and education to the public and to gather public input to assist decision-makers in evaluating the results of the technical study.

The cost of the actions associated with Option 1 also includes an estimated $50,000 for the County's share of cost for conducting a technical study. The total cost of the technical study is estimated to be up to $150,000. The balance of the cost not paid by the County is proposed to be paid by participating cities proportionate to their share of the total population of the jurisdictions covered by the study.

The estimated $175,000 cost of County staff time for management of the activities associated with Option 1 includes DCD staff time until the end of 2016 at a cost of approximately $150,000 plus the cost of County Counsel staff time, estimated to be $25,000 during 2016.

If a technical study resulted in the County taking additional steps to implement a CCE program, such steps would involve additional time and expense. The cost of these aditional steps would depend on the outcome of the study. The estimated schedule and budget following completion of a technical study is described in more detail in Attachment E to this report. The greatest expense would be associated with a scenario involving the formation of a new joint powers authority of the County and cities within Contra Costa County. The cost of forming such a JPA and launching a program is estimated to be approximately $2 million. These costs would likely be reimbursed by the JPA to the County from CCE program revenues.

Option 2: Take Steps to Join MCE
The estimated cost of activities associated with studying membership in MCE that would be comparable to a full technical study is minimal. There may be some research required of County staff and consultants to answer questions the Board may have regarding MCE, but the estimated cost of addressing these issues would be no more than $10,000.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a If the Board reaches a decision to join MCE and directs staff to take the actions necessary to do so, there would would be additional costs of approximately $50,000 associated with County staff time in DCD and County Counsel related to preparing an ordinance and resolution for adoption by the Board, assisting MCE with program launch activities, and coordinating with Contra Costa cities regarding MCE membership. These costs could be described as "back-end" costs and are not comparable to the "front-end" costs associated with the costs of a technical study as described in Option 1 above. The back-end costs of $50,000 are more comparable to the back-end costs associated with JPA formation and program launch activities that might follow a technical study, as described more fully in Attachment E.

Option 3: Abbreviated Technical Study
The cost of this option is estimated to be approximately $65,000. This would include $50,000 in consulting services to perform the study and $15,000 in County staff time for project management. The cost of next steps would depend on the approach selected, similar to Option 1, however a portion ofa full technical study could be necessary if the abbreviated technical study prompted selection of the option to form a new JPA.

Summary
Overall, the cost of Option 1 (Technical Study) is by far the greatest, and the cost of Option 2 (Join MCE) is the least. Option 3 (Abbreviated Technical Study) represents a middle ground that would provide some of the benefits of a full technical study at a reduced cost and in a shorter time period.

Reimbursement and Potential Source of County Funds
The County would seek to have its costs associated with this project reimbursed in the future from the revenues of a new CCE program should a new JPA be created for this purpose. If a new JPA is not established, the County's costs are unlikely to be reimbursed.

DCD's costs related to this project in the current fiscal year, including the cost of consulting services, can be offset by the unspent portion of the $200,000 in General Fund revenues budgeted in DCD for FY 2015-2016 for the newly created position of County Sustainability Coordinator, which has not yet been filled. Depending on the direction chosen by the Board, it is anticipated that most, if not all, costs associated with this project in FY 2015-2016 can be paid for from this funding source.

BACKGROUND:

Community Choice Energy (CCE) is described in State law as Community Choice Aggregation. CCE involves cities and counties, or a joint powers authority (JP A) composed of cities and/or counties, pooling ("aggregating") retail electricity customers for the purpose of procuring and selling electricity. Under a CCE program, the CCE entity would become the default electricity provider to all electricity customers within the H.2.b
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a service area. Customers would have the ability to opt out of service from the CCE and return to service from the incumbent electrical utility. In Contra Costa County, the incumbent electrical utility is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).

Following the successful launch ofCCE programs in Marin County in 2010 and Sonoma County in 2014, most other counties in the Bay Area and many counties throughout California are now in the process of implementing or studying the creation of CCE programs. The City and County of San Francisco and San Mateo County are planning to launch CCE programs in 2016. Alameda County and Santa Clara County are both in the process of establishing JPAs for this purpose and plan to launch programs in 2017.

On October 13,2015, the Board of Supervisors (Board) accepted the recommendations of the Internal Operations Committee (lOC) and directed County staff to initiate outreach to cities within Contra Costa County to determine the level of interest cities have in joining with the County to investigate three alternatives for potentially implementing CCE in Contra Costa County. These three alternatives are:

1. Form a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of CCE;

2. Form a new JPA in partnership with Alameda County, and interested cities in both counties; and

3. Join the existing CCE program initiated in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy, or MCE
At its meeting on February 29,2016, the lOC considered a status report from the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) concerning CCE and heard from numerous members of the public. The IOC directed DCD to prepare a report to the Board of Supervisors (Board) presenting options for proceeding with potential implementation of CCE in the County's jurisdiction, including continuing work with cities to complete a technical study of the three CCE alternatives mentioned above, or proceeding with steps to join the CCE program known as Marin Clean Energy (MCE). Subsequent to the IOC meeting, staff identified an additional option not discussed at the lOC meeting, which is for the County to conduct an abbreviated technical study summarizing other technical studies that have been recently released by Bay Area cities and counties, and including a comparison of tradeoffs between CCE alternatives.

Results of Outreach to Contra Costa Cities
Between November 2015 and January 2016, County staff conducted a variety of outreach activities to engage cities on the topic of CCE. These activities included meetings with City Managers and other city staff: attendance at the December 3, 2015 Mayors Conference, three public workshops in mid-December held in different regions of the County, and presentations provided by County staff and consultants at five City Council meetings during the month of January.

On November 13,2015, the County Administrator sent a letter (Attachment A) to all City H.2.b
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Managers in Contra Costa County asking for responses back from cities by January 31, 2016 indicating the level of interest cities have in partnering with the County to study CCE. This letter specifically asked if cities would authorize the County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E for the purpose of potentially conducting a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County, and if the cities would be willing to contribute financially towards the cost of such a study if one were conducted.

To facilitate greater public understanding of CCE and assist cities in their deliberations on the subject, DCD staff and consultants hosted three public workshops in December 2015: the first on December 10 at Walnut Creek City Hall, the second on December 14 at the Hercules Public Library and the third on December 16 at the Brentwood Community Center. Average attendance at these workshops was approximately 20 people, and several cities sent representatives to attend the workshops.

During the month of January 2016, many City Councils throughout the County placed items on their agendas to discuss their interest in partnering with the County to further study implementation of CCE. County staff and consultants were invited to attend and make presentations at the Concord, Clayton, Pinole, Lafayette and Brentwood City Council meetings.

The workshops and city council meetings held in December and January generated several press articles, which can be viewed at the following links:
• East Bay Express: (10/12/151
• Contra Costa Times: 1I/8/ 161
• The Press: ( 10/29/151
• Yodeler (Sierra Club): 1I/28116)
• East Bav Express: (1/29/16)
• Marin]]: 12/16116)
• The Press: 12118/16}
Responses from Cities
By the end of January, all 16 cities in Contra Costa County not currently enrolled in a CCE program (Richmond, EI Cerrito and San Pablo are currently enrolled in Marin Clean Energy) provided written responses to the County (Attachment B) authorizing the County to request electrical load data from PG&E necessary for a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County. Approximately half of these cities indicated varying degrees of willingness to participate in the cost of a technical study of this data, should such a study proceed. These responses are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. City Responses to County
City
Antioch
Load Data
Authorization
Yes
Cost Sharing for Tech
Study
No indication
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Brentwood Yes Yes, not to exceed $30,000
Clayton Yes Yes, pending more details
Concord Yes Yes, not to exceed $25,000
Danville Yes Yes, not to exceed $18,000
Hercules Yes No indication
Lafayette Yes No indication
Martinez Yes No indication
Moraga Yes No indication
Oakley Yes No indication
Orinda Yes Need more information
Pinole Yes Need more information
Pittsburg Yes Yes, pending more details
Pleasant Hill Yes Yes, not to exceed $15,000
San Ramon Yes Maybe, pending more details
Walnut
Yes Yes, not to exceed $20,000 Creek
Internal Operations Committee Discussion and Direction
At its meeting on February 29, 2016, the Internal Operations Committee directed staff to present the Board with information concerning two options for consideration. One option is to proceed to work with cities in Contra Costa County to conduct a technical study of alternatives for implementing CCE. The other option is to forego such a technical study and proceed immediately to apply for membership in the CCE program called Marin Clean Energy, or MCE. MCE was created in Marin County, and has now expanded to serve jurisdictions in the Counties of Marin, Napa, Solano and Contra Costa, including the cities of Richmond, EI Cerrito and San Pablo. Subsequent to the IOC meeting, staff conceived an alternative not discussed at the IOC meeting, which is for the County to conduct an abbreviated technical study summarizing other technical studies that have been recently released by Bay Area cities and counties, and including a comparison of tradeoffs between CCE alternatives.

Each of these three options has advantages and disadvantages, summarized as follows:

Option 1 - Proceed with Technical Study: Tfthe County proceeds to conduct a technical study of CCE with a group of interested Contra Costa cities, the advantages are that County and the cities will receive additional information regarding projected CCE revenues and electricity rates under various renewable energy portfolio scenarios and a comparative analysis of the three CCE alternatives under consideration. The technical study would provide information about revenues that could be generated for new local programs and initiatives to promote energy efficiency and economic development through renewable energy generation projects. The technical study would inform decisions by the Board and city councils to either implement one of the three options studied, or to take no additional action. The disadvantages of conducting a technical study H.2.b
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a are the time and expense associated with conducting the study.

The immediate next step in performing a technical study would be for the County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E on behalf of the County and the 16 cities that have authorized the County to do so. This would provide the County with detailed information regarding electrical usage within the covered jurisdictions, and would constitute the raw data necessary to conduct a technical study of potential CCE implementation within the County.

Based on prior Board direction, a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County would evaluate three options: a program including only interested jurisdictions within Contra Costa County; a program that is a partnership with Alameda County and interested cities in the two-county region; and joining the existing CCE program originated in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy, or MCE.

Such a technical study would be conducted by a qualified consultant selected through a competitive process. The technical study would evaluate electrical load data to determine the amount of electricity a CCE program would need to procure in order to serve electricity consumers in the participating communities, and would estimate the billing rates that a CCE program would need to charge electricity customers in order to pay for program operations.

The study would analyze how rates might vary under scenarios in which the CCE program offered customers different levels of electricity originating from renewable sources (for example, rates associated with 50% renewable or 100% renewable options).

Electricity rates for these scenarios would be compared to products offered by the incumbent utility, PG&E (Attachment C). The technical study would also include a risk analysis of factors that could potentially interfere with successful operation of a CCE program within the County, such as risks associated with price volatility in energy markets and risks stemming from legal or regulatory changes. CCE technical studies performed in other Bay Area counties have included additional components, including analysis of the impact a CCE program might have on local renewable power generation and local job creation.

As stated in Table 1 above, roughly half of the cities in Contra Costa County have indicated some degree of willingness to contribute financially towards the cost of a technical study. Staff recommends that if the Board directs OCD to work with cities to finalize payment arrangement and initiate the technical study, the County and each participating city pay for a portion of the cost of the technical study similar to its proportion of the total population covered under the study.

If the Board directs staff to proceed with a technical study, staff would work with the cities to finalize the scope of the technical study, develop and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP), and select a consultant to perform the technical study. The County would then enter into a contract with the selected consultant. The results of the technical H.2.b
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a study would be reported to the cities and the Board of Supervisors, and staff would seek further direction.

Option 2 - Join MCE: The advantages of the County proceeding to take steps now to join MCE are substantially lower start-up costs and a faster time to CCE program launch within the area served. The County would be able to leverage the considerable success MCE has achieved in creating a high-quality CCE program and would not need to go through the time and expense of recreating a similar program. A disadvantage of the County proceeding to join MCE without performing a technical study is that the County will not have access to information about the revenues projected to be generated from CCE electricity sales within the County and the potential to use such revenues to reduce consumer electricity rates, procure greater amounts of renewable energy, incentivize increased local renewable energy generation, or other purposes. Ifthe County joins MCE, the revenues generated from electricity sales in Contra Costa County will be contolled by MCE's Board of Directors, who would represent jurisdictions covering portions or all of four counties, meaning that investments in initiatives such as additional renewable energy production would be spread over a larger area and controlled by a broader group of board members than a Contra Costa JPA . The County would also forego an opportunity to more thoroughly consider the tradeoffs between the three CCE alternatives the Board has previously expressed interest in evaluating through a technical study.

MCE is now comprised of 17 member jurisdictions. These include Marin County, all 11 cities in Marin County, the County of Napa, the City of Benecia, and the cities of Richmond, EI Cerrito and San Pablo. MCE is presently accepting applications for new membership from jurisdiction within the four counties currently being served. MCE staff has indicated that all of the cities in Napa County are seeking membership during MCE's current inclusion period, which closes on March 31, 2016. Several additional cities in Contra Costa County are giving consideration to joining MCE as well, including Lafayette, Moraga, Oakley and Walnut Creek. If additional jurisdictions within the Counties of Contra Costa and Solano join MCE, the number of MCE's member jurisdictions could grow to 40 or more. MCE has weighted vote system that is 50% dependent on proportion of electrical load. Were Contra Costa Couty to join, it would likely have athe largest vote of any single member.

If the County directs staff to take steps necessary to join MCE, the technical steps involved would include the County sending a letter of interest to MCE and subsequently adopting an ordinance and entering into a joint powers agreement to join MCE. MCE staff has indicated that the County could submit a letter of interest to MCE after the current MCE inclusion period closes on March 31, 2016, and that cities could join the County in its request for membership. Opening a new inclusion period for the County and Contra Costa cities, and approval of the County's membership in MCE, would be subject to approval by MCE's Board of Directors.

County staff would work with MCE staff to complete other necessary technical and operational steps, and to conduct marketing activities within the unincorporated area as H.2.b
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a part of MCE' s program launch in the new service area. The Board of Supervisors would need to designate one of its members as the County's representative on the MCE Board of Directors.

Should the Board wish to further contemplate joining MCE in the near term, staff recommends the County consider several uncertainties, the outcome of which will likely have an impact on the County. These include:
• Policy and organizational changes MCE may make as it continues to evolve into a regional agency rather than one originally formed solely to serve Marin County, such as
o Change of name from MCE to a new name reflecting regional identity o Rotate the location of MCE Board meetings and add an office in Contra Costa County
o Change Board membership and voting structure as MCE membership grows o Limits on geography area served and related limits on membership • Comparison between MCE and PG&E billing rates for Contra Costa customers • Policies to promote economic development and renewable energy generation in Contra Costa County
MCE is aware that such issues may be of concern to the County and other jurisdictions considering membership in MCE. MCE is evaluating these issues, but decisions have not yet been made (see Attachment D for information from MCE concerning these and other issues ).

Option 3: Abbreviated Technical Study: Instead of conducting a full technical study, an alternative the Board may wish to consider is to conduct an abbreviated technical study that would summarize recently released technical studies conducted by other Bay Area cities and counties and would analyze tradeoffs between CCE options; for example, forming a new JPA versus joining an existing CCE program, such as MCE. The advantages of this alternative are that the Board would receive additional information regarding projected electricity rates under varying renewable energy scenarios, risk analysis, and economic development and renewable generation opportunities for jurisdictions that are similar to the County. Another advantage of this alternative is that it could be done at a lower cost and in a shorter amount of time than a full technical study, which would involve obtaining load data from PG&E and performing a detailed analysis of that data. A disadvantage of this alternative is that the analysis would not be specific to the County electricity load data and therefore some of the findings may not be as precise or reliable as a full technical study. Also, if the eventual outcome is to form a new .IPA, portions of a full technical study, including analysis of electrical load data specific to Contra Costa County, would need to be subsequently completed. This alternative has been identified by staff following the February 29,2016 IOC meeting, and was not discussed at the IOC meeting.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Public Involvement
If the Board directs staff to proceed with one of the three CCE options described in this report, staff recommends that the County's activities include a public involvement component. The recommended public involvement activites for each of the three options are as follows:

Option 1: Full Technical Study
• Public workshops to obtain public input
• Focused outreach to key stakeholder groups
• Web-based educational materials
• Presentations at Mayors Conference, city councils and other venues Option 2: Join MCE
• Coordinate with cities in Contra Costa County to provide information concerning MCE
Option 3: Abbreviated Technical Study
• Public workshop prior to consultant preparing study, and a second public workshop to review a draft of the study
• Additional public involvement actions could be considered upon completion of the abbreviated study
Staff is aware that some members of the public have expressed an interest in creating an Advisory Committee to advise the Board and city councils on this topic. Staff is not recommending the creation of an Advisory Committee due to the added cost and time this would involve, and because staff believes the steps described above will allow for effective public input concerning the development of a CCE program without the significant effort involved in recruiting for and selecting members. However, if a more structured involvement program is desired, staff could suggest approches for forming and structuring such a committee process.

Project Schedule and Budget
If the Board directs staff to proceed with a technical study ofCCE (either a full study or an abbreviated one), this would represent the first phase of activity related to potential implementation of CCE within Contra Costa County. Following a technical study, additional steps would be required to launch a CCE program, should the Board decide to proceed with implementation.

An estimated schedule and budget for fully implementing CCE within the County is attached to this report (Attachment E). The time and expense associated with implementing CCE within the County would depend heavily on the outcome of the technical study and the resulting direction selected by the Board and participating cities.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a The CCE option likely to require the greatest commitment of time and resources would be the option to form a new JPA comprised of the County and cities within Contra Costa County. Following the technical study, such an option would involve two additional phases of activity: JPA Formation and Program Launch. The activities associated with these additional project phases and the estimated time and expense to complete these activities are described in greater detail in Attachment D. Staff estimates the total time needed to implement the Contra Costa JPA option and begin providing electricity to customers would be in the range of two to three years and would cost approximately $2 million. These costs would likely be recovered if a new JPA becomes operational.

If the Board directs staffto proceeds with steps necessary to join MCE, either immediately or following a technical study, the cost and time associated with joining MCE are expected to be substantially less than creating a new JPA. The organizational start-up activities and costs associated with creating a new public agency would not be required.

However, a financial tradeoff associated with joining MCE is that jurisdictions in Contra Costa County would not have exclusive control over the revenues generated from a CCE program. If the County and several more cities in Contra Costa County decide the join MCE, Contra Costa jurisdictions would represent the majority of the population served by MCE. Therefore, Contra Costa jurisdictions would have a strong collective voice within MCE. Nevertheless, the majority of seats on the MCE Board of Directors would continue to be held be jurisdictions in Marin, Napa and Solano Counties.

Extrapolating from the experience of the existing CCE programs, CCE revenues generated from the sale of electricity within jurisdictions in Contra Costa County not currently in MCE would likely be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Most of these revenues would be used to pay for energy procurement, with smaller portions used to pay for administrative costs, reserves, and local economic development and energy efficiency programs
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

Ifno action is taken, the County will not proceed with implementation of a Community Choice Energy program.

CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speaker ....: Charles Davidsen, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance; Susan Junfish, parents for a Safer Environment; Salvatore Evola, City of Pittsburg; Nancy Rieser, Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment, and Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition; Rebecca Band, IBEW 1245and Contra Costa Labor Council; Albert Lopez, Alameda County; Alexandra McGee, ,~CE; Alex Digiorgio, MCE; Dawn Weisz, MCE; Bill Pinkham, resident of Richmond; C. IreNeergaard, Kensington Green Group; Harry Thurston, Contra Costa Clan Energy Allicance.Carol Weed, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance; Ann Puntch, resident ofRodeo; Rath a Cui. Sierra Club Bay H.2.b
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Chapter; Wendy Lack. Rebecca Band, IBEW 1245and Contra Costa Labor Council, left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached). The Board Chose Option 1: Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to obtain electrical load datafrom PG&E and conduct a technical study of the following three CCE alternatives:
· Form a new joint powers authority of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of implementing Community Choice Energy · Join Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
· Form a new joint powers authority with Alameda COtll1~Vand the interested group o.l cities in the two-county region

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CAO Letter to Cities re CCE
Attachment B: City Responses to CAO Letter re CCE
Attachment C: PG&E's New Solar Choice Offering
Attachment D: Marin Clean Energy Documents
Attachment E: Option I Technical Study Schedule and Budget PowerPoint Presentation
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING

TECHNICAL STUDY OF ELECTRICAL LOAD DATA FOR

COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY
This Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Technical Study of Electrical Load Data for Community Choice Energy ("MOU") is entered as of April _, 2016 ("EfIective Date"), by and among Contra Costa County, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, and San Ramon, and the Towns of Danville and Moraga (collectively the "Cities" and each a "City"). The County and the Cities are referred to herein together as the "Parties," and each is sometimes referred to herein as a "Party."
Recitals
A. The Parties desire to cooperate to study options for participating in Community Choice Energy ("CCE"), pursuant California Public Utilities Code sections 331. 366, and 366.2, and other applicable laws and regulations.

B. To study options for participating in CCE, the Parties will need to obtain, from Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E"), electrical load data for all of the Parties' jurisdictions, and for the jurisdictions of the cities of Antioch, Hercules, and Oakley ("Partners''). The electrical load data for the Parties' jurisdictions and the Partners' jurisdictions is collectively referred to herein as the "Load Data." The Load Data is confidential and not subject to public disclosure pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 8380. Each City and Partner has authorized PG&E to release to the County the Load Data for electricity use within that City's or Partner's jurisdiction. PG&E will require the County to enter into a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA") before PG&E will release the Load Data to the County.

C. The Load Data must be analyzed to determine the electricity needs within the Parties' and Partners' jurisdictions, and to evaluate options for participating in CCE. The analysis of the Load Data will require the services of a technical consultant.

D. The Parties enter into this MOU to identify their roles and responsibilities with respect to studying options for participating in CCE. Although the Partners are not parties to this MOU, their Load Data will be analyzed and they will be advised of the final results of that analysis.

Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1. County's Responsibilities.

A. Load Data. The County will enter into a NDA with PG&E and will obtain the Load Data from PG&E. The County will maintain and dispose of the Load Data Attachment D
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a m accordance with the prOVISIOns of the NDA and all applicable laws and regulations.

B. Selection of a Technical Consultant.

1. After the County obtains the Load Date from PG&E, the County will prepare and publish a request for proposals ("RFP") to solicit proposals from qualified technical consultants for the analysis of the Load Data and for the preparation of a technical report. The County will solicit, from the Cities, comments on the RFP before the County publishes the RFP.

2. The County will evaluate responses to the RFP, and will be responsible for either (i) selecting the technical consultant that, in the County's opinion, is most qualified to analyze the Load Data, or (ii) determining, in the County's sole discretion, that there is not a qualified technical consultant based on the County's review of the proposals it receives in response to the RFP.

3. If the County selects a technical consultant (the "Consultant") to analyze the Load Data, the County will negotiate and, if negotiations are successful and any required Board of Supervisors approval is obtained, enter into a contract with the Consultant, to require the Consultant to do all of the following: (a) analyze the Load Data to determine the electricity needs within the Parties' jurisdictions, (b) evaluate the Parties' options for participating in CCE, (c) prepare a draft technical report documenting the Consultant's analysis and findings ("Draft Report"), and (d) prepare a final technical report documenting the Consultant's analysis and findings ("Final Report"), all of which are collectively referred to herein as the "Consultant Sen ices. ,.

C. Technical Report.

1. After the Consultant prepares the Draft Report, the County will provide each City a copy of that report. The County will provide each City 30 days to comment on the Draft Report, as described in Section 2.A., below, before the County directs the Consultant to prepare the Final Report. The County will review and discuss with the Consultant all comments the County receives from the Cities within that 30-day period. The County will cooperate with the Cities to resolve any conflicting or inconsistent comments.

2. Within 10 days after the Consultant provides the County the Final Report, the County will provide each City a copy of the Final Report so that the Parties may present the Final Report to their governing bodies in a timely manner. Within 60 days after the Consultant provides the County the Final Report, the County will provide each City: (a) documentation 2 H.2.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a showing the Consultant's total charges to the County for the performance of all Consultant Services, including any reimbursable expenses (the "Total Consultant Charges"), and (b) a request for reimbursement of the City's share of Total Consultant Charges, calculated in accordance with Section 2.C., below.

2. Cities' Responsibilities.

A. Comments on the RFP and Draft Report. Within 30 days after the County provides a City a copy of the Draft Report, the City will provide the County with that City'S written comments related to the Draft Report, if any. The Cities will cooperate with the County to resolve any conflicting or inconsistent comments.

B. Presentations. The Cities will coordinate with the County to schedule any presentations concerning the Final Report before the Cities' governing and advisory bodies.

C. Reimbursement of County.

I. Calculation of Reimbursement. Except as otherwise specified in Section

2.C.2., below, within 30 days after receipt of a request for reimbursement from the County pursuant to Section 1.C.2., above, each City will pay the County that City'S proportional share of the Total Consultant Charges, calculated as follows:
[(Total Consultant Charges)] x [(City's Population) -i- (Population of unincorporated Contra Costa County + population of all Cities] = Amount of City's Reimbursement to County

2. Maximum Reimbursement for Specified Cities. Notwithstanding the resultant of the calculation in Section 2.C.I., above, no City shall be required to reimburse the County in excess of the City's approved maximum reimbursement limit, as follows:

City
Brentwood
Clayton
Concord
Danville
Martinez
Moraga
Orinda
Pinole
Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill
San Ramon
Maximum Reimbursement
$30,000
$5,000
$25,000
$18,000
$15,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$15,000
$20,000
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

3. Miscellaneous Provisions.

A. Confidentiality of Data. The Parties agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, nothing in this MOU shall require the County to disclose, disseminate, or dispose of Load Data in any manner that would violate the terms of the NDA, or any state or federal laws or regulations.

B. No Obligations to Pursue CCE. The purpose of this MOll is to provide for the Parties' roles and responsibilities related to undertaking a technical study to analyze options for the Parties' potential future participation in CCE. Nothing in this MOU obligates any Party to become a community choice aggregator, or to participate with other Parties to establish a community choice aggregator, or to participate in CCE, or to take any other future discretionary actions.

C. No Joint Powers Agency. Nothing in this MOU creates, nor shall it be construed as creating, a partnership, joint venture, or a joint exercise of powers agency separate and apart from the Parties hereto.

D. Assignment; No Third-Partv Beneficiaries. This MOU may not be assigned unless the assignment is approved in writing by all Parties. Nothing in this MOU, express or implied, is intended to confer on any person, other than the Parties and their successors and assigns, any rights or remedies by reason of this MOU.

E. Notices. All notices and other correspondence required to be given under this MOU shall be in writing, and shall be delivered in person, by overnight carrier, or by U.S. Mail, to the following person and address designated for each Party. A notice shall be deemed given on the same day if it is personally delivered, on the next day if it is delivered by overnight carrier, or on the fifth (5th) day after the postmark date if it is given by U.S. Mail.

Contra Costa County: Brentwood: Clayton:

Jason Crapo
Dept. of Conserv ation and
Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez. CA 94553
Concord: Danville: Martinez:

Moraga: Orinda: Pinole:

Pittsburg: Pleasant Hill: San Ramon:
4 H.2.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a F. Amendment. One or more additional cities in Contra Costa County may become Parties to this MOU by a written amendment signed by all Parties. A city that becomes a Party to this MOU shall be a "City" and one of the "Cities," as those terms are defined in the MOU.

G. Construction. If any provision of this MOU is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full force.

H. Governing Law. This MOU shall be governed and construed in accordance with California law.

L Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.]
5 H.2.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

CONTRA COSTA CO
UNTY
By: __
Jason Crapo
Approved as to form:

Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel
By: __
Deputy County Counsel
SMS H:IClient Maners.Building lnspcction'CfA'Cf.A MOU Re Technical Study.doc x
6 H.2.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a [Other Signature Pages to be Attached Here.] 7
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL {RFP}

COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY TECHNICAL STUDY
BID#:

Proposal Due Date: _

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

PURCHASING SERVICES
255 GLACIERDRIVE
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553
Attachment E
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a -
TABLE ----- OF CONTENTS ~- -0"0 ~, _
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
INTRODUCTION 3
II PROJECTOVERVIEW 4
III QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 6
IV EVALUATION AND SELECTIONPROCESS 7
V INSTRUCTIONSTO RESPONDENTS 8
VI SCOPEOF SERVICE 10
VII BILLING and INVOICING 17
VIII Error! Bookmark not defined.

ATTACHMENTS:
• CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TERMS AND CONDITIONS
• EXHIBIT A - STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION
• EXHIBIT B- BID FORM
• EXHIBIT C- CUSTOMER REFERENCES
• EXHIBIT D - ANTI COLLUSION STATEMENT
• EXHIBIT E- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUSINESSOPPORTUNITY REGISTRATION FORM H.2.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

INTRODUCTION
General Information
A. Purpose
Contra Costa County Purchasing Services Division is seeking a proposal from a qualified and experienced consultant - an individual, a firm, and/or group of individuals, and/or firms to provide technical assistance on assessing the feasibility of a Community Choice Energy program in the County.

B. Calendar of Events
RFPRelease Date TBD
Deadline to submit written
questions through Bidsync.com. I
I TBD
I
I
I
Proposal Due Date TBD
--- ---
Vendor Presentation Date TBD
Contract Award and Project
Begin Date
I TBD
:

C. Proposal Submission
• Response to this RFPMUST be submitted electronically through the Bid Sync web-siteNO EXCEPTION. • Late submittals WILL NOT be accepted - NO EXCEPTION
• Fax submittals WILL NOT be accepted - NO EXCEPTION
D. Vendor Registration
Firms must be registered with the County. See Exhibit Eattached. ,~'''\
.,--',-,
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

II PROJECT OVERVIEW

1. Statement of Purpose
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (County) seeks a consultant - an individual, a firm, and/or group of individuals, and/or firms, to assess the potential of developing a Community Choice Aggregation Program in Contra Costa County.

Community Choice Aggregation (hereafter referred to as Community Choice Energy or CCE) allows local jurisdictions - county and city governments - to provide electricity generation service to customers currently served by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Marin Clean Energy (MCE), the State's first CCE program, started operating in 2010, followed by Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) in 2014 and Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) in 2015. CleanPower SF launches in May 2016, and Peninsula Clean Energy will launch in October, 2016. Many other communities across the State are currently exploring this energy model, including every county in the Bay Area. All of these programs were preceded by a study that assessed the overall technical, environmental and economic feasibility of launching a CCEprogram.

2. Background
Under a Community Choice Energy program, the CCE entity would become the default electricity provider to all electricity customers within the service area. Customers would have the ability to opt out of service from the CCEand return to bundled service from the incumbent utility, in this case Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).

On October 13, 2015, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) accepted the recommendations of its Internal Operations Committee (IOC) and directed County staff to initiate outreach to cities within Contra Costa County to determine the level of interest cities had in joining with the County to investigate three alternatives for potentially implementing Community Choice Energy in Contra Costa County. These three alternatives are:

1. Form a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA)of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of CCE;

2. Form a new JPA in partnership with Alameda County, and interested cities in both counties; and

3. Join Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
At its meeting on February 29, 2016, the IOC directed the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) to prepare a report to the full Board presenting two options for proceeding with potential implementation of CCE in the County's jurisdiction: continue working with cities to complete a technical study of the three CCEalternatives mentioned above, or proceed with steps to join the CCEprogram known as Marin Clean Energy, or MCE.

The Board unanimously decided at its meeting on March 15 to conduct a full technical study, similar to what has happened in other counties, and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each of the three options.
;I_)(';__'"
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

3. Award Agreement
If the County determines, after further evaluation and negotiation, to award the Agreement, a Professional Services Contract shall be provided to the successful Bidder for the Bidder's signature. No proposal shall be binding upon the County until after the Agreement is signed by a duly authorized representative of both Bidder and the County.

All other factors being substantially equal, preference will be given to Bidders located within Contra Costa County.

4. Questions
All questions regarding the proposal will be accepted through the BidSync site only. The deadline for submitting questions for this RFPis on or before __ . All questions will be answered and disseminated to those registered on the BidSync website. Contact customer service if you need technical assistance with any part of the bid process; [email protected] or call (800) 990-9339.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

III QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
----------------------------------~--------------------.----~----------- To be considered, respondents must meet the following minimum qualifications:
a. Firm(s) or individual shall demonstrate direct experience within and understand the California energy market, including relevant legislation and regulations applicable to CCEand its major participants - investor owned utilities, CA Independent System Operator, energy service providers and independent power producers, California Public Utilities Commission, and other key market players. b. Firm(s) or individual shall demonstrate an understanding of the CCEformation process in California including statutory and regulatory requirements, and best practices.
c. Firm(s) or individual shall have experience in customer data requests and electricity load analysis.
d. Firm(s) or individual shall demonstrate experience in resource planning and energy procurement.
e. Firm(s) or individual shall demonstrate experience in rate setting /design and sensitivity analysis, including anticipated rate impacts related to varying levels of renewable energy procurement and local renewable project/program development as well as energy efficiency and demand reduction program implementation.
f. Firm(s) or individual shall possess all permits, licenses, and professional credentials necessary to supply product and perform services specified under this RFP.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

IV EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS

1. Selection Process
The proposal shall enable the County to evaluate the responsiveness and quality of the proposal to each of the RFP requirements. The evaluation of proposals will be performed by an evaluation committee. If an award is made, it will be made to the responsive and responsible Bidder that offers the County the greatest value based on an analysis involving a number of criteria including but not limited to:
• Proposer understanding, methodology and approach of the project • Proposer past experience for similar projects
• Key personnel experience and resume
• Customer References
• Cost
• Oral Presentation and Interview

2. Proposals are Public Records
California Government Code Section 6250, the Public Records Act, defines a public record as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. The Public Records Act provides that public records shall be disclosed upon request and that any citizen has a right to inspect any public record, unless the document is exempted from disclosure.

Unless otherwise compelled by a court order, the County will not disclose any proposal while the County conducts its deliberative process in accordance with the procedures identified in this RFP.However, after the County either awards an agreement to a successful bidder, or rejects all proposals, the County shall consider each proposal subject to the public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Each bidder is hereby informed that, upon submittal of its proposal to the County in accordance with this RFP,the proposal becomes the property of Contra Costa County.

3. Protest Procedures
In the event a dispute arises concerning the proposal process prior to the award of the contract, the party wishing resolution of the dispute shall submit a request in writing to the Purchasing Services Manager in care of:

David Gould, Purchasing Services Manager
Contra Costa County
Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez CA,94553
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

V INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS

1. Format of Proposal
All proposals shall follow the same format. No exceptions to this format shall be accepted.

To be accepted for evaluation, the proposal format shall address all required components in order. All proposals shall include the following components:
a. Cover Letter - Signed by an authorized person.
b. Executive Summary
c. Proposal - describing specific capabilities, approaches and proposed methodologies that demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature of the work to be performed described in Section VI under Scope of Works.
d. Resume of key persons who will be assigned on the project e. Statement of Experience - See Exhibit A.
f. Bid Form - See Exhibit B.
g. Customer References - See Exhibit C.
h. Anti-Collusion Statement - See Exhibit D.
i. Contra Costa County Business Opportunity Registration Form - See Exhibit E j. Federal, State, and local permits and licenses
k. Certificate of Insurance with Endorsement Letter

2. Customer References
Respondents shall provide a minimum of three (3) letters of references. Each letter must include the name of the firm, description of services that were provided, and the date of services and the contract amount for projects similar to the services requested in this RFP.

See Exhibit C.

3. Licenses and Permits
Bidders shall possess all licenses, registrations and permits required by the State of California and the County of Contra Costa. Such licenses and permits are to be submitted to the County with the proposal or prior to the contract signing date.

4. Proposal Expenses
Respondents shall be fully responsible for all costs incurred in the development and submission of this RFP.

5. Respondents Responsibility
The bidder assumes sole responsibility for the complete effort required in submitting a bid proposal in response to this RFP. No special consideration will be given after bid proposals are opened because of a proposer's failure to be knowledgeable as to all of the requirements of this RFP.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

V INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS

6. Interpretation
Should any discrepancies, orrussrons, or doubt as to their meaning be found in the RFP specifications or requirements, the Respondent shall notify the County in writing through the BidSync website. The County will send written instructions or addenda to all participants in the RFPprocess. The County shall not be responsible for oral interpretations.

7. Reservations
The County reserves the right to do the following at any time and for its own convenience, at its sole discretion:
• To reject any and all proposals without indicating any reasons for such rejection, • Terminate this RFPand issue a new Request for Proposals anytime thereafter, • Extend any or all deadlines specified in the RFP,including deadlines for accepting proposals by issuing an Addendum at any time prior to the deadline for receipt of responses to the RFP,
• Procure any services specified in the RFPby other means, • Disqualify any Respondent on the basis of any real or perceived conflict of interest or evidence of collusion that is disclosed by the proposal or other data available to the County. Such disqualification is at the sole discretion of the County, • Reject the proposal of any Respondent that is in breach of or in default under any other agreement with the County,
• Reject any Respondent deemed by the County to be non-responsive, unreliable, unqualified or non-responsible.

8. Subcontract and Assignment
The Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. Prior written consent of the County, subject to any required state or federal approval, is required before the Contractor may enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under the Contract, or before the Contractor may assign the Contract or monies due or to become due, by operation of law or otherwise.

9. Addenda
No one is authorized to amend any of these documents in any respect by an oral statement or to make any representation or interpretation in conflict with their provisions. Any changes to these documents will be issued in writing via Addenda to be posted on the BidSync website.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a

VI SCOPE OF SERVICE
The Community Choice Energy technical study will - like similar studies in other jurisdictions - assess the overall size and potential of the program in Contra Costa (keeping in mind that at least five cities in the County are either current members of MCE or are applying to become members). The study will examine the potential to be rate competitive with PG&E, assess the potential for GHG reduction, and examine the possible economic development benefits of Community Choice Energy for the County, through the construction of renewable energy projects in and around Contra Costa. As directed by the Board of Supervisors, the County is also interested in an examination not just of starting a new CCE program (either limited to jurisdictions within Contra Costa County or in partnership with jurisdictions in Alameda County) but also of joining MCE. At the highest level, the CCEstudy should examine the potential to meet the following goals:
• Overall rates that are equal to or less than PG&E for the default product. • Voluntary products that increase the renewable and GHG-free content (e.g. 100% renewable, 100% local energy option) to which people can "opt-up".
• An electric supply portfolio with a lower greenhouse gas intensity than PG&E and an energy portfolio which includes as much local renewable development as is economically feasible.
• The County seeks a financially sustainable and flexible business model that supports investment in and the local development of distributed energy resources, as well as local programs such as energy efficiency, electric vehicle charging, energy storage and microgrid development. • Implementation of energy projects that have tangible and quantifiable economic benefits to the region, including brownfield redevelopment and local jobs creation.

Task 1. Review the County's aggregated load data provided by PG&E. The County has received authorization from all cities not currently in or seeking membership to MCE to collect PG&E load data on their behalf. The technical consultant will review, format, and import data into an analytical framework and prepare summary level data for residential, commercial, industrial and municipal accounts. The data to be analyzed in the study will be from the following jurisdictions:

1. Unincorporated Contra Costa County

2. Antioch

3. Brentwood

4. Clayton

5. Concord

6. Danville

7. Hercules

8. Martinez

9. Moraga

10. Oakley

11. Orinda

12. Pinole

13. Pittsburg

14. Pleasant Hill

15. San Ramon

16. Lafayette
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Task 2: Technical Analysis, Supply Scenarios and Financial Pro-Forma. For the main part of the study, the Consultant will do the following:

A. Prepare utility load forecast that reviews historical usage and projects future power demand requirements across all customer classes, taking into account growth in renewables (eg: rooftop solar) and other appropriate factors, such as compensation for line losses. The Consultant will create a load profile for specific rate class customer sector populations, which can provide a composite CCEelectrical load and load shape for all 15 jurisdictions. Key facilities that may be direct access customers should be excluded from the study as they would not automatically be enrolled in a CCEprogram. (However, the list of large-scale DA customers should be provided to the County because it may, at some point in the future, want to reach out to large industrial users, such as the oil refineries, for potential participation in CCE-related activities.) The result of this assessment will estimate the number of megawatt hours (MWH) that will be required each year for the first ten years of the program (including renewable energy to comply with the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS),along with peak megawatt (MW) demand requirements that meet current resource adequacy requirements (RAR).

B. Prepare PG&E rate analysis with forecasts of future PG&E rate increases, based on historical prices and factors that may affect the rate of increase into the future (local generation construction, spot market pricing, renewable energy mandates and declining cost of renewables, etc.). Other factors may also include ancillary services, transmission congestion impacts, transmission scheduling coordination costs and other factors. This analysis should be presented in a scenario analysis, with high, medium and low estimates of future PG&E pricing for all rate classes. Other considerations to be included in this section are:

1. Identification of other factors that may affect rate comparison (examples include combinations of the following: high gas, low gas, high hydro, low hydro, etc., and rate restructuring);

2. Investor Owned Utility (IOU) costs and surcharges embedded in rate forecast for direct comparison to CCEcosts;

3. Utility rate forecast under continued IOU service scenario;

4. Based on IOU rate forecasts and other independent rate forecasts, compile electric generation service cost/ payment estimates for prospective CCEcustomers in consideration of applicable IOU rate schedules.

C. Supply Scenario for Contra Costa County CCE: The consultant will develop a range of scenarios for the energy procurement requirements of the CCE. Each scenario will examine the likely rates and competitiveness with PG&E, given current energy market conditions. Each scenario will also estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts compared to PG&E. The consultant should consider variations in how both the renewable and nonH.2.b Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a renewable portions of the power mix can be obtained (e.g., in-state, in-county, out-ofstate, renewable energy credits, technology preferences), and non-renewable portfolio attributes (e.g., system purchases, natural gas, hydro-electric). The precise scenarios should focus on Category 1 and 2 renewable resources (excluding unbundled renewable energy credits) will be determined in consultation with County staff but could include the following:
• Option I/Baseline: RPSCompliance, along with the same or similar greenhouse gas profile as PG&E. The first scenario should assume compliance with the 2020 RPSminimum of 33% and the 2030 minimum of 50%. This scenario should also seek to match the current (and forecasted) percentage of carbon-free electricity supply from PG&E. This scenario can therefore be considered the baseline and would assess the potential cost differential between a CCEprogram and PG&E, assuming a similar level of environmental performance.
• Option 2: Starting with 50% renewable content on the first day or service and moving towards 80% by Year 10 (these metrics can be adjusted based on consultations with County staff). Note: both scenarios should incorporate a voluntary, 100% renewable option with an assumption that a similar number of customers will select this option as did MCE and SCPoIn addition, both scenarios should examine, to the extent possible, the availability of renewable energy that could be procured from within the State of California from facilities that use unionized labor.
• Options 3 and 4: Same as Options 1 and 2, but with a substantial portion of that content coming from local renewable resources in and around Contra Costa County. The consultant should analyze Options 1 and 2 but assume that an aggressive local build out program would be developed with the aim of having up to 25% of the total renewable supplies of the program met through local renewable resources by Year 10 of the program. For the purposes of this RFP,the term "local" refers to projects in Contra Costa and adjacent counties.

D. Sensitivity Analysis: The consultant should also include a sensitivity analyses for each supply scenario showing the projected impact to program costs and customer rates for variations in the following input cost variables:
• Market prices for conventional (non-renewable) energy • Market prices for renewable energy based on preferred technologies, if identified
• Changes in PG&E generation rates and customer surcharges • Changes in policies affecting local renewables development, including the possible reduction or elimination of the federal solar tax credit and H.2.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a production tax credit for wind power.
• Customer opt-out rates
E. Pro-Forma Analysis: The consultant should assess the overall cost-benefit potential to support a threshold decision to move forward with CCE.Costs shall include upfront program development and implementation costs as well as net ratepayer costs over the forecast period. Quantifiable benefits shall include annual and net savings over PG&E, net GHG reductions, expanded use of renewable energy resources and local economic development (job years created and indirect economic impacts).

1. Pro forma report, including cash flow analysis, detailing costs and projected benefits under four electric supply scenarios.

2. Pro forma reports detailing costs and projected benefits under sensitivity case assumptions.

3. Pro forma reports detailing costs and projected benefits of phasing in customer load over time

4. Pro Forma development in consideration of one of the abovelisted supply scenarios, and the decision as to which scenario to use will be made in conjunction with County staff. Assemble known and predictable cost-of-service variables and incorporate these into base-case analyses. Predictable cost-of-service variables include:
a. Energy Costs- Variable inputs for resource portfolio mixes to include:
i. Forecast spot market prices
ii. Long-term and short-term power contracts (for
wholesale products such as 6X16, 7X24 power products)
iii. Renewable Energy minimums as required under SBXl-2, or in excess of this minimum per electric supply
scenarios
iv. Transmission scheduling coordination costs
v. Transmission congestion impacts
vi. Ancillary services costs and other grid services
b. Start-up costs
c. Cost of Capital
d. Operating and Maintenance Costs
i. Administrative and general expenses
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a ii. Staffing
iii. External technicaljlegaljmarketing/PR support
iv. Billing, metering, and collections
v. Customer service (call center) and data management
vi. Scheduling and coordination
e. Uncollected accounts
f. Program reserves
g. CCEBonding for Reentry Fees
h. PG&E surcharges, Cost-Recovery Mechanism [exit fees] i. Characterize and evaluate feed in tariff and net energy metering programs that would encourage development of renewable
energy generation projects in the region by offering customers a sustained reliable payback on their investment in renewable energy and sustainable local generation system
Task 3: Economic Development Analysis and Local Project Assessment. As stated earlier, the County believes that local economic development potential will be a key interest for municipal decision makers. To this end, the Consultant will undertake the following tasks. • Overall Job Impacts: For each of the supply scenarios, the consultant should examine not just costs and GHG impacts but also conduct an economic analysis of the direct and indirect employment creation through existing economic development models such as JEDIor other industry- standard models to quantify potential economic impacts of various supply scenarios. The job analysis should also address job-quality metrics, such as prevailing wages and other relevant labor standards, particularly for the supply scenarios described above that involve a large component of locally-developed projects. • Initial Project Identification and Northern Waterfront Development Strategy: The Consultant should provide an overall estimate of the technical potential for wind, solar, biomass and other renewable resources that have significant potential in Contra Costa County. The Consultant can initially refer to existing studies, such as the Bay Area Smart Energy 2020 report! and the EPA"Repowering America" database that respectively assess the technical renewable potential in the built environment and on brown-field sites. In addition, the Consultant should look at renewable potential in other areas of the County, particularly at the Northern Waterfront. The Consultant should include on their team the capacity of using tools like Google Earth to quantify the technical potential of solar resources in rural, undeveloped parts of the County, as well as large commercial and industrial zones. It is understood that this task is only looking at the 1 http: pacilicenvironment.org,downioadsiBASE2020 _Full_ Report.pdf Jl~ (,_,-,[: :ec:r (:2
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a technical potential, and the Consultant is not expected to interact with landowners or take any other action to assess the financial feasibility of these projects. The goal is to show policy makers and the broader community what the potential is to develop renewables in the County. However, it should be stressed that when many other factors are taken into account (landowner interest, project financing, interconnection ability, etc.), only a small portion of the overall technical potential may actually be implemented.

With regards to the Northern Waterfront initiative, the Consultant should explore ways in which a CCEprogram could dovetail with the County's desire to redevelop this region through the integration of energy resources. The Consultant should interview public and private officials involved in the Initiative efforts and outline potential economic development ideas related to clean energy, such as solar and wind siting and engaging with large industries to implement CCE-related energy efficiency, combined heat and power, energy storage and other programs. The Consultant is encouraged to think creatively about potential ideas, using best practice case studies from around the country. The Consultant should also consider the fact that this part of the County already has a large number of fossil fuel generators and associated, grid-related infrastructure - and how this infrastructure could be helpful (eg: convenient grid interconnections) in encouraging alternative energy projects in this area.

Task 4: Comparative Analysis of Other CCEOptions: Joining Marin Clean Energy or Alameda County CCEProgram
The County would also like to assess the advantages and disadvantages of two other options besides a stand-alone Contra Costa CCEprogram: (a) having the County and as many cities as are interested join MCE Clean Energy; or (b) having the County and interested cities partner with Alameda County's CCEprogram - East Bay Community Energy - currently in formation.

The Consultant, using the key results from Task 2 as a basis for comparison, would look at similar criteria when evaluating the other two options, including rate-competitiveness, GHG reduction potential and local economic development. The Consultant should assess other, more subjective criteria, such as local governance and overall programmatic flexibility. The exact comparison criteria will be discussed with County staff prior to this portion of the technical study commencing. The Consultant will meet with officials from Alameda County and MCE as necessary.

The main deliverable for this section of the report will be a comparison table for each of the 3 CCEprogram alternatives under consideration and brief narrative explaining the rationale for any conclusions. The criteria the County would like to see used as the basis of comparison between CCEprogram alternatives include:
• Low and Stable Electricity Rates
• Reduction in GHG emissions
• Local Control and Governance
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a • Local Economic Development Benefits
• Costs and Risks to Participating Jurisdictions
The Consultant should put together a matrix (illustrative example below) comparing the qualitative and quantitative advantages and disadvantages of each option.

I
Criterion Form CCCo JPA i Join MCE Join Alameda CCE
--
Rates
GHG Reduction I
Potential Over
I
Forecast Period
1 Local I
I
Control/Governance
I
Local Econ. Benefits
Start Up Costs
I
i ------+ - - --
I I
Program Risks I
I
t
Key comparative issues to be discussed in the study should include, but not be limited to:
• Given what is known about MCE rates (and forecasted into the future), and given market conditions for wholesale electricity into which an Alameda County or Contra Costa CCEwould be entering, are the generation rates likely to be lower for one option than another? The consultant should look at current and projected rates. • Given the Contra Costa CCEsupply scenarios and MCE's future goals for renewable energy mix in their portfolio, is there one option that might provide better environmental (lower GHG emission) performance than another? • In terms of governance and the ability to tailor CCE-related programs to Contra Costa County, what advantages/disadvantages might there be for joining MCE, which has a regional footprint that already includes many CCCocities and a growing Board. What advantages/disadvantages might there be for joining Alameda? Alameda currently has a large Steering Committee, which may result in a large board of directors. • Similarly, assess the ability for a stand-alone CCEprogram to generate surplus revenues and the benefits and trade-off's of keeping the revenues local vs. the ability to leverage economies of scale within a more regional approach.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a • The Consultant should assess the costs and timing of starting a new CCEprogram compared to the costs/timing of joining MCE or Alameda. • The analysis should highlight any greater risks and benefits associated with starting a new JPA as compared to becoming a member of an existing one. It should acknowledge the potential reality of having different cities and customers within a single county served by more than one CCEprogram, and what those impacts and issues might be.

VII BILLING AND INVOICING
A. Payment Terms
Contractor shall submit a correct and complete invoice{s) to the County after the County accepted the deliverables. Payment terms are Net 30 days or best offer, after receipt of correct invoice.

B. Billing Rate
Responders shall submit total cost as in per project basis. See attached Exhibit B.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a c. Prices
Prices offered by the proposer will be firm fix and not subject to increase during the term of any contractual agreement arising between the County and the successful proposer as a result of this RFP,unless otherwise stated.

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Daisy Allen
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Janet Keeter
Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:23 PM
Daisy Allen
FW Community Choice Energy
Draft CCEMOU for 4.21.16.docx; Draft Tech Study RFPfor 4.21.16.docx From: Jason Crapo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:47 AM
To: Janet Keeter <[email protected]>
Subject: Community Choice Energy
Hi Janet,
The County is hosting a meeting for City staff this Thursday morning on the topic of Community Choice Energy. Tonya informed me that she will not be able to attend and that Daisy will be representing Orinda at the meeting. Thank you for dedicating staff time to this topic.

On March IS, the BOSdirected County staff to work with interested cities within the County to conduct a technical study of this issue. The study will provide an analysis that will assist all jurisdictions in the County to decide how to proceed on this topic.

One of the main purposes of the meeting this Thursday is to clarify which cities will be participating in the study. We need to determine participation so we can move forward with completing the study. Participation involves making a proportionate financial contribution towards the cost of the study. Of the 19 cities in the County, 14 are eligible to participate in this study (the other 5 cities are either members or seeking membership in the Marin County program known as MCE). Seven cities have so far indicated they will participate. Three cities have indicated they will not participate. Orinda is one of four cities that have not yet indicated if they will participate.

Attached is a draft MOU that describes the roles and responsibilities of the County and the cities in this endeavor. In this draft, I have categorized Orinda and the other undecided cities as participants in the study. Of course, this is pending final decisions by these cities. This document will be discussed at the meeting that Daisy will be attending on Thursday. My goal is to finalize the MOU soon after the meeting this Thursday. I realize that the undecided cities may need to take this to their Councils.

You will see that I am suggesting that Orinda allocate up to $10,000 for this purpose. I expect the actual amount required from Orinda to be less than $5,000, but we will not know the actual contribution required until we know a) the actual cost of the study (estimated to be approximately $150,000) and b) which jurisdictions are participating. I am recommending cities allocate a not-to-exceed amount until the actual costs are known.

I am also attaching a draft of the RFPto select the consultant that will perform the study. This will also be discussed at the meeting this Thursday.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide you with any additional information to help the City decide if it will participate in the technical study. Thank you.

Jason
Attachment F
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a ......... wU
......... U>
b.O
"-
OJ
c: ..... > w C
OJ ::J u 0
.-
U
0 ta ..s::: ..... u «I)
>0+-'U .-
c: ta rn
::l I- -o~
..... eM
E
C
.~0
0 ON
E
'+- ....

U 0("'(')
0 »
C
-+-' rn
U
-
u~
AttachmentG
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a ('..
>-
b.O
!a....

OJ C
UJ
OJu
.-o
..cU
>-
+oJ
.-C
::JEEou
V')
.-
c
~ Q)
Q) Q)
..!:~
+oJ +oJ
"+- Q)

0..0
"+- ._0.
ro..!: ..!: Vl
Q)~
..0 Q) Q) c
C+oJ..o o ~ ro Vl ~ 0. ~ Q)
Q) Q)~
~ roc~
oc Q)~

0.0 ~.-= •.j:i Q) U

0.U Vl .i::
oC ro +oJ
Q)
:::s Q)U
"+-~ Q)
> UQ) ro c Q)
""'C Vl Q) ~ Q) 0 > o +oJ +oJ •.j:i
..........~ C·.j:i
""'C~Q)Q) C U
> 0.
ro+oJeE
~ 0.0
:::s Vl VlU
U Q) ro I:l.O o ~ ..!: C ~ Q) +oJ .- 0. _""'C O
._C Vl
.>
+oJ Vl Q)0
Vl :::s ._~
+oJ ..0 .-t= 0. c
Q) Ec~
Q) >o
I:l.O Vl
ro Q) ""'C U ~ C o Vl"' ro
Q) Vl
._ Q)
.-t= .-+oJ
U:'=
ro ro
"+- 0.
.-U._U~
..0C Q)
:::s :::s~

0.E0
Vl
Q)
..0
roC
Q) WUU
""'CC
ro
>-
e_.o
Q) C
Q)
Vl
Q)
Vl
ro
I:l.O
Q)
Vl
:::s o
..!: C
Q)
Q) ~
I:l.O
~.. ~
>- ~
CUCWe-o
J:U~C
:;:, EEou~
:z:

H.2.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a (/)u
.-c
ro
..cu
OJ
~
E
ro~
coo~
c,u
.-
(/)
ro
CO
>
..c
Q)
-+-J
ro
a.u
-+-J

5....
ro
a.-+-J
V')c
-+-J Q) ~ E E Q) c ~
Qj ttO > <
0«
ttOa.. ~
ro ro u 0 o -+-J
....JC
.. ._
>ttO u
C
c ._
Q) 5....
ttOQ)
«~
V') Q)

5....

Q)""O $ C o ro
a.. Q)
-+-JU
CC
.- ro o C ~ .-
ro""O

5....

C0
.-o
C
.--. ro

5.... ttO o C E V')

5.... V') o ro
u, a.

5....

Q)Eo
-+-J
V')
:JU
...
eoC
..c
""0
Q)
-+-J
ro
""0
.--o
V') CoU
Q) Q)
""0._
U
>C
o ro

5....C
Q..Q) o -+-J
-+-JC
V') ro
Q)E
:JC Q)
-+-JC
C
0""0 U
C
-UJ ro
<Xi~ <.!J 5....
c, on - ...
>~
-+-J .-
>

5....
-+-J Q)
:::> V') . N
Q)E
ro
V')
Q)
..c
-+-J C
roE
Q)

5....

V')

5....

Q)Eo
-+-J
V')
:JU
UJ
Cl: «u
<,
Q)EoUC

5.... ~
V') E
ro

5....
eoo

5....

Q..

UJ
<Xi
<.!J
o,. M
Q)C
$o
$
Q)C
V') Q)
roE

5.... ro
ro V')
Q) Q)
a...c
a.-+-J
roC
-Q) ro ~ E
-+-J Q) ._ 5.... X V')
Q) Q)
ttOttO C 5....
ro
""0 ..c
:JU
U 5.... C Q)
.- ..c
- -+-J
V')0
Q)-
ttO-

5.... ro
ro ....
..cU..c C 5.... o Q)
-+-JE
~0
Q) -+-J C V')
Q) :J
coU
U Q)
..c

5.... -+-J
tJC
Q)0
Q) V')
UJE
U Q)
U-+-J.
qV')
-+-J C
Q)E
............ Q) > .~
-+-J :J
-+-J 0"
:J~
V') 5....

Q) Q)
Q)..c
V') -+-J

5....0
Q)
>""0 o
C
.... ro C -+-J ~ C
a.. Q)
UJE

U Q) U Q)

5....

V') ttO Q) ro
4= Q)
-+-JU

5.... .-
Q)>
U 5.... U ~
:::>UJ
a..u
Uu.

LI)
-+-J >
·u>

5....~
+-' Q) U C ~ Q)
Q) -+-J

5....-
~ :J ~ E Q)
ro""O

5.... Q)
b.O..c o -+-J 5....

Q.. V')
Q)
~E
58 I Q)
"5...c o V')
:: :J

5.... ..c Q) -+-J
E""O o
C
-+-J ro
V') ...
:J V') U 5....
ro Q)
V')Eo
UJ -+-J U V') U a

5.... Q)
""0
.->o

5....
a.
.
co
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a >-
co
!r.-
OJ C
LUC
rn
OJ -Uc
.---.-
co
>-
tl.O
,._
OJ C
LU
OJ
c.. E
ro
V)
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Q) 10- Q) Q)
Q) _Q co Q) _Q Q) _Q
_Q co
0 _Q co _Q co
CO
~
V) co
~
co
s
s Q) co
~ Q)
~ Q)
Q)
c
u Q)
c Q)
c
c Q)
0 c Q)
c Q)
Q) a::: _J Q) a::: Q) a::: a::: '*' '*' a::: '*' a::: '*' '*'
0 0
'*'
0 '*'
0 U)
0 0 U)
0 LJ')
0 LJ')
~
~ ro
~ ro
~
~
~0
~
0 Q)
0 Q) _Q Q)
_Q '*' _Q
'*'
LU LU
'*'
~ LJ') o<S
~~
o<S LU ~
,re
I C)
I C)
I
U
N 0.. U) 0.. ro V)
0 V')•••
ro
.-e
0 ~ L/")
""'"" ""'"" ""'""
~
0 0
0 ~
N
N
N
.--rou >- m
ro~ a:

E~
w
~
e
l- c» II) c .- w °0 (
(J V') C 2 E
cu
Co...
(
c» ..I - °c
a:
ro
u
w
w U)ro
~
~
0 tlO
U
IL
(l)
0~
E
- JII
~
(
a..
('V")
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a >-

0..
0-
V') ~
~
E~
~ l!! 2:
~
I'D,_ b.OQJ
.....
o '"
C QJ '":5 "0
.... QJ
0 s:: 0.. a:::
.-
w
E I'D ~'Qo
..,
-
QJ JJ! .S cv 0 ~-E 1;; = "0 U 4: ~ u s:: 0 0 s:: ~ - u ~o 4:u.. -c( • ell
::::s c
ell >~
"C c(u c U
::J
-
0 cvu
V') .-CL
>-
~
rou
V')
'+-

OJ OJ U
So...

C
ro
0 0
0 0..
0 0
0 a
ro
0 0
0 U
.. .. ..

LI') 00
0 E
(/) 0'\ 00
0 qo LI') """"a
"C
.. .. .. 01
!a- LI') 00
0 '#. \D qo m
0 C
"""" """" """"
LI').
"+- ro oV'). oV'). oV'). qo
v
!a- UJ
OJ
U

0..
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
-
0 0
0 ... ... ...
ro
m
m
N
m
m
N
.- 0'\
~ L/")
U
... ... ...

LI')
"""" 0'\
C
qo
~
N
'#. """" """" """"
ro
'(/). '(/). '(/). .......

C
.-
LL. ." p_i
C
4U
0 UJ 1:; .~
4U 4U
e
U
._
4U «It
C ..
e 4U III «It
:::J «It '0 'to- .-
U
Q.

C
C
o .5
-; 4U IU 1;; ..

E .. Ii a. «It." ~ a: ~ 8 8ce
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Vl
'"
C
s:: 0
CO
._.....
-
a.
8""'C
CL s:::
0 o Q)
0 lJ"l' U
-
E
.... ::::s
C
c,
""'C
to
Q)
s::: '-
0::
0 ·2
tl.O
N
.-
0 0
+-'
u '-
u
"'( 0..

IU ~

0..
«
0 «
0 0
0 u
0'
E
....

OJ ._
+-'
o
co
0 E
QJ ~0
.-
~
0 -
0 U
c
0 0
lJ"l'
-
V)
co
~
u
C
0 ._
_J
u ..
~
E
IlJ) ..... Vl
0 '-
c
0 >-
<lJ
0';::; <lJ
u
LI.J UJ
~
s: Vl 0. ::J
C
cr:u
.....
0 Vl I..L.. <lJ '-
U
0 0.
c <lJ
°u
<lJ
'"
..c
~
E '-
> iE .....

UJ eo
I0';::;
w
0 U <lJ
ro
>
E
>-
U QJ
0';::;
2 ~
ro <lJ
U
c
«
c
U
~
Qj LI.J
..... «
ooo
lJ"l' Nooo
0' N
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Vl
~
Vl
.-
0::

OJ
...c
+oJ
OJ ~
ro
+oJ
ro
...c$•••
Q)
>$s.....
ro ""C ........._ > c ..-
ro 0..
:>Q)o.. ~ V') :::s
V')+-,V')
Q)s.....""C
+-' Q) Q)
ro 0...-
a::x~ • • Q) V') s.....

S:::::+-'Q) o Q) >
.- ~.-.
~s.....OV') ~ Ero_:_...
§
~ ro t::: u
:::J s.....+-' co
- Q)C0
u..$ Q) s.....
~0V')0..

OJ a.. V') ...
~• Q) =0
"'V')Q)""C
faC s.....ro
~0 ro
'-.+-,V')Q)
s::::: .- c, :::s O-gLLro .,ij 0 a:: .:> . ...
.~u-
_. Q) ""C ~1i)$C E ~ 0 ro
s.....0..0
o ro .- uE~J2
OJ ...c 4: +-' ~+-' s.....
fa .-~0
c:::$uo..
.

V')
+-'
q::

Q)C
.... Q)
t;..c
:::s>
E .~c
ro :::s
Q)E
~E
V')0
Q)u
~""C
s.....C
Q) ro > s.....
+-' Q)
+-'E
Q) :::s

0..V') E c o 0
u~•• ro ~ c
:::J0
oI .~ ~""C
c.""C o ro
... Q)
OJ+-, E~o :::s ~ u
v)+-'
:::J s..... U«
o Q)
+-' ...c - +-'
ro eo
Q)C

0.. .-
o..~ «
E
....

V')>
Q)..c
.> V')
+-'''''C u C
Q) .-
BEo Q)
•
»Q) u .- V')
.- +-' ro o ro u
o..cV')
Q) V')
ro V') Q) u c c o 0 V') u :::s
.8""C..c
«co uroz
u~«
c·--
..." V') ro \JJ.J V') +-'
Q)C
«s.....Q)
..:..: g,oE
fa s.....C u 0.. 0
.,ij...c s..... =+-'> o 0 c
c....cQ)
Q)
>...c
- +-' ~ C
s.....

Q) Q)
>+-'
""C ro
ro 0..
>.~ ro+-, E ~o, V') c ....

01./')
·Vi~ .
.-~ V')
uN V')
Q) co Q)
""C«g
u~s.....
:::::>00..
a..Q)Q) .. -
>
OJ 0..•.;;
.:::E ro 10 ro.~
V;~b.O
.- Q) bDOOJV')""C
....I-C
'-. ro ro > ....
...«>
ou s.....
~uo fa +-' _+-,ro
:::JubDQ):::S
OJ~ b.O
,..,~Q)
.... ro s..... ,
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a V) -roo
b.OuEocou
0)
-0C
ro
ro
....., c
0)Eco
sVl
OJ
b.O
ro
......, c
ro>
""0«
UJ UU
._>C
0)
couo
....., o
0)>
V) Co

0. V)
0)
sV) WUU
-
ro
.-
......, C
OJ
......, o
c,
•
V)
......

V)
.,... x
0)
....., >C
0)
ss-
:JU
0)C"C
0)
sO)
..c: ~
0)U
.-o
..c: u
ro
V)
sO) E
:J
V) Cou
V)
sO) no•
-0
0)
._N
-0
V)
..c
:J
V) ~
0)>
ro

0. x
ro
.....,
~@...
-0
0)
.....,
s-o

0. 0.
:J
V)
0)
:JC
0)>
0)
0::: •
V)
0)
.....,
ro
L;;.
._....., >U
.-~
....., U
0) -0)
s-...

0. ro
(J)
..c: uc
(J)
.~o
...
(J) -
..c
ro.....,
U')•
....., C
C'CU
q::
.-C
bO
V)
-0C

C'C V')
~C;;

0.0 o.b,O
='-0..
~~~-o ~

0.0 '-
(J)'+--C 0
C'C.....,
0)C
U (J) o E ....., OJ
..c:~
u o_
.-
*""..cu
~ ro
V) ....
-oV)
._C

0.0 C'C .- s-t)
s- :J
0-0
'+-0)
V) s-
~(.!)
~:r:
«(.!) •
co V) ~ E
"OC'C ._ s-
>b.O o
0 !i.- sc, 0. •
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Vl
Q)
.-+-' .-Uo
+-'
...cU
ro
Q)
!a...
+-'
:::::s o
>-
+-' C
:::::s oU
c~
ro
V') !o... o :>-
.....c -0 -0 ......,~ C ~ ......, o ro V') E 0 ro ..c ......,u u _.- 0::: UJC
_u..c
V')~~
OJ '+- ......,
.-t=0 ro
u V')C
OJ !o... _ OJ ......,
..Q..QV')
b.OE~
OJ OJ
OJE~
U)>
~-o~
ro~~
o !o... V')
......, ro ro
V') OJ -0
!o... !o...C
~ ro ro
......,0C
OJ ......,0
......, !o... ......, C !o... U

OJ OJ OJ
V')u_
o tt::UJ u
2-0
V')C2
> rn ro
~o-o
~..o-o o ro ro U a... 0 •
OJ uC
OJ
!o...
~
Cou
V')
!o... o>
rosm.u
OJ o
......,
ro
V')
c.. o
..c
V') ~
!o... oS
roCo
b.O
OJ
!o...
-0
OJ UC~oCC«
V')
o,
0-..cO
V')M-
\.D
~ U-M O
!o... Q) o::::t•
oMU
::::>- Q) :>~uo
Q)Q)-
"" Q)0 -c
\\,1~-0
CU Vl0
o +-' Q) 3:
b.O~at:

OJ ro~Q) 0::: > Q)
~
>Ic::o
•
•
... _OJ oC
a...
... C
......, o>
roU
...
-0
!o... o
U-o C
0 o0
uS
V') ......, C U OJ C !o...
~cc
0-0 U
C
>ro
......, N U OJ o C
......, ......,
!o...

V') ro
g~
......, ...
ro OJ ......, ......, C ......,
OJ~
CD~
!o... ro
a... ......J •
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Vl
OJ
V') Co

0..

Vl
OJ
a:::
>- ~
.-u
00000
0 00
00 0...0...0...0...0
...
0 Ll') 00 Ll') Ll')
('(')
N r-l r-l
M
'(/'). '(/'). '(/'). "(/). '(/').
'"0 '"0 '"0 -c '"0
tlO OJ OJ OJ tlO OJ eo OJ C OJ OJ OJ C OJ C OJ u u U +oJ U +oJ U X X x ro x ro x OJ OJ OJ c.. UJ OJ c.. OJ U.I
U
00 0
U
U
0 u
0 U
+oJ +oJ +oJ :E +oJ +oJ
+oJ +oJ +oJ +oJ +oJ +oJ tlO +oJ tlO eo +oJ tlO
~
'- '- '-
ro
000 ro '"00
C rocc
0c -c c.. c c c c.. c .- c.. .- .- C .- OJ -c -c -c -c OJ ... ... ... +oJ
C
...

C +oJCC
...

Vl Vl Vl Vl
C
C
0 Vl
0 Vl Vl
~~~~
0 ~

OJ OJ OJ
~~
OJ
0 Z ....., c,Z c, c, c, .....,
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a ....
0) -
U) ..c
ro
M
S
.....
<,
~
0) V')
Ln
c 0) --,
M
0)
> ro ro
~ V')
~ +oJ
.......__...,
'*'
~ 0)
U V')

N') V') V')
0 0
0 ~ 0)
U
LI)
~
V')
C
- >- 0) ro ro ~ ~
0 UJ V')
V')
0 +oJ ..c +oJ
U
0 C +oJ ro
U
C UJ
U ro
- :::J
0 U >- ~ 0 :::J
ro
-:::J
V')
U
E
~
-0 ro
c
+oJ on ....
~ 0) c.. :::J +oJ
::J
0 0)
c V') eo J2 u ~ u 0) 0) C
.f...J V') +oJ <,
U
V") V')E
>
0)
u
ro ro
c
+oJ
U
:::J c.. +oJ .-
-
c
~ ""'C on
0 ro
0 0) +oJ
0 CO 0) :::J
0 C
.~
E
- >-
~
.....
u
0 ~ 0) 0) >- c.. ""'C +oJ
.- 0) V')
C
> +oJ +oJ
C
~ 0) UJ 0) V')
c
~
-
ro ..c ""'C +oJ ro :::J :::J . ~ u
..c +oJ
u >- ro UJ
0 rr
u 0)
U
C +oJ 19 +oJ ""'C 0).~
U
U 0) 0) a.. c E 0 u
~
~
~ .... +oJ
~ ro
•• +oJ ro
0 ~
C ..c ro c..
m ""'C
V)
C
0 +oJ
- V')
c 0)
Vl
V) 0)
S
0 0)
0 C '+-
ClJ
E
E
""'C +oJ
>
>
u
0 0
OJ V)
~
c.. 0)
~ 0) +oJ ro V) 0) 0
V') 0) V')
N fa
0C
U
~ ro
.-
~ '+- 0)
0 ~
V')
0 ~
~
«
0 !..- - :::J 0) 0) V') - V') c.. -
'+- ..c
u ..c
~ 0)
0 .- 0)
C +oJ 3: 0 +oJ ro ~ V') V') 0) ""'C
..c
~
ro
S
ro ro ro 0) b.O ro
S
> c..
~ c.. +oJ +oJ
~
.f...J "'C 0)
E
..c
c
.- 0) +oJ b.O
::J :::s >- >-
c
u 0) +oJ +oJ
c 0)
C
0)
0 :::J :::J ..c
«
..., .- .- +oJ
~
~
V)
u
u
~
u V')
0 +oJ ~
ro ro 0)
-
~
~
s
'*' V') .... c..
0 c..
c
-0 fa ......, +oJ 0) V') 0) u u 0 ~ UJ c..E +oJ
!..-
U 0) 0)
......,
V') c..
c
~
.-
0 ro
U
0 ro
C
.-
0 0)
CO ..c UJ UJ
M a:: a::
u
~
u c..
0 u
CO
~
•
•
•
••
•
•
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a UJ UU
OJ ~
ro
c.. Eou
>-
""C
:::J
+-J
V')
.s:u~
ro
""C-
:::J o$$oI
("\..

V')
OJ
.->
o
+-'
,+-""C o OJ!... o ro

0..

J2E
+-' !...0
ou

0..-
V)E .... OJ
LU..c
U+-' ~ !... +-,J2
c: t:l.O
::l c: o .- u >- u ro
ro 0.. o V)
+-'
c: LUU
~~
.- V) ~ OJ 19 u .._.__, .;::

V) 0..
~""C
ro c:
!... ro
V)
OJ
+-'
ro!...
+-'
OJ ~
!...
ro
LU V)E
u+-' ,
U OJ
c:::::~ ro
+-' +-' V)
c: c: OJ ~ 0 0
!...U ..c
aE3 !...
+-' OJ +-'
ro +-' c: ~ I OJ O
co !...
c: !...
o0 ::l
.....JU
•
ro >- U +-' o .-
c:
::l
c:E
~E

0..0 o
u
..c ....
u~
ro V)
OJ !...
'+-o ro!...

V) OJ
c:>
o0
u ....
""C~ c: OJ
ro c:

V) OJ o .> !... +-'
o..'+=i
OJ OJ
..c 0..
+-'E !...

J28
x OJ
!... +-'
+-' ro ro !... E 0....
t:l.O!...
c: t:
!...0
ou
u <,
V) OJ
rouc:
_

0.. ro V) o E C
OJ OJ OJ > > c:

OJ0 OJ
o t:l.O..c -•
>-
co!...

OJ
c:

OJ
OJ -..c
ro3
OJ
c:

OJ!...
.... V)
OJ
+-'
ro +-'
!... c: o OJ
+-'E
""C 0.. ~ 0
ro OJ
OJ>
!... OJ
V)""C
rou
51E
ro0
u c: o 0U
+-' OJ
OJ ....

OJ +-' E ~ o E
+-' OJ
>-!...
+-' ::l U
..ce
<! 0.. •
c:o V)
+-' OJ
o..::l o c:
..c OJ u >
ro~
OJ V)
'+- ::l o 0..

V) !...
c: ::l o V)
+-''"'0 u c:
::l ro
""C
OJ!...

V)
eo
c: l!J .- I >
l!J~
-V) OJ
+-'10 '+= !...

OJ
c:

OJ
..c
~c:

OJ0
c: +-'

0..
ro OJ
o +-' V)
c: ro ..c
OJ ..cu
E
UJ ro
c: o(S~
o 1!J OJ
!...c...""C > 0 c:
c: +-' ::l
OJ
OJ""C""C
!... OJ OJ !... +-'
~~~ E
E~
o0 OJ
Uu co
•
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a >-
""C
::J
+-'
Vl
.s:U
Q)
+-'
Q) Vl
+-' Q)
ro ::J
::J
C
ro
Q)
>
>
>- Q) !o.... '"
-c Vl
Q) CU
!o.... .r::. -e
::J Q) +-'
U
Vl
~
0 0
~ Q) ro Q) ""C
e Vl > E ""C C Q..
...c
+-'
I ::J ro
u
c g. u
U
Q)
0 Q)
.__
c
u -e
~
..c Vl +-' Vl
C
U
0 .-U ""CC
- Q)
0 0 Q) Q) ro !o....
~
::J
E
!o....
,._
~
$
""C
0 Q)
0 +-' UJ +-'
U Q) +-'
C ::3
'+- Q)
U
Vl Vl co ro
0 0
>
U Vl Q) ro
E
u
e
...c ro Vl +-' +-'
eo Vl
0 .s: ro .-
C ro !o....

U
::J
> Q)
0 0
0C
~ >- CO +-' +-' !o.... 0 $
..c
u Q) ro
0 OJ ro +-' ro +-'
~ ::J ""C :g ,._ .r::. u 0.. .r::. Vl -
ro
~
u
u 0..
0 U +-' CU
C ::J ro ..c
~
ro
0 .r::. ro
::J Q) ::J
U Q) .r::. Q) ""C Vl Q)
~
0 !o.... 0.. !o.... Vl
~
c ::3 +-' ..c +-' ~ ro
::J ""C
0 0 OJ ::J ::J !o.... +-' Q) :::..-. >- 0 .r::. 0 0
Vl +-'

0.. Vl ro
~ >- +-' >-
$ ""C ro +-' CU
E
!o.... Q) .- +-' Q) +-' U
..c
c
e
C
Vl
I Q)
C !o.... .r::.

C ::J ..c Vl
0 ~
..c
u
::J ::J +-' ::J

U Q) Q) --
E
ro
E
::J
0 $
!o.... cu
E
c (.!J a.. u. a.. 3=
E
E
E
0 A
A
0 u
u
AA
A
A
~
0U
•
•
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a V)
OJ
.-
-I-' .-U
5r....
~
OJ -o
a::
""'C C
ro
!....
c..Q)
O..c
Q) -e > ~
Q)'+-
""'C !....
o~
....... V)
V)
Q)u
....... c
.-~
u0
..cu ....... $ .?:
~u
!....
o""'C $
~
0""'C
....... !....

V) ro
..c0 ....... co co ° E ::::
00c
I Q)
r--.. V)
Q)~
~ c..
ro
.......""'C C
::> ro
::> :>
.......""'C
Q)~
....... ....... ro V) E Q)
c
....... 'E)0
V) c.. .......

Q)E~
Q) !....
::::::> >u""'C°.-
•
co
....... u
.-
""'C
V)
!.... ~
..c u
ro Q)
Q)N
..c V)
....... V) $ .......
...c
o0
0""'C 0...Q) o V)
L/') ro M..o
-<J).Q)
>~
..c..c
b.OV) ~ Q) o .......
!.... ro
V)c
.->.-°
""'C-e ~
0 ....... c..

V)0
'+- !.... o c.. ~ Q) o ....... u ~
..0
ro .;::
....... ....... o c
.......0
""'Cu
Q)0
....... ....... ro
E~
.......~
V) V)
UJ ro •
>V)
""'CO ~ CO
~""'C $
C
.Q)~
>
Q)U
!....C
c_'"~
u_0
c:::U
....... > U .-t= ~ U
""'C0
C ....... o V) U b.O o .c
.......""'C
Q)C
.......~
~
..0 ....... C
!.... Q)
....... V) C Q) o !.... U c..
1O""'C
..cC
.......ro
V)
Q)
...
....... ~ .-t= c.. U C
..cU .......
$..0 ~
~
!.... c.. o !.... $ Q)
..c
....... .- ro $ b.O
....... >C~ou•
.
""'C
Q)E
!....
~
V) ~
--,
UJ UU$ UJ ~ U
ro~
'+-C
.-
V)0
.......

V)o
0 U .......

V) Q)
.......""'C
!.... ro
Q)E
> V) oU C ~ 0
""'C .~ ~ U o Q)
u""'C
v)'+-
Q)""'C
.-t= Q) u !....
""'C~
C0
rou
>Q)
....... !.... C ....... ~ 0 o C u V)
Q)~
..c0
~u
........
•
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a •
• co
.-~o
u,
.f-I C
OJE

0. o
OJ >
OJ o
-«
V>
::)o
.f-I o~-
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a I
"0 Ql)
a
a
OJ c:00
..... +'
0 0
rcU
rc 0' U"l' 0

0. m V').
~
'0 V'). t
VI
m "0 0.. c:
u,
:J '0Z
M "0 "000 "0
'0
0 c: OJ <lJ
8 0
rulo
0 +' "0 "0
q :-Qq
q
ttl '0
'0 1J'1' U"l
u,o rt) C- ClI <lJ M rl ClI U"l "
'0 "0 "0 V'). V'). "0 V'). .-I t
c: c: c: V'}.
m :J :J :J

0..
..... 0z
0 ""
~~I.I O'l
""'"

1.0 M O'l U"l
<:.t' '<:.t' r' 1.0 1"
.-i
Mimi III 100 il.O , ! .-i
'<:.t' , , I I I ~L I ~IS::: III 1'0 i °0.1l1Ds::: I a I':l I~ VI [ c:
.E /00
"0
P;?l ....
0 §"E (U E -1'0 "0 ill~ m ~D. '0
ex: c: iii (U
VI co ::I "0 :t:! QJ c: ~
ee
0 s::: 0: 0:: U') u :J I
AttachmentH
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a H.2.b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Prior Orinda Staff Reports w minutes excerpts (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a $JHQGD,WHP1R

$*(1'$5(3257
'$7(
2FWREHU

72 0D\RUDQG&LW\&RXQFLO
)520
6HDQ34XLQQ,QWHULP&LW\0DQDJHU
68%-(&7
5HVROXWLRQ
RIWKH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOG$XWKRUL]LQJWKH&LW\ 0DQDJHUWR6XEPLW3* (/RDG'DWD5HTXHVW)RUPVIRU3DUWLFLSDWLRQLQD&RPPXQLW\ &KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ3URJUDP
5(&200(1'('$&7,21
3URYLGHVWDIIGLUHFWLRQRQSRWHQWLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQD&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ &&$
SURJUDP
DQGLIWKHGHFLVLRQLVWRSDUWLFLSDWHDGRSWUHVROXWLRQ 67$7(0(172),668(
(OHFWULFSRZHULVFXUUHQWO\SURYLGHGWR&LW\RI)DLUILHOGUHVLGHQWVE\3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

3* (
DQGLWLVFXUUHQWO\WKHRQO\HOHFWULFSRZHURSWLRQDYDLODEOH&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWRUV

&&$V
DUHDQDOWHUQDWLYHHOHFWULFSRZHUVXSSOLHUQRZDYDLODEOHWRPDQ\FRPPXQLWLHVLQ&DOLIRUQLD &&$VSRROWKHHOHFWULFLW\GHPDQGRILWVPHPEHUFRPPXQLWLHVWRSXUFKDVHSRZHUZLWKKLJKHUUHQHZDEOH DQGORZHUJUHHQKRXVHJDVFRQWHQWWKDQ3* (WKXVSURYLGLQJDQDOWHUQDWLYHSRZHUVXSSOLHUFKRLFHWR WKHUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVRI)DLUILHOG6WDIILVVHHNLQJ&LW\&RXQFLOGLUHFWLRQRQZKHWKHUWRSXUVXH MRLQLQJD&&$SURJUDP
DQGLIVRZKHWKHUWRUHTXHVWPHPEHUVKLSLQ0DULQ&OHDQ(QHUJ\ 0&(
RU
(DVW%D\&RPPXQLW\(QHUJ\
(%&(

',6&866,21
3XUVXDQWWR$VVHPEO\%LOO
6WDWXWH&KDSWHU
VHH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RGH

DQ\&DOLIRUQLDFLW\RUFRXQW\ZKRVHJRYHUQLQJERG\VRHOHFWVLVDXWKRUL]HGWRFRPELQHWKHHOHFWULFLW\ ORDGRILWVUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVLQWRD&&$SURJUDP$&&$LVVXEMHFWWRWKHUHJXODWLRQVJRYHUQHG E\WKH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RPPLVVLRQ
&38&
DQGLVLQYROYHGRQO\LQWKHVRXUFHDFTXLVLWLRQRI
HOHFWULFDOSRZHUJHQHUDWLRQQRWWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGGLVWULEXWLRQRIHOHFWULFLW\ &&$VDUHORFDOJRYHUQPHQWDJHQFLHVWKDWSXUFKDVHDQGPD\GHYHORSSRZHURQEHKDOIRIWKHLU FRPPXQLWLHVWRH[HUFLVHORFDOFRQWURORYHUSRZHUPL[DQGUDWHV)RUH[DPSOH&&$PHPEHUVPD\ GHWHUPLQHWKHDPRXQWRIUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHVIURPZLQGJHRWKHUPDOELRPDVVVRODUDQGVPDOO K\GURSRZHUWRPDNHXSWKHLUSRZHUPL[LQVXSSRUWRIWKHLUUHVSHFWLYH&OLPDWH$FWLRQ3ODQ &$3
JRDOV
6LQFHWKH&38&KDVDSSURYHG&&$VWRGDWHPDNLQJLWIDUVLPSOHUDQGHFRQRPLFDOWRMRLQDQ 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 470 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
H[LVWLQJ&&$8QOLNHDQLQYHVWRURZQHGXWLOLW\OLNH3* (RUDPXQLFLSDOXWLOLW\OLNH6DFUDPHQWR 0HWURSROLWDQ8WLOLW\'LVWULFWD&&$GRHVQRWRZQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGGHOLYHU\V\VWHPVEXWLV UHVSRQVLEOHIRUEX\LQJDQGJHQHUDWLQJHOHFWULFDOSRZHURQEHKDOIRILWVFXVWRPHUV7KH&&$PD\RZQ HOHFWULFJHQHUDWLQJIDFLOLWLHV
EXWPRUHRIWHQLWSXUFKDVHVUHQHZDEOHSRZHUIURPSULYDWHHOHFWULFLW\ JHQHUDWRUV
6KRXOGWKH&LW\FKRRVHWRSXUVXHPHPEHUVKLSLQD&&$WKHUHDUHFXUUHQWO\WZRH[LVWLQJ&&$VWKDWWKH &LW\FRXOGFRQVLGHU
0DULQ&OHDQ(QHUJ\
0&(
RU(DVW%D\&RPPXQLW\(QHUJ\
(%&(
9DOOH\&OHDQ
(QHUJ\DWKLUG&&$RSHUDWHVLQ<ROR&RXQW\EXWLVQRWFXUUHQWO\DQRSWLRQIRUWKH&LW\WRMRLQDWWKLV WLPH'HWDLOHGUDWHFRPSDULVRQVEHWZHHQ(%&(YHUVXV3* (DQG0&(YHUVXV3* (DUHLQFOXGHG DV$WWDFKPHQWVDQGUHVSHFWLYHO\:KHWKHUDQLQGLYLGXDO¶VHQHUJ\ELOOZRXOGEHORZHUWKHVDPHRU PRUHWKDQWKHLUFXUUHQWUDWHVSDLGWR3* (ZRXOGGHSHQGRQZKLFKSRZHUVXSSO\SRUWIROLRWKH\FKRVHWR SDUWLFLSDWHLQ+RZHYHULQJHQHUDO0&(UDWHVDSSHDUWREHORZHUWKDQFRPSDUDEOHUDWHVIRU(%&( 6WDIIKDVUHYLHZHGWKHSURJUDPVRIIHUHGE\0&(DQG(%&(DQGKDVFRPSDUHGWKHIROORZLQJLWHPV

IRUPDWLRQGDWHQXPEHURIPHPEHUVPHPEHUVKLSFULWHULDJRYHUQLQJERDUGYRWLQJPHHWLQJVFKHGXOH PLVVLRQVWDWHPHQWUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\SURJUDPVRIIHUHGWRFXVWRPHUVUDWHFRPSDULVRQDQGRWKHUQRQ &&$SURJUDPV$WDEOHVXPPDUL]LQJWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVLQFOXGHGDV$WWDFKPHQWDQGWKHPRUH VLJQLILFDQWLWHPVDUHGHVFULEHGEHORZ

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

DQGZRXOGQRWKDYHWRDWWHQGWKHPHHWLQJV

7KHUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\SURJUDPVRIIHUHGE\HDFKDUHYHU\VLPLODUEXWKDYHVRPHPLQRU GLIIHUHQFHV
,QYHU\JHQHUDOWHUPVLWDSSHDUVWKDWWKH0&(DQG(%&(UDWHVDUHVOLJKWO\ORZHUWKDQFRPSDUDEOH 3* (HOHFWULFSRZHUVXSSO\SRUWIROLRVDQGWKDW0&(¶VUDWHVDUHVOLJKWO\ORZHUWKDQ(%&(¶V 0&(KDVFRQVWUXFWHGPHJDZDWWV
0:
ZRUWKRIUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\SURMHFWV(%&(KDVQRW
FRQVWUXFWHGDQ\SURMHFWVDVRI\HW
0&(KDVVHYHUDOQRQ&&$SURMHFWVVXFKDVHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\SURJUDPVUHVLGHQWLDOVRODU LQVWDOODWLRQUHEDWHVHOHFWULFDOYHKLFOHSXUFKDVHUHEDWHVDQGHOHFWULFDOYHKLFOHFKDUJHULQVWDOODWLRQ UHEDWHV(%&(KDV\HWWRGHYHORSWKHVHSURJUDPV
&&$LVFRQVLGHUHGWRKDYHVRPHRIWKHEHVWJUHHQKRXVHJDV *+*
UHGXFWLRQSRWHQWLDORIDOORWKHU
FRPELQHGHQHUJ\UHODWHGPHDVXUHVUHFRPPHQGHGLQWKH6RODQR&RXQW\&$3WKDWZDVDGRSWHGLQ -XQHRI7KH&LW\SUHSDUHGDGUDIW&$3VSHFLILFWR)DLUILHOGLQODWHWKDWLQFOXGHGD GLVFXVVLRQRIWKHEHQHILWVRISDUWLFLSDWLQJLQD&&$EXWWKHSODQZDVQHYHUILQDOL]HG+RZHYHUWKH&LW\ ZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRUHGXFHLWVJUHHQKRXVHJDVHPLVVLRQVLQWKHIXWXUHDQGMRLQLQJD&&$ZLOOEHDQ LQWHJUDOSDUWRIDFKLHYLQJ6WDWHUHTXLUHPHQWV
,QGLYLGXDOVDQGEXVLQHVVHVFDQHOHFWWRRSWRXWRIWKH&&$DWDQ\WLPH7KHUHLVQRFKDUJHWRRSWRXWDW WKHSURJUDPVWDUWEXWWKHUHZRXOGEHDQRPLQDOIHHWRRSWRXWDIWHUGD\VWRFRYHUWKHFRVWRIDFFRXQW DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ
6WDIIUHFRPPHQGVSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQD&&$WRSURYLGHLQFUHDVHGUHQHZDEOHHOHFWULFHQHUJ\RSWLRQVIRU WKH&LW\¶VUHVLGHQWVDQGWRKHOSWKH&LW\PHHWWKHJUHHQKRXVHJDVUHGXFWLRQJRDOVRIWKH6WDWH)XUWKHU VWDIIVSHFLILFDOO\UHFRPPHQGVUHTXHVWLQJLQFOXVLRQLQ0&(EHFDXVHRIWKHLUORQJVXFFHVVIXOWUDFN UHFRUGWKHLUORZHUUDWHVWUXFWXUHDQGDGGLWLRQDOSURJUDPVDYDLODEOHWRFXVWRPHUV$GGLWLRQDOO\6RODQR 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 471 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
&RXQW\DQGRWKHU6RODQR&RXQW\FLWLHVDUHRUZLOOEHPHPEHUVRI0&( UHJLRQDOFRQVLVWHQF\

,I&LW\&RXQFLOFKRRVHVWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQD&&$VWDIILVVHHNLQJDSSURYDOWRVXEPLWWZRUHTXLUHGHOHFWULF SRZHUORDGGDWDUHTXHVWIRUPVWRWKHVHOHFWHG&&$WREHJLQWKHSURFHVV6WDIIZLOOFRPHEDFNDWD IXWXUHPHHWLQJZLWKWKHUHTXLUHGUHVROXWLRQRUGLQDQFHDQG0HPRUDQGXPRI8QGHUVWDQGLQJWRUHTXHVW LQFOXVLRQZLWKWKHVHOHFWHG&&$7KLVUHTXHVWIRULQFOXVLRQZRXOGEHHYDOXDWHGE\WKH&&$LQ UHYLHZHGE\WKH&38&LQZLWKSUREDEOHUROORXWWR&LW\UHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVLQHDUO\ ),1$1&,$/,03$&7
6KRXOG&LW\&RXQFLOGLUHFWVWDIIWRSXUVXHPHPEHUVKLSLQD&&$WKHUHLVQRFRVWWREHFRPHDPHPEHU :KLOHLWLVSRVVLEOHDWHFKQLFDOVWXG\FRVWLQJWRPD\EHUHTXLUHGLWLVOLNHO\WKDWDQ\ IHHVUHODWHGWRQHHGHGWHFKQLFDOVWXGLHVZRXOGEHZDLYHG &,7<&281&,/:25.3/$1
&RPPXQLW\6DIHW\ &RPPXQLW\,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 4XDOLW\RI/LIH )LQDQFLDODQG2SHUDWLRQDO
6XVWDLQDELOLW\ (FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW 7UDYLV$LU)RUFH%DVH &LW\&RXQFLO*RDOWKLVLWHPVXSSRUWV

&RPPXQLW\,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
3URMHFW

IULHVHQEHUJ#IDLUILHOGFDJRY
&225',1$7(':,7+
&LW\$WWRUQH\
V2IILFH2XWVLGH&RXQVHO
$77$&+0(176

' HVF UL SW L R Q
&RPSDULVRQ7DEOH0&(YHUVXV(%&(
-RLQW5DWH&RPSDULVRQV3* (YHUVXV(%&(
-RLQW5DWH&RPSDULVRQV3* (YHUVXV0&(
3URSRVHG5HVROXWLRQ
5(9,(:(56

5HYLHZHU $FWLRQ 'DWH
3DQJDQLEDQ5\DQ $SSURYHG

30
3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 472 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
.DXVKDO3DXO $SSURYHG

30
+HQU\$OLFLD $SSURYHG

30
+HQU\$OLFLD $SSURYHG

30
3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 473 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti

COMPARISON BETWEEN

COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (CCA) PROGRAMS OFFERED BY

MARIN CLEAN ENERGY (MCE) AND EAST BAY CLEAN ENERGY (EBCE)

MCE EBCE
Date Formed December 15, 2008 December 1, 2016
# Members 34 12
Membership criteria x Adoption of ordinance electing to implement CCA through MCE per
Public Utilities Code §366.2;
x Adoption of resolution requesting
inclusion in MCE;
x Approval by majority vote MCE
Directors;
x Payment of fee for pro rata share
organizational, planning and other
pre-existing expenditures;
x Satisfying other conditions or fee
payments as determined by MCE
Board
x Adoption of ordinance electing to
implement CCA through EBCE per
Public Utilities Code §366.2;
x Adoption of resolution requesting
inclusion in EBCE;
x Approval by majority vote EBCE
Directors;
x Payment of fee for pro rata share
organizational, planning and other
pre-existing expenditures;
x Satisfying other conditions or fee
payments as determined by EBCE
Board
Governing Board One representative from legislative
body of each member
x May designate existing member to
act on its behalf
One representative from legislative
body of each member.

Voting Non-CCA matters (except as below):
x One vote per member, majority of
quorum present
Non-CCA matters that require financial
contributions by members:
x Majority vote full Board
membership, member may opt out
of specific program

Use weighted voting (Annual Energy
Use Share) for CCA matters
¾ Annual Energy Use Share =
ratio of electric accounts in
member’s jurisdiction to total
accounts in CCA

All matters (except as below):
x One vote per member, majority of
all Directors on Board
x Amending Joint Powers Agreement
(JPA):
¾ 2/3 vote of all Directors in
general
¾ 3/4 vote of all Directors to
amend voting provisions
Use weighted voting (Voting Share)
for:
x Tie of majority vote if requested by
3 or more Directors;
x Request by 3 or more Directors

¾ Voting Share = ratio of electric
accounts in member’s
jurisdiction to total accounts in
CCA
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation

MCE EBCE
Meeting Schedule At least 4 times per year At least 4 times per year Mission Statement “To address climate change by
reducing energy related greenhouse gas
emissions through renewable energy
supply and energy efficiency at stable
and competitive rates for customers
while providing local economic and
workforce benefits.”
“To deliver economic, environmental,
and social benefits to the communities
of Alameda County by providing
cleaner electricity at competitive rates,
developing local resources that drive
new investments, and creating
increased demand for high-paying
jobs.”
Renewable Energy
Programs Offered to
Customers
x “Light Green:” 60% renewable
x “Deep Green:” 100% solar and
wind produced in state
x “Local Sol:” 100% locally
produced solar

x “Bright Choice:” at least 38%
renewable and 47% carbon-free
(mostly large hydro)
x “Brilliant 100:” at least 40%
renewable and 60% carbon-free
(mostly large hydro)
x “Renewable 100:” 100% renewable
(solar, wind, biomass, biowaste,
geothermal, small hydro)
PGE Rate Comparison See attached See attached
Non-CCA Programs x Energy efficiency (EE) programs
x Solar installation (residential)
rebates
x Electric vehicle (EV) purchase
rebates
x EV charger installation (workplace
and residential) rebates
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJH
RI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation PG&E – East Bay Community Energy
Joint Rate Comparisons
As a part of our mutual commitment to support your energy choice, East Bay Community Energy and PG&E have partnered to create a comparison of our typical electric rates, average monthly charges, and generation portfolio contents. Below you will find a representative comparison of our rates and average monthly bills based on customer class. Detailed power generation portfolio content based on customer class can also be found at pge.com/cca. To find your specific electric rate, please scroll down to your rate plan to view the rate and bill comparisons.

Residential
x Tiered Rate Plan E-1
x Tiered Rate Plan E-1L (CARE)
x E-6
x E-6L (CARE)
x Time-of-Use (Peak Pricing 3-8 p.m. Weekdays)
o E-TOUA
o E-TOUAL (CARE)
x Time-of-Use (Peak Pricing 4-9 p.m. Weekdays)
o ETOUB
o ETOUBL
x Electric Vehicle Rate Plan EV-A
x Electric Vehicle Rate Plan EV-B
Small and Medium Business
x A-1
x A-1X
x A-6
x A-10S
x A–10SX
Large Commercial and Industrial
x E-19S
x E-19SV
x E-19P
x E-19PV
x E-20P
x E-20S
Agriculture x AG-4A
Streetlight and Outdoor Lighting x LS-3
x TC-1
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation Definitions
Generation Rate is the cost of creating electricity to power your home or business. The generation rate varies based on your energy provider and the resources included in your energy provider’s generation supply.

PG&E Delivery Rate is a charge assessed by PG&E to deliver electricity to your home or business. The PG&E delivery rate depends on your electricity usage but is charged equally to both EBCE and PG&E customers.

PG&E PCIA/FF represents the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) and the Franchise Fee surcharge (FF). The PCIA is a charge to recover PG&E’s costs for generation resources that are currently above the market rate. These resources were committed to prior to a customer’s switch to a third-party electric generation provider. PG&E acts as a collection agent for the Franchise Fee surcharge, which is levied by the California Public Utilities Commission on behalf of cities and counties in PG&E’s service territory for all customers. The costs for resources included in the PCIA and FF surcharges are included in the generation rate for PG&E bundled service customers
Where Do I Find My Electric Rate Schedule?
Need some help finding your electric rate? Go to the “Electric Delivery Charges” section of your energy statement - you’ll find your electric rate in the upper left. Your rate and service option with EBCE are also listed in the “Electric Generation Charges” section.

Look here to identify your electric rate
schedule. Once you have that, you can
find your rate comparison below.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
Residential *
Tiered Rate Plan E1
-111
Monthly usage: 357 kWh
Tiered Rate Plan E-1L (CARE)*
Residential:

E-1L CARE
PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-Free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11313 $0.09436 $0.07738 $0.07908 $0.08908 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.03996 $0.03996 $0.03996 $0.03996 $0.03996 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15309 $0.16778 $0.15139 $0.15309 $0.16309 Average Monthly Bill ($) $51.29 $56.22 $50.33 $53.68 $57.03 Monthly usage: 335 kWh
E-6*
Residential:

E-6 PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10777 $0.08900 $0.07210 $0.07372 $0.08372 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13690 $0.13690 $0.13690 $0.13690 $0.13690 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24467 $0.25936 $0.24305 $0.24467 $0.25567 Average Monthly Bill ($) $101.75 $107.86 $101.07 $101.75 $106.36 Monthly usage: 416 kWh
E-6L (CARE)*
Residential:

E-6L CARE PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10739 $0.08862 $0.07173 $0.07334 $0.08334 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.04601 $0.04601 $0.04601 $0.04601 $0.04601 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15340 $0.16809 $0.15179 $0.15340 $0.16340 Average Monthly Bill ($) $63.13 $69.18 $62.47 $63.13 $67.32 Monthly usage: 412 kWh
Residential:

E-1
PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11313 $0.09436 $0.07738 $0.07908 $0.08908 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13410 $0.13410 $0.13410 $0.13410 $0.13410 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24723 $0.26192 $0.24553 $0.24723 $0.25723 Average Monthly Bill ($)
$88.37 $93.63 $87.77 $88.37 $91.83
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
E-TOU A*
Residential:

E-TOU A PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10744 $0.08867 $0.07178 $0.07339 $0.08339 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13737 $0.13737 $0.13737 $0.13737 $0.13737 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24481 $0.25950 $0.24320 $0.24481 $0.25481 Average Monthly Bill ($) $97.72 $103.59 $97.08 $97.72 $101.67 Monthly usage: 399 kWh
E-TOU AL (CARE)* Time-of-Use (Peak Pricing 3-8 p.m. Weekdays) Residential:

E-TOU AL PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10716 $0.08839 $0.07150 $0.07311 $0.08311 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.04066 $0.04066 $0.04066 $0.04066 $0.04066 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.14782 $0.16251 $0.14621 $0.14782 $0.15782 Average Monthly Bill ($) $54.79 $60.24 $54.20 $54.79 $58.55 Monthly usage: 371 kWh
E-TOU B* Time-of-Use (Peak Pricing 4-9 p.m. Weekdays)
Residential:

E-TOU B PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10559 $0.08682 $0.06995 $0.07154 $0.008154 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.14272 $0.14272 $0.14272 $0.14272 $0.14272 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24831 $0.26300 $0.24672 $0.24831 $0.25831 Average Monthly Bill ($) $400.45 $424.14 $397.89 $400.45 $416.65 Monthly usage: 1,613 kWh
E-TOU BL (CARE)* Time-of-Use (Peak Pricing 3-8 p.m. Weekdays) Residential:

E-TOU BL PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10584 $0.08707 $0.07020 $0.07179 $0.08179 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.04545 $0.04545 $0.04545 $0.04545 $0.04545 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15129 $0.16598 $0.14970 $0.15129 $0.16129 Average Monthly Bill ($) $122.41 $134.29 $121.12 $122.41 $130.48 Monthly usage: 809 kWh
EV-A* Electric Vehicle Rate Plan
Residential:

EV-A PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09317 $0.07440 $0.05772 $0.05912 $0.06912 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.12169 $0.12169 $0.12169 $0.12169 $0.12169 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.21486 $0.22955 $0.21346 $0.21486 $0.22486 Average Monthly Bill ($) $288.59 $308.32 $286.71 $288.59 $301.99 Monthly usage: 1,343 kWh
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
EV-B* Electric Vehicle Rate Plan
Residential:

EV-B PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.08740 $0.06863 $0.05204 $0.05335 $0.06335 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.10473 $0.10473 $0.10473 $0.10473 $0.10473 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03405 $0.03405 $0.03405 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.19213 $0.20682 $0.19082 $0.19213 $0.20213 Average Monthly Bill ($) $81.73 $87.98 $81.17 $81.73 $85.91 Monthly usage: 425 kWh
* Please note this rate comparison excludes the California Climate Credit from the State of California which is issued twice a year to residential customers. For more information visit www.energyupgradeCA.org/credit

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
A-1**
Commercial/Industrial:

A-1 PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11051 $0.09037 $0.08355 $0.08520 $0.09520 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13434 $0.13434 $0.13434 $0.13434 $0.13434 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531 $0.02531 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24485 $0.24937 $0.24320 $0.24485 $0.25485 Average Monthly Bill ($) $441.35 $449.50 $438.38 $441.35 $459.49 Monthly usage: 1,803 kWh
A-1X TOU**
Commercial/Industrial:

A-1 TOU (A-1X) PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11093 $0.09079 $0.08396 $0.08562 $0.09562 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13729 $0.13729 $0.13729 $0.13729 $0.13729 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531 $0.02531 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24822 $0.25274 $0.24656 $0.24822 $0.25822 Average Monthly Bill ($) $376.90 $383.76 $374.38 $376.90 $391.98 Monthly usage: 1,518 kWh
A-6**
Commercial/Industrial:

A-6 PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.12287 $0.10273 $0.09572 $0.09756 $0.10756 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13352 $0.13352 $0.13352 $0.13352 $0.13352 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531 $0.02531 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.25639 $0.26091 $0.25455 $0.25639 $0.26639 Average Monthly Bill ($) $785.69 $799.54 $780.06 $785.69 $816.22 Monthly usage: 3,064 kWh
A-10S Non Time-of-Use**
Commercial/Industrial:

A-10S PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11465 $0.08740 $0.08723 $0.08895 $0.09895 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.10217 $0.10217 $0.10217 $0.10217 $0.10217 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02502 $0.02570 $0.02570 $0.02570 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.21682 $0.21459 $0.21510 $0.21682 $0.22682 Average Monthly Bill ($) $3,262.99 $3,229.43 $3,237.10 $3,262.99 $3,413.41 Monthly usage: 15,049 kWh, monthly demand: 49 kW
Small and Medium Business **
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
A-10SX Time-of-Use**
Commercial/Industrial:

A-10SX PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11519 $0.08794 $0.08776 $0.08949 $0.09949 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.10248 $0.10248 $0.10248 $0.10248 $0.10248 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02502 $0.02570 $0.02570 $0.02570 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.21767 $0.21544 $0.21594 $0.21767 $0.22767 Average Monthly Bill ($) $3,797.04 $3,758.14 $3,766.86 $3,797.04 $3,971.45 Monthly usage: 17,444 kWh, monthly demand: 58 kW
** Please note this rate comparison excludes volumetric California Climate Credits issued to eligible business customers that impact PG&E Delivery Rates only. For more information visit www.energyupgradeCA.org/credit
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
Large Commercial and Industrial
E-19 S
Commercial/Industrial:

E-19 S PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10680 $0.08715 $0.08352 $0.08512 $0.09512 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08088 $0.08088 $0.08088 $0.08088 $0.08088 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02104 $0.02168 $0.02168 $0.02168 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.18768 $0.18907 $0.18608 $0.18768 $0.19768 Average Monthly Bill ($) $49,393.73 $49,759.55 $48,972.64 $49,393.73 $52,025.62 Monthly usage: 263,181 kWh, monthly demand: 620 kW
E-19 SV
Commercial/Industrial:

E-19 SV PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10437 $0.08472 $0.08113 $0.08269 $0.09269 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08101 $0.08101 $0.08101 $0.08101 $0.08101 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02104 $0.02168 $0.02168 $0.02168 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.18538 $0.18677 $0.18382 $0.18538 $0.19538 Average Monthly Bill ($) $5,010.03 $5,047.60 $4,967.87 $5,010.03 $5,280.34 Monthly usage: 27,026 kWh, monthly demand: 60 kW
E-19 P
Commercial/Industrial:

E-19 P PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09614 $0.07649 $0.07302 $0.07446 $0.08446 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.07379 $0.07379 $0.07379 $0.07379 $0.07379 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02104 $0.02168 $0.02168 $0.02168 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.16993 $0.17132 $0.16849 $0.16993 $0.17993 Average Monthly Bill ($) $42,211.45 $42,556.73 $41,853.74 $42,211.45 $44,695.51 Monthly usage: 248,405 kWh, monthly demand: 602 kW
E-19 PV
Commercial/Industrial:

E-19 PV PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09533 $0.07568 $0.07221 $0.07365 $0.08365 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08352 $0.08352 $0.08352 $0.08352 $0.08352 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02104 $0.02168 $0.02168 $0.02168 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.17885 $0.18024 $0.17741 $0.17885 $0.18885 Average Monthly Bill ($) $9,565.11 $9,639.45 $9,488.10 $9,565.11 $10,099.89 Monthly usage: 53,481 kWh, monthly demand: 164 kW
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
E-20 P
Commercial/Industrial:

E-20 P PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09777 $0.08897 $0.07683 $0.07830 $0.08830 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.06864 $0.06864 $0.06864 $0.06864 $0.06864 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.01888 $0.01947 $0.01947 $0.01947 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.16641 $0.17649 $0.16494 $0.16641 $0.17641 Average Monthly Bill ($) $159,301.64 $168,951.07 $157,894.44 $159,301.64 $168,874.47 Monthly usage: 957,284 kWh, monthly demand: 2,076 kW
E-20 S
Commercial/Industrial:

E-20 S PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10150 $0.08733 $0.07913 $0.08065 $0.09065 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08022 $0.08022 $0.08022 $0.08022 $0.08022 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02025 $0.02085 $0.02085 $0.02085 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.18172 $0.18780 $0.18020 $0.18172 $0.19172 Average Monthly Bill ($) $105,411.95 $108,938.83 $104,530.23 $105,411.95 $111,212.75 Monthly usage: 580,079 kWh, monthly demand: 1,383 kW

$WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
AG-4A
Agricultural: AG-4A PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09170 $0.08269 $0.06515 $0.06652 $0.08652 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.19795 $0.19795 $0.19795 $0.19795 $0.19795 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02463 $0.02518 $0.02518 $0.02518 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.28965 $0.30527 $0.28828 $0.28965 $0.29965 Average Monthly Bill ($) $199.91 $210.69 $198.96 $199.91 $206.76 Monthly usage: 690 kWh, monthly demand: 5 kW

Agricultural
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJH
RI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation RATES ARE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 2019
Streetlight and Outdoor Lighting
LS-3
Streetlights:

LS-3 PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09101 $0.08598 $0.08311 $0.08448 $0.09448 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.10324 $0.10324 $0.10324 $0.10324 $0.10324 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.00589 $0.00653 $0.00653 $0.00653 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.19425 $0.19511 $0.19288 $0.19425 $0.20425 Average Monthly Bill ($) $70.61 $70.92 $70.11 $70.61 $74.14 Monthly usage: 363 kWh
TC-1
Streetlights:

TC-1 PG&E
PG&E Solar Choice
(100% Renewable) EBCE Bright Choice EBCE Brilliant 100
(100% Carbon-free)
EBCE Renewable 100
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10090 $0.08076 $0.07408 $0.07559 $0.08559 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13976 $0.13976 $0.13976 $0.13976 $0.13976 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531 $0.02531 Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24066 $0.24518 $0.23915 $0.24066 $0.25066 Average Monthly Bill ($) $61.53 $62.68 $61.14 $61.53 $64.17 Monthly usage: 256 kWh
Rates are effective as of May 2019
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 1 PG&E - MCE
Joint Rate Comparisons
As a part of our mutual commitment to support your energy choice, Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and PG&E have partnered to create a comparison of our typical electric rates, average monthly charges and generation portfolio contents. Below you will find a representative comparison of our rates, average monthly bills and power generation portfolio content based on customer class. To find your specific electric rate, please scroll down to your rate plan to view the rate and bill comparisons.

Residential
x Tiered Rate Plan E-1
x Tiered Rate Plan E-1L (CARE)
x E-6
x E-6L (CARE)
x Time-of-Use (Peak Pricing 3-8 p.m. Weekdays)
x E-TOUA
x E-TOUAL (CARE)
x Time-of-Use (Peak Pricing 4-9 p.m. Weekdays)
x ETOUB
x Electric Vehicle Rate Plan EV-A
x Electric Vehicle Rate Plan EV-B
Small and Medium Business
x A-1
x A-1X
x A-6
x A-10S
x A–10SX
Large Commercial and Industrial x E-19S
x E-19SV
x E-20P
Agriculture
x AG-1A
x AG-1B
x AG-4A
x AG-4B
x AG-5A
x AG-5B
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 1 Streetlight and Outdoor Lighting
x LS-3 x TC-1
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation Definitions
Generation Rate is the cost of creating electricity to power your home or business. The generation rate varies based on your energy provider and the resources included in your energy provider’s generation supply.

PG&E Delivery Rate is a charge assessed by PG&E to deliver electricity to your home or business. The PG&E delivery rate depends on your electricity usage, but is charged equally to both PCE and PG&E customers.

Where Do I Find My Electric Rate Schedule?
Need some help finding your electric rate? Go to the “Electric Delivery Charges” section of your energy statement - you’ll find your electric rate in the upper left.

Look here to identify your electric
rate schedule. Once you have
that, you can find your rate
comparison below.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 3 Residential *
E-1 *
Monthly usage: 483 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-1 (CARE)*
Residential: E-1 CARE PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11313 $0.09555 $0.06800 $0.07800 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.04105 $0.04105 $0.04105 $0.04105 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15418 $0.17006 $0.14309 $0.15309 Average Monthly Bill ($) $61.74 $68.10 $57.30 $61.30
Monthly usage: 400 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-6*
Residential: E-6 PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10940 $0.09182 $0.06434 $0.07434 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.14495 $0.14495 $0.14495 $0.14495 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.25435 $0.27023 $0.24333 $0.25333 Average Monthly Bill ($) $145.12 $154.18 $138.83 $144.54 Monthly usage: 571 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-6 (CARE)*
Residential: E-6 CARE PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10915 $0.09157 $0.06412 $0.07412 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.04907 $0.04907 $0.04907 $0.04907 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15822 $0.17410 $0.14723 $0.15723 Average Monthly Bill ($) $85.14 $93.69 $79.23 $84.61
Monthly usage: kWh 538
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
Residential: E-1 PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11313 $0.09555 $0.06800 $0.07800 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.14254 $0.14254 $0.14254 $0.14254 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.25567 $0.27155 $0.24458 $0.25458 Average Monthly Bill ($) $123.37 $131.03 $118.02 $122.84 $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 4 E-TOU A*
Residential: E-TOU A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10879 $0.09121 $0.06650 $0.07650 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.15003 $0.15003 $0.15003 $0.15003 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.25882 $0.27470 $0.25057 $0.26057 Average Monthly Bill ($) $164.72 $174.83 $159.47 $165.83 Monthly usage: 636 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-TOU A CARE*
Residential: E-TOU A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10891 $0.09133 $0.06662 $0.07662 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.04541 $0.04541 $0.04541 $0.04541 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15432 $0.17020 $0.14607 $0.15607 Average Monthly Bill ($) $77.88 $85.90 $73.72 $78.77
Monthly usage: 505
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-TOU B*
Residential: E-TOU A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10808 $0.09050 $0.06545 $0.07545 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.14357 $0.14357 $0.14357 $0.14357 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.25165 $0.26753 $0.24306 $0.25306 Average Monthly Bill ($) $333.42 $354.46 $322.04 $335.29 Monthly usage: 1,325 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-TOU B CARE*
Residential: E-TOU A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10795 $0.09037 $0.06532 $0.07532 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.04524 $0.04524 $0.04524 $0.04524 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15319 $0.16907 $0.14460 $0.15460 Average Monthly Bill ($) $146.48 $161.66 $138.27 $147.83 Monthly usage: 956 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 5 EV-A*
Residential: EV-A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09757 $0.07999 $0.05465 $0.06465 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.12601 $0.12601 $0.12601 $0.12601 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.22358 $0.23946 $0.21470 $0.22470 Average Monthly Bill ($) $279.95 $299.83 $268.83 $281.35 Monthly usage: 1,252 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
EV-B*
Residential: EV-A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.07328 $0.05570 $0.03146 $0.04146 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08342 $0.08342 $0.08342 $0.08342 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.03346 $0.03404 $0.03404
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.15670 $0.17258 $0.14892 $0.15892 Average Monthly Bill ($) $46.41 $51.11 $44.11 $47.07
Monthly usage: 296 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
* Please note this rate comparison excludes the California Climate Credit from the State of California which is issued twice a year to residential customers. For more information visit www.energyupgradeCA.org/credit

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 6 A-1**
Commercial/Indust
rial: A-1 PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11039 $0.09025 $0.07508 $0.08508 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13794 $0.13794 $0.13794 $0.13794 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.24833 $0.25285 $0.23833 $0.24833 Average Monthly Bill ($) $310.30 $315.95 $297.81 $310.30 Monthly usage: 1,250 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
A-1X TOU**
Commercial/Indust
rial: A-1 TOU (A- PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11129 $0.09115 $0.07562 $0.08562 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13889 $0.13889 $0.13889 $0.13889 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.25018 $0.25470 $0.23982 $0.24982 Average Monthly Bill ($) $321.24 $327.04 $307.93 $320.77 Monthly usage: 1,284 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
A-6**
Commercial/Indust
rial: A-6 PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.12268 $0.10254 $0.08390 $0.09390 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13301 $0.13301 $0.13301 $0.13301 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.25569 $0.26021 $0.24222 $0.25222 Average Monthly Bill ($) $991.50 $1,009.03 $939.27 $978.05 Monthly usage: 3,878 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
A-10 Non Time-of-Use**
Commercial/Indust
rial: A-10S PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11533 $0.08808 $0.07853 $0.08853 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.10429 $0.10429 $0.10429 $0.10429 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02502 $0.02570 $0.02570
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.21962 $0.21739 $0.20852 $0.21852 Average Monthly Bill ($) $3,056.98 $3,025.94 $2,902.48 $3,041.67 Monthly usage: 13,919 kWh, monthly demand: 46 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
Small and Medium Business **
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 7 A-10X Time of Use**
Commercial/Indust
rial: A-10X PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11656 $0.08931 $0.07953 $0.08953 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.10428 $0.10428 $0.10428 $0.10428 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02502 $0.02570 $0.02570
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.22084 $0.21861 $0.20951 $0.21951 Average Monthly Bill ($) $3,659.58 $3,622.63 $3,471.83 $3,637.54 Monthly usage: 16,571 kWh, monthly demand: 57kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
** Please note this rate comparison excludes volumetric California Climate Credits issued to eligible business customers that impact PG&E Delivery Rates only. For more information visit www.energyupgradeCA.org/credit
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 8 Large Commercial and Industrial
E-19 S
Commercial/Indust
rial: E-19 S PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10934 $0.08969 $0.07659 $0.08659 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08597 $0.08597 $0.08597 $0.08597 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02104 $0.02168 $0.02168
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.19531 $0.19670 $0.18424 $0.19424 Average Monthly Bill ($) $42,842.33 $43,147.23 $40,414.06 $42,607.62 Monthly usage: 219,356 kWh, monthly demand: 561 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-19 SV
Commercial/Indust
rial: E-19 SV PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10466 $0.08501 $0.07253 $0.08253 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08102 $0.08102 $0.08102 $0.08102 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02104 $0.02168 $0.02168
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.18568 $0.18707 $0.17523 $0.18523 Average Monthly Bill ($) $5,099.54 $5,137.72 $4,812.54 $5,087.18 Monthly usage: 27,464 kWh, monthly demand: 61 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
E-20
Commercial/Indust
rial: E-20 S PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10039 $0.08622 $0.06868 $0.07868 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.08451 $0.08451 $0.08451 $0.08451 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02025 $0.02085 $0.02085
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.18490 $0.19098 $0.17404 $0.18404 Average Monthly Bill ($) $87,620.03 $90,501.21 $82,473.72 $87,212.50 Monthly usage 473,878 kWh, monthly demand: 1,216 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
$WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI 3DFNHW3DJH
RI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 9 AG-1A
Agricultural: AG-1A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11070 $0.10169 $0.07834 $0.08834 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.25112 $0.25112 $0.25112 $0.25112 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02463 $0.02518 $0.02518
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.36182 $0.37744 $0.35464 $0.36464 Average Monthly Bill ($) $261.80 $273.10 $256.60 $263.84 Monthly usage: 724 kWh, monthly demand: 9 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
AG-1B
Agricultural: AG-1B PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11890 $0.10989 $0.08496 $0.09496 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.21682 $0.21682 $0.21682 $0.21682 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02463 $0.02518 $0.02518
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.33572 $0.35134 $0.32696 $0.33696 Average Monthly Bill ($) $596.30 $624.04 $580.74 $598.50 Monthly usage: 1,776 kWh, monthly demand: 17 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
AG-4A
Agricultural: AG-4A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10324 $0.09423 $0.06931 $0.07931 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.24261 $0.24261 $0.24261 $0.24261 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02463 $0.02518 $0.02518
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.34585 $0.36147 $0.33710 $0.34710 Average Monthly Bill ($) $230.78 $241.20 $224.94 $231.61 Monthly usage: 667 kWh, monthly demand: 9 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
AG-4B
Agricultural: AG-4B PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10974 $0.10073 $0.07873 $0.08873 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.16847 $0.16847 $0.16847 $0.16847 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02463 $0.02518 $0.02518
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.27821 $0.29383 $0.27238 $0.28238 Average Monthly Bill ($) $698.44 $737.65 $683.80 $708.91 Monthly usage: 2,510 kWh, monthly demand: 20 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
Agricultural
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 10 AG-5A
Agricultural: AG-5A PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10207 $0.09306 $0.06932 $0.07932 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13368 $0.13368 $0.13368 $0.13368 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02463 $0.02518 $0.02518
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.23575 $0.25137 $0.22818 $0.23818 Average Monthly Bill ($) $468.08 $499.09 $453.05 $472.91 Monthly usage: 1,985 kWh, monthly demand: 11 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
AG-5B
Agricultural: AG-5B PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09317 $0.08416 $0.06344 $0.07344 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.09718 $0.09718 $0.09718 $0.09718 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02463 $0.02518 $0.02518
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.19035 $0.20597 $0.18580 $0.19580 Average Monthly Bill ($) $1,544.42 $1,671.15 $1,507.50 $1,588.64 Monthly usage: 8,114 kWh, monthly demand: 33 kW
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 11 Streetlight and Outdoor Lighting
LS-3
StreetLig
hts: LS3 PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.09101 $0.08598 $0.07500 $0.08500 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.12635 $0.12635 $0.12635 $0.12635 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.00589 $0.00653 $0.00653
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.21736 $0.21822 $0.20788 $0.21788 Average Monthly Bill ($) $37.33 $37.48 $35.70 $37.42
Monthly usage: 172 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
TC-1
StreetLig
hts: TC1 PG&E PGE Solarchoice
(100% Renewable)
MCE Light Green
(50% Renewable)
MCE Deep Green
(100% Renewable)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.10090 $0.08076 $0.06400 $0.07400 PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.13637 $0.13637 $0.13637 $0.13637 PG&E PCIA/FF ($/kWh) N/A $0.02466 $0.02531 $0.02531
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.23727 $0.24179 $0.22568 $0.23568 Average Monthly Bill ($) $66.38 $67.64 $63.14 $65.94
Monthly usage: 280 kWh
Rates are current as of May 1, 2019
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation &,7<2))$,5),(/'
5(62/87,2112

5(62/87,212)7+(&,7<&281&,/2)7+(&,7<2))$,5),(/'$87+25,=,1* 7+(&,7<0$1$*(57268%0,73* (/2$''$7$5(48(67)2506)25 3$57,&,3$7,21,1$&20081,7<&+2,&($**5(*$7,21352*5$0 :+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGKDVGHFLGHGWKDWLWLVLQWHUHVWHGLQUHTXHVWLQJPHPEHUVKLS LQD&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ
&&$
SURJUDP
DQG
:+(5($6RQHRIWKHLQLWLDOUHTXLUHPHQWVRIMRLQLQJD&&$LVWRVXEPLWWKH&LW\¶V3* ( HOHFWULFDOORDGGDWDWRWKH&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWRUIRUHYDOXDWLRQ DQG
:+(5($6WR VXEPLW VXFK GDWD YDULRXVIRUPVPXVW EH VXEPLWWHGWR3* (WRPDNH HOHFWULFDOORDGGDWDDYDLODEOHWRWKH&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWRU
12: 7+(5()25( 7+( &281&,/ 2) 7+( &,7< 2) )$,5),(/' +(5(%< 5(62/9(6

6HFWLRQ7KH&LW\0DQDJHULVKHUHE\DXWKRUL]HGDQGGLUHFWHGWRH[HFXWHDQGVXEPLW RQEHKDOIRIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDQ\DQGDOOIRUPVWR3* (WRUHOHDVHWKHUHTXLUHGGDWD WRWKHVHOHFWHG&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWRU
3$66('$1'$'237('WKLVWKGD\RI2FWREHU
E\WKHIROORZLQJYRWH

$<(6
&281&,/0(0%(56
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
12(6
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%6(17
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%67$,1
&281&,/0(0%(56

0$<25
$77(67

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&,7<&/(5.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $JHQGD,WHP1R

$*(1'$5(3257
'$7(
'HFHPEHU

72 0D\RUDQG&LW\&RXQFLO
)520
6HDQ34XLQQ,QWHULP&LW\0DQDJHU
68%-(&7
5HVROXWLRQ
RIWKH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOG5HTXHVWLQJ0HPEHUVKLS LQ0DULQ&OHDQ(QHUJ\DQG$XWKRUL]LQJWKH&LW\0DQDJHUWR([HFXWHWKH0HPRUDQGXP RI8QGHUVWDQGLQJDQGDOORWKHU5HODWHG'RFXPHQWV
DQG
)LUVW5HDGLQJDQG,QWURGXFWLRQRI2UGLQDQFH
RIWKH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI
)DLUILHOG$XWKRUL]LQJWKH,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRID&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ3URJUDP LQWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDQG$XWKRUL]LQJWKH&LW\0DQDJHUWR([HFXWHWKH0DULQ&OHDQ (QHUJ\-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQW
5(&200(1'('$&7,21
$GRSWUHVROXWLRQZDLYHIXOOUHDGLQJUHDGE\WLWOHRQO\DQGLQWURGXFHRUGLQDQFHIRUILUVWUHDGLQJ 67$7(0(172),668(
(OHFWULFSRZHULVFXUUHQWO\SURYLGHGWR&LW\RI)DLUILHOGUHVLGHQWVE\3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

3* (
DQGLWLVWKHRQO\HOHFWULFSRZHURSWLRQDYDLODEOH&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWRUV &&$V
DUH
DQDOWHUQDWLYHHOHFWULFSRZHUVXSSOLHUQRZDYDLODEOHWRPDQ\FRPPXQLWLHVLQ&DOLIRUQLD&&$VSRROWKH HOHFWULFLW\GHPDQGRILWVPHPEHUFRPPXQLWLHVWRSXUFKDVHSRZHUZLWKKLJKHUUHQHZDEOHDQGORZHU JUHHQKRXVHJDVFRQWHQWWKDQ3* (WKHUHIRUHSURYLGLQJDQDOWHUQDWLYHSRZHUVXSSOLHUFKRLFHWRWKH UHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVRI)DLUILHOGZKLOHLQFUHDVLQJWKHSHUFHQWDJHRIUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\XVHGE\WKH FRPPXQLW\2Q2FWREHU
6WDIISUHVHQWHGWR&LW\&RXQFLOJHQHUDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKH&&$ RSWLRQVDYDLODEOHWR)DLUILHOGDQGGHWHUPLQHGWKDW0DULQ&OHDQ(QHUJ\ 0&(
LVWKHEHVWDOWHUQDWLYHIRU
)DLUILHOGWRSXUVXH&RXQFLOGLUHFWLRQDWWKH2FWREHU&LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJZDVWRPRYHIRUZDUGZLWK 0&(DQGWKLVLVWKHQH[WVWHSLQWKHSURFHVV$GRSWLQJWKLVUHVROXWLRQZRXOGDXWKRUL]HWKH&LW\0DQDJHU WRH[HFXWHD0HPRUDQGXPRI8QGHUVWDQGLQJZLWK0&(
',6&866,21
3XUVXDQWWR$VVHPEO\%LOO
6WDWXWH&KDSWHU
VHH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RGH

DQ\&DOLIRUQLDFLW\RUFRXQW\ZKRVHJRYHUQLQJERG\VRHOHFWVLVDXWKRUL]HGWRFRPELQHHOHFWULFLW\ORDG RILWVUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVLQD&&$$&&$LVVXEMHFWWRWKHUHJXODWLRQVJRYHUQHGE\WKH &DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RPPLVVLRQ
&38&
DQGLVLQYROYHGRQO\LQWKHVRXUFHDFTXLVLWLRQRI
HOHFWULFDOSRZHUJHQHUDWLRQQRWWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGGLVWULEXWLRQRIHOHFWULFLW\ 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 500 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
&&$VDUHORFDOJRYHUQPHQWDJHQFLHVWKDWSXUFKDVHDQGPD\GHYHORSSRZHURQEHKDOIRIWKHLU FRPPXQLWLHVWRH[HUFLVHORFDOFRQWURORYHUSRZHUPL[DQGUDWHV)RUH[DPSOH&&$PHPEHUVFDQ GHWHUPLQHWKHDPRXQWRIUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHVIURPZLQGJHRWKHUPDOELRPDVVVRODUDQGVPDOO K\GURSRZHUWRPDNHXSWKHLUSRZHUPL[LQVXSSRUWRIWKHLUUHVSHFWLYH&OLPDWH$FWLRQ3ODQ &$3
JRDOV
6LQFHWKH&38&KDVDSSURYHG&&$¶VWRGDWHPDNLQJLWIDUVLPSOHUDQGHFRQRPLFDOWRMRLQ DQH[LVWLQJ&&$8QOLNHDQLQYHVWRURZQHGXWLOLW\OLNH3* (RUDPXQLFLSDOXWLOLW\OLNH6DFUDPHQWR 0HWURSROLWDQ8WLOLW\'LVWULFWD&&$GRHVQRWRZQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGGHOLYHU\V\VWHPVEXWLV UHVSRQVLEOHIRUEX\LQJDQGJHQHUDWLQJHOHFWULFDOSRZHURQEHKDOIRILWVFXVWRPHUV7KH&&$PD\RZQ HOHFWULFJHQHUDWLQJIDFLOLWLHVEXWPRUHRIWHQLWSXUFKDVHVUHQHZDEOHSRZHUIURPSULYDWHHOHFWULFLW\ JHQHUDWRUV
&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQLVFRQVLGHUHGWRKDYHVRPHRIWKHEHVWJUHHQKRXVHJDV *+*

UHGXFWLRQSRWHQWLDORIDOORWKHUFRPELQHGHQHUJ\UHODWHGPHDVXUHVUHFRPPHQGHGLQWKH6RODQR&RXQW\ &OLPDWH$FWLRQ3ODQWKDWZDVDGRSWHGLQ-XQHRI7KH&LW\SUHSDUHGDGUDIW&$3VSHFLILFWR )DLUILHOGLQODWHWKDWLQFOXGHGDGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHEHQHILWVRISDUWLFLSDWLQJLQD&&$EXWWKHSODQ ZDVQHYHUILQDOL]HG+RZHYHUWKH&LW\ZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRUHGXFHLWVJUHHQKRXVHJDVHPLVVLRQVLQWKH IXWXUHDQGMRLQLQJD&&$ZLOOEHDQLQWHJUDOSDUWRIDFKLHYLQJ6WDWHUHTXLUHPHQWV ,Q$SULO
&LW\&RXQFLOGLUHFWHGVWDIIWRHYDOXDWHDQGFRPSDUHWKH&LW\¶VRSWLRQVIRUD&&$7KH ILQGLQJVRIWKLVHYDOXDWLRQZHUHSUHVHQWHGDWWKH2FWREHU &LW\&RXQFLOPHHWLQJDQG&RXQFLO
GLUHFWHGVWDIIWRPRYHIRUZDUGLQWKHSURFHVVZLWK0&(7ZRTXHVWLRQVFRQFHUQVGLVFXVVHGGXULQJWKH 2FWREHUWK&LW\&RXQFLOPHHWLQJLQYROYHGORQJWHUPHOHFWULFUDWHVWDELOLW\DQGSXEOLFHGXFDWLRQDQG RXWUHDFK
:LWKUHVSHFWWRUDWHVWDELOLW\WKHEHQHILWRIFKRRVLQJ0&(LVWKDWWKHLU%RDUGLVPDGHXSRIHOHFWHG RIILFLDOVIURPWKHPHPEHUDJHQFLHV
RQH%RDUGPHPEHUDQGRQHYRWHSHUDJHQF\ZLWKWKHDELOLW\WR DVVLJQDSUR[\
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¶V)UHTXHQWO\ $VNHG4XHVWLRQV
)$4¶V

GRFXPHQWLQFOXGHGDV$WWDFKPHQW
5HJDUGLQJFXVWRPHURXWUHDFKWRHQVXUHWKDW)DLUILHOGUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVRZQHUVFDQPDNH LQIRUPHGGHFLVLRQVRQZKHWKHUWRSDUWLFLSDWHWKHUHLVDQH[WHQVLYHRXWUHDFKDQGHGXFDWLRQSODQWKDWZLOO EHFRQGXFWHGE\0&(ZLWKVRPHDVVLVWDQFHIURP&LW\VWDII$WKRURXJKRYHUYLHZRIWKHSURFHVVLV LQFOXGHGLQWKHDWWDFKHG)$4¶V
$WWDFKPHQW
DQGDGHWDLOHGH[DPSOHRXWUHDFKSODQSUHSDUHGIRU
&RQWUD&RVWD&RXQW\LVDOVRLQFOXGHG
$WWDFKPHQW

0&(KDVDSURYHQWUDFNUHFRUGRIVXFFHVVDQGWKHUHLVDUREXVWUROORXWSURFHVVWKDWKDVEHHQ VXFFHVVIXOO\LPSOHPHQWHGLQQXPHURXVFLWLHVSUHYLRXVO\7KHUHIRUHVWDIILVUHFRPPHQGLQJWKDWWKH&LW\ UHTXHVWLQFOXVLRQLQ0&(E\DSSURYLQJWKHSURSRVHGUHVROXWLRQDXWKRUL]LQJH[HFXWLRQRIWKH 0HPRUDQGXPRI8QGHUVWDQGLQJEHWZHHQ0&(DQGWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOG$OVRVWDIIZLOOEHLQWURGXFLQJDQ RUGLQDQFHDXWKRUL]LQJWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRID&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ3URJUDPLQWKH&LW\RI )DLUILHOGDQGDSSURYLQJWKH0DULQ&OHDQ(QHUJ\-RLQW3RZHUVDJUHHPHQW DQGDXWKRUL]LQJWKH&LW\
0DQDJHUWRVLJQWKH0&(-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQWXSRQDFFHSWDQFHLQWR0&(E\WKHLU%RDUGRI 'LUHFWRUV$OOGRFXPHQWVKDYHEHHQUHYLHZHGE\WKH&LW\¶VWKLUGSDUW\DWWRUQH\ 3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 501 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
),1$1&,$/,03$&7
0&(KDVDJUHHGWRZDLYHWKHIHHIRUWKHWHFKQLFDOVWXG\UHTXLUHGWRHYDOXDWHSRZHUQHHGVRIWKH&LW\

WKHVHW\SLFDOO\FRVWWR
7KHUHIRUHWKHUHDUHQRILQDQFLDOLPSDFWVWRSURFHHGZLWK LQFOXVLRQLQ0&(
&,7<&281&,/:25.3/$1
&RPPXQLW\6DIHW\ &RPPXQLW\,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 4XDOLW\RI/LIH )LQDQFLDODQG2SHUDWLRQDO
6XVWDLQDELOLW\ (FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW 7UDYLV$LU)RUFH%DVH &LW\&RXQFLO*RDOWKLVLWHPVXSSRUWV

&RPPXQLW\,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
3URMHFW

IULHVHQEHUJ#IDLUILHOGFDJRY
&225',1$7(':,7+
&LW\$WWRUQH\
V2IILFH2XWVLGH&RXQVHO
$77$&+0(176

' HVF UL SW L R Q
$WWDFKPHQW
0&()UHTXHQWO\$VNHG4XHVWLRQV
$WWDFKPHQW
6DPSOH&RPPXQLW\2XWUHDFK3ODQ&RQWUD&RVWD&RXQW\
$WWDFKPHQW
3URSRVHG5HVROXWLRQ
$WWDFKPHQW
3URSRVHG0HPRUDQGXPRI8QGHUVWDQGLQJ
$WWDFKPHQW
3URSRVHG2UGLQDQFH
$WWDFKPHQW
3URSRVHG-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQW
5(9,(:(56

5HYLHZHU $FWLRQ 'DWH
3DQJDQLEDQ5\DQ $SSURYHG

30
.DXVKDO3DXO $SSURYHG

30
$OH[DQGHU$PEHU $SSURYHG

30
$OH[DQGHU$PEHU $SSURYHG

30
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 502 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
Frequently Asked Questions 2019
1 Contents
Overview Questions ..................................................................................................................... 2 Once a City Council votes to join MCE, what happens next? Is that all that has to happen? .................................................................................................................................... 2 Why have some communities around MCE territory decided to join a different CCAs? ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Why does community outreach and education happen after communities decide to join MCE? ................................................................................................................................... 3 How do customers learn about MCE as their new electric service provider? ................. 3 If a homeowner sells their home, what happens to their MCE account? ........................ 3 What is the average opt-out rate among MCE cities and counties? ............................... 4 Why is this opt-out rather than opt in? Why is there an opt out fee? ................................ 4 What happens to customers who participate in discount programs such as CARE, FERA or Medical Baseline? ...................................................................................................... 4 What is the new rate, what is the exit fee – what are the guarantees? ........................... 4 What happens if a City decides to leave MCE and the JPA? ........................................... 4 What happens if MCE fails? Are cities expected to cover the cost of any financial failure? ........................................................................................................................................ 5 How does MCE work with Unions?.......................................................................................... 5 How does MCE work with solar customers? .......................................................................... 5 Governance .................................................................................................................................. 6 How does MCE’s governance structure work with state regulatory bodies such as the California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC)? ................................................................... 6 What are the mandates from the state that are pushing this forward? ........................... 6 How are decisions made by MCE’s Board of Directors? Will my community have a voice? ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Rates ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Are MCE rates lower than PG&E rates? What does MCE offer besides lower rates? ..... 6 How are MCE rates determined? ........................................................................................... 7 How does MCE use my ratepayer funds? Do I have a say in how my money is used? . 7 How does the MCE Board reconcile votes that are not unanimous (i.e. for ratemaking)? .................................................................................................................................... 7 $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 2 Customers of MCE and PG&E will see bills increase in 2019, what will MCE be doing to help bring down energy costs for consumers? .................................................................... 8 Energy Purchasing ........................................................................................................................ 8 Does MCE own and operate their own generation plants? .............................................. 8 How do you respond to claims from critics that MCE isn’t actually purchasing renewable energy? .................................................................................................................. 8 What are Renewable Energy Certificates and how do I know MCE is procuring renewable energy on my behalf? ......................................................................................... 8 PG&E’s Role ................................................................................................................................... 9 Will joining MCE initiate a change or our Smart Meters or other meters? ........................ 9 Who do we contact during outages? ................................................................................... 9 What is the PG&E exit fee and how long do customers have to pay for that? .............. 9 What role does PG&E play as a partner to MCE? ............................................................... 9 Overview Questions
Once a City Council votes to join MCE, what happens next? Is that all that has to happen?
In order for a new community to join MCE, the jurisdiction’s governing body (i.e. Board of Supervisors, City Council or Town Council) must vote in the majority to join MCE, which includes a passing of a Resolution, Memorandum of Understanding and Ordinance. Once a city council votes to join, MCE conducts a feasibility study to determine if the new jurisdiction will be able to join. MCE Board of Directors votes on the inclusion of new communities in a public meeting after presentation of the feasibility study. New communities are eligible to receive MCE service ~ 1 year after MCE’s implementation plan is certified by the PUC. The process from vote to join to customer enrollment typically takes 24 - 30 months or more.
o A City Council votes to join MCE
o MCE completes feasibility study on the energy use represented by that city/community
o MCE submits an updated Implementation Plan to the California Public Utilities Commission by the end of that calendar year (for example, 2019). o Commission approves and certifies the Implementation Plan in the beginning of the next year (for example, February of 2020) o New Community outreach and education process – begins 6 months prior to enrollment and extends several months after enrollment. o New community may begin MCE services as early as January of the following year (in this example, January of 2021). Note: MCE typically begins new enrollments in the Spring.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 3 Why have some communities around MCE territory decided to join a different CCAs? After MCE first launched, many other communities around the state began to explore their own options for creating a CCA and having energy choice. California CCAs work collaboratively to share best practices and do not overlap in service area. Adding additional cities to a CCA’s territory depends upon feasibility studies of potential new load and long-term procurement planning. Cities, towns and counties are encouraged to determine which energy choices are right for them. They make request membership in a CCA of their choice, choose to pursue their own CCA or municipal utility, or choose to remain entirely with PG&E service.

Why does community outreach and education happen after communities decide to join MCE?
MCE is a nimble organization run by a lean team of experienced energy professionals.

Once a community decides to join MCE, an extensive community outreach plan is codeveloped with our community partners to efficiently and cost effectively educate customers over a period of many months with the goal of helping customers decide if they would like to remain with MCE service or opt out to return to PG&E.

How do customers learn about MCE as their new electric service provider? As part of the new community outreach process, MCE drafts a community outreach plan to reach as many customers as possible. This includes a strategy to engage Chambers of Commerce, businesses, libraries, and local community organizations such as sustainability groups, rotaries, farm bureaus, economic development corporations and others. MCE sends 4 mailers to customers, 2 before and 2 after the enrollment period to help notify residents at each stage of the enrollment. MCE also conducts local advertising including both newspapers and digital. MCE’s outreach spans up to 8 months with customer enrollment occurring roughly in the center of that time period, with an intensive noticing process during a 120-day period – 60 days prior and 60 days after start of service. Customers can opt out of MCE service at any time – our goal is to make customers aware of their new energy choices and service options.

If a homeowner sells their home, what happens to their MCE account? When a homeowner sells, their MCE and PG&E accounts are closed. The new owner will open a new account by calling PG&E and will be automatically enrolled in MCE’s electric generation service. New customers will receive 2 mailers informing them of MCE’s role in their electric services. The new homeowner can choose to opt-out of MCE service. Regardless of whether a customer chooses to remain with MCE or PG&E electric service, PG&E will continue to be the transmission/distribution provider and billing agent for all MCE accounts.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 4 What is the average opt-out rate among MCE cities and counties? To date, our average participation rate is 86%.

Why is this opt-out rather than opt in? Why is there an opt out fee? CCAs enabling legislation – State Assembly Bill 117, is an opt-out model. Customers must affirmatively choose to leave MCE service in order to remain with PG&E. It is easy for customers to opt-out online at mceCleanEnergy.org/optout or by calling 1-888-632- 3674. There is no cost to opt out during the120 noticing period--60 days before the start of service and 60 days afterwards. After that, MCE charges a one-time administrative fee ($5 fee for resident and $25 fee for businesses) to cover the administrative cost of returning customers to PG&E service.

What happens to customers who participate in discount programs such as CARE, FERA or Medical Baseline?
Discounts including CARE, FERA, Medical Baseline Allowance and PG&E employee discounts remain in place. Customers do not need to reapply as part of the MCE enrollment, their status in those programs will not change when they enroll with MCE.

What is the new rate, what is the exit fee – what are the guarantees? MCE rates mirror PG&E’s as closely as possible to minimize customer confusion. MCE generation rates are cost competitive with PG&E’s and can be viewed on our webpage at mceCleanEnergy.org/rates. For information on exit fees and opt out fees please see the questions above. All of MCE’s cost comparisons include the PG&E exit fee.

There are no guarantees that MCE rates will be less expensive than PG&E’s rates. MCE rates are set by our Board of Directors, who are local elected officials from our member communities. These meetings are open to the public so that questions and concerns about rates can be raised and addressed in a public forum similarly to a city council meeting.

As a public agency, MCE is completely transparent with our customers and stakeholders, providing information about our public meetings, audited financials, and regulatory documents on our website. Customers can also request additional information about MCE at any time through MCE’s customer care team or through a public records act request.

What happens if a City decides to leave MCE and the JPA? In our state’s opt-out model, a city can decide to opt out one, several or all of their municipal accounts at any time. Likewise, any resident or business can choose to opt out of MCE service at any time. If, alternatively, a city council voted to leave the JPA, $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 5 the city residents and businesses who wanted to continue to have 60% to 100% renewable power purchased on their behave, would no longer be eligible to remain MCE customers. As part of a new community joining MCE, power will be purchased on behalf of new customers. If a jurisdiction were interested in withdrawing from the JPA in its entirety, the jurisdiction would be responsible for reimbursing MCE for the long-term energy contracts purchase on behalf of the jurisdiction. To date, no community has left MCE’s JPA nor has any community in California voted to leave. There are over 190 municipalities that have joined 19 CCAs throughout CA.

What happens if MCE fails? Are cities expected to cover the cost of any financial failure?
MCE is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and has a legal and financial “firewall” between the JPA and the member communities. If MCE were to fail for financial or other reasons, customers would be returned to PG&E electric generation service and member communities would not be held liable for any legal or financial repercussions.

How does MCE work with Unions?
MCE works with unions to support employment opportunities in MCE’s service area.

MCE’s Sustainable Workforce policy includes local hire requirements, support for unions and prevailing wage requirements. You can read the full policy online at mceCleanEnergy.org/wp-content/uploads/Policy-011-MCE-Sustainable-WorkforcePolicy-v3.pdf.

How does MCE work with solar customers?
MCE offers a generous Net Energy Metering (NEM) program for customers who are currently enrolled with PG&E’s NEM program. When NEM customers are transferred to MCE service they will be automatically enrolled in our NEM program which compensates customers at retail rates for their excess solar generation, plus an additional $0.01 per kilowatt hour. For customers with more than $100 in credit at the end of MCE’s fiscal year in April, they will be eligible to receive a check in the mail for $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 6 their excess credits. Credits are capped at $5,000 per customer.

MCE does not have an annual true-up process and instead customers will receive monthly charges or credits from MCE.

Governance
How does MCE’s governance structure work with state regulatory bodies such as the California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC)?
MCE is governed both by our Board of Directors, comprised of local elected officials from member communities, and the CPUC. MCE is subject to most of the same state requirements as the investor owned utilities such as some contracting requirements and all renewable energy requirements. MCE’s Board has the discretion to set MCE’s rates and to determine our power purchasing strategy for exceeding state requirements for local, renewable, and greenhouse gas free content. MCE reports to the CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to ensure regulatory compliance. MCE’s energy efficiency programs are administered under the auspices of the CPUC.

What are the mandates from the state that are pushing this forward? In 2002, State legislation enabled Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs to purchase energy on behalf of customers interested in less carbon intensive electricity options. MCE helps member communities reduce their electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions and exceeds state renewable mandates by offering more renewable and cleaner energy options than PG&E.

How are decisions made by MCE’s Board of Directors? Will my community have a voice?
MCE’s Board of Directors makes decisions in transparent public forums similarly to local city council meetings. Members of the public are welcome to attend these meetings to voice their opinions directly. MCE Board Representatives take time to discuss decisions and hear the concerns of members before making decisions. MCE’s Board operates generally under a one-community-one-vote policy and has never called a weighted vote based on the electric load of each member community.

Rates
Are MCE rates lower than PG&E rates? What does MCE offer besides lower rates? At this time customers are saving about 0.5% on their bill as compared to PG&E. MCE is a not-for-profit, public agency with many community benefits. Over the past 10 years, MCE has saved customers over $50 million in electric costs, reinvested in member communities to support 10 local, in-service area renewable energy projects (31MW), provided generous Net Energy Metering incentives for solar customers, and, supported $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 7 the installation of over 500 electric vehicle charging stations and numerous workforce development opportunities. Full MCE rates information can be found online at mceCleanEnergy.org/rates.

How are MCE rates determined?
MCE’s Board has the discretion to set MCE’s rates and to determine our power purchasing strategy for exceeding state requirements for local, renewable, and greenhouse gas free content. MCE’s rates are set by our Board of Directors in public meetings over the course of several months. This process starts with MCE’s Ad Hoc rate setting committee in a closed session and then reviewed several times by our Technical and Executive Committees in public meetings before being discussed and approved by the full Board of Directors in a public forum.

How does MCE use my ratepayer funds? Do I have a say in how my money is used? MCE is a not-for-profit public agency. Approximately 90% of MCE’s revenue is allocated to purchase clean electricity on behalf of our customers. We operate similarly to nonprofits with approximately 4% of our revenue contributing to fixed costs such as staff, office locations, and other agency support. The remaining 6% of MCE’s revenue goes towards local programs that benefit the community including local economic and workforce development opportunities through our energy efficiency and Feed-in Tariff programs, low-income solar and electric vehicle rebates, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, a generous Net Energy Metering cash out policy, and a cost-competitive 100% renewable service option.

MCE customers are able to voice their opinions on MCE programs and policies at public meetings with our Board of Directors. MCE has regular meetings for our Technical and Executive Committee meetings and quarterly Board of Director meetings. Customers can see materials from MCE Board meetings, live stream quarterly meetings and sign up to receive updates online at mceCleanEnergy.org/meeting-archive. MCE is a public agency and as such is fully transparent in our decision-making processes. We encourage customers and interested parties to attend MCE Board and Committee meetings to learn more about MCE and weigh in on our policy decisions.

How does the MCE Board reconcile votes that are not unanimous (i.e. for rate-making)? MCE is governed by our Board of Directors, comprised of local elected officials from member communities. Each Board members represents their city constituents and the best possible outcomes for their respective communities. The MCE Board of local elected peers works diligently to uphold inclusive discussions and decision-making.

Board votes are weighted based on a two-tiered system. Every Board member is first assigned an equal voting share based on the number of Directors on the Board. Then, each jurisdiction is assigned a weighted vote based on their share of MCE’s electric $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 8 load. These two percentages are combined to determine how a vote should be weighted in the event of a disagreement. To date, MCE’s Board of Directors has never called a weighted vote.

Customers of MCE and PG&E will see bills increase in 2019, what will MCE be doing to help bring down energy costs for consumers?
MCE’s ability to maintain competitive rates and fulfill its mission to reduce greenhouse gasses and invest in local community energy projects and programs is supported by our rate stabilization and reserve fund, investment grade credit rating, and our ability to obtain competitively priced energy supply. Over the past 10 years, MCE has provided stable and competitive rates. Our rate setting process is designed to provide competitive rates well into the future, exceed our environmental goals, and invest in local energy programs and projects.

Energy Purchasing
Does MCE own and operate their own generation plants?
MCE does not own generation facilities at this time. MCE’s Feed in Tariff (FIT) program supports the development of new renewable energy projects in our service area by agreeing to purchase the energy produced from each project over the course of a 20- year standard offer contract. MCE will enter into a contract with developers, should a project be approved by local jurisdiction building and zoning requirements. MCE often has purchase options in these contracts, allowing MCE the opportunity to purchase generation resources at various times throughout the contract length.

How do you respond to claims from critics that MCE isn’t actually purchasing renewable energy?
MCE follows state guidelines for renewable energy and greenhouse gas reporting standards. MCE publishes a power source disclosure with the California Energy Commission every year, who verifies MCE’s purchase history with the state electric grid operator. We are subject to the same reporting requirements as all other utilities and our power content label is available both on MCE’s website (mceCleanEnergy.org/energysources) and the California Energy Commission website (ww2.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/2017_index.html).

What are Renewable Energy Certificates and how do I know MCE is procuring renewable energy on my behalf?
A Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) is produced every time 1 megawatt of renewable energy is generated.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 9 These certificates help electric grid operators monitor purchases from electric service providers like MCE to ensure we’re purchasing renewable energy in accordance with State guidelines.

RECs are classified into three types: Bucket 1, Bucket 2, and Bucket 3 (also referred to as unbundled RECs). Bucket 3/Unbundled RECs occur when the energy that generated the certificate is sold independently of the certificate itself. In this case, the energy is now sold as brown power, and the purchaser of the REC can count a certain portion of their power supply as renewable, in accordance with regulatory guidelines.

In 2018, MCE’s energy portfolio contained less than 1% Bucket 3/Unbundled RECs and starting in 2019, MCE has set a target of 0% unbundled RECs moving forward.

PG&E’s Role
Will joining MCE initiate a change or our Smart Meters or other meters? No, MCE is the procurer of renewable energy. Your meters will continue to be PG&E meters; they are not owned or maintained by MCE.

Who do we contact during outages?
The transmission and distribution system will continue to be owned and operated by PG&E. All outrage communications and inquiries should continue to be directed towards PG&E. Customers are encouraged to sign up for and stay informed about PSPS alerts through PG&E’s website.

What is the PG&E exit fee and how long do customers have to pay for that? The PG&E “exit fee”, also known as the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), is a fee charged to customers who leave PG&E service. PG&E was required to purchase long-term contracts on behalf of customers and this exit fee allows PG&E to keep costs stable for their remaining customers. This fee helps keep remaining PG&E customers cost “indifferent” to the electricity choices of other customers. The fee is tied to long-term contracts 20+ years in length and the fee decreases over the length of the contract until that contract expires.

What role does PG&E play as a partner to MCE?
PG&E acts as a partner to MCE, maintaining transmission and distribution services, as well as billing and gas. As a Community Choice Aggregator, MCE purchases electricity from more renewable resources on behalf of our customers, allowing PG&E to continue providing the same services they’ve always provided. MCE customers continue to work with PG&E in the case of outages, meter issues, applying for solar interconnection agreements and discount programs.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 0 MCE Contra Costa County
Community Outreach Plan
November 2017 – August 2018

Dusk over Mount Diablo Janet and Ramsey Thomas, Lafayette residents and retired Acalanes High School teachers
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 1 Map of MCE Service Area
*Map is illustrative and not to scale
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 2 Table of Contents
Overview ................................................................................................. 4 Introduction to MCE Contra Costa County ............................................ 4 Enrollment & Service Options ................................................................ 5 MCE Customer Service ........................................................................... 7 Community Leader Advisory Group ....................................................... 7 Communitywide Outreach Strategies .................................................... 8 Mailed Enrollment Notices ......................................................................................... 8 MCE Contra Costa County Webpage ........................................................................ 9 Advertising Strategy ............................................................................... 9 Targeted Outreach Strategies .............................................................. 10 Special Populations .................................................................................................. 11 Community Demographics ....................................................................................... 16 Analysis of Strengths, Challenges and Opportunities .......................... 17 General Outreach Timeline .................................................................. 16 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Unincorporated County ....... 17 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 17 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 17 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 18 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Concord ............................... 19 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 19 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 19 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 20 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Danville ................................ 21 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 21 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 21 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 22 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Martinez ............................... 23 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 23 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 23 $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 3 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 23 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Moraga ................................. 25 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 25 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 25 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 26 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Oakley .................................. 27 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 27 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 27 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 27 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Pinole ................................... 29 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 29 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 29 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 30 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Pittsburg ............................... 31 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 31 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 31 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 32 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: San Ramon ........................... 33 Community Events & Tabling ................................................................................... 33 Community Leaders.................................................................................................. 33 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations ............................................................... 33 $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 4 Overview
This document serves as a roadmap for MCE’s community outreach strategy for the electricity customers within the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Contra Costa County that voted to join MCE in 2017. The purpose of MCE’s community outreach strategy is to reach as many of the Contra Costa County communities as possible, including a demographically and socio-economically diverse collection of neighborhoods, to ensure all electric customers will be equipped with the information necessary to make informed decisions about their electric service provider.

MCE will educate the general customer base including residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal account holders through communitywide outreach. MCE will also implement targeted outreach strategies to specific community groups (e.g. service clubs, nonprofits, chambers of commerce).

The MCE Contra Costa County Community Outreach Plan combines strategies used successfully for previous enrollments1
, recognizing the unique characteristics and
different information channels of the communities, and provides an overview of the direct mail and advertising plan, meeting, event and presentation venues, and other strategies to facilitate community understanding of MCE and the new electricity options.

Introduction to MCE Contra Costa County
MCE first began serving Contra Costa in 2013, when the City of Richmond voted to join.

In 2015, the neighboring cities of El Cerrito and San Pablo voted to join. Then, in 2016 the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek voted to join, making them the first cities outside of District One (West Contra Costa County) to have Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) service.

Unincorporated Contra Costa County and the 14 cities without CCA service began investigating their options in 2015. The County authorized staff to conduct outreach and explore the formation of a separate CCA. Staff began outreach by hosting three community workshops in Hercules, Brentwood, and Walnut Creek in late 2015. In March 2016, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors voted to work with interested incorporated areas to obtain electrical load data from PG&E in order to conduct a technical study to consider their different Community Choice options. This technical study weighed the risks and opportunities to join MCE, join Alameda County’s forming CCA called East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), or to start a new Contra Costa CCA program.

Incorporated Contra Costa communities also began discussing their CCA options,

1 Marin County 2010-12; Richmond 2013; unincorporated Napa County, Benicia, El Cerrito, and San Pablo 2015; incorporated Napa County municipalities, Lafayette and Walnut Creek 2016 $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 5 requesting presentations, convening subcommittees, and even forming citizen advisory committees to explore their options.

In 2017, the Town Council of Moraga was the first Contra Costa community to vote to join MCE, on April 26th. Then, on May 2nd the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors and the Town Council of Danville voted to join MCE. The Oakley City Council voted on May 9th, Pittsburg City Council voted on May 15th, Pinole City Council voted on June 6th, Concord City Council on May 23rd, Martinez City Council on June 7th and San Ramon City Council voted on June 26th.

These votes authorized the completion of MCE’s membership application, which includes a resolution, memorandum of understanding, and an ordinance requesting to join. MCE’s Board of Directors reviewed the membership applications of these nine interested jurisdictions on June 20th, 2017 and voted to extend membership to all applicants. MCE submitted the updated implementation plan to the CPUC on September 25th after Board approval included these nine new communities. The CPUC approved this implementation plan on December 21st , 2017.

MCE offers residents and businesses in these communities a choice of affordable, renewable energy in competition, but also in partnership, with PG&E. For customers who choose MCE, PG&E continues to provide electric delivery service including operating power lines, reading meters, issuing monthly bills and providing the same maintenance and repair services it always has – at the same rates. MCE provides the electric generation service, determining the sources of power, and replacing what PG&E would otherwise charge for electric generation.

As a not-for-profit, public electricity provider, governed by a board of elected officials, MCE gives Contra Costa communities more local control as to how and where their ratepayer dollars are spent. MCE’s priorities include reinvesting revenues toward 1) reducing energy-related greenhouse gas emissions; 2) supporting local energy efficiency and renewable generation projects; and 3) offering competitive rates while ensuring fiscal responsibility to customers and the Board of Directors through adherence to a robust reserve policy.

Enrollment & Service Options
Residents and businesses in the jurisdictions within these areas of Contra Costa County will soon have three MCE choices for their electricity supply: MCE Light Green 50% renewable; MCE Deep Green 100% renewable; or MCE Local Sol 100% local solar. $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 6 Customers can also choose to opt out and keep PG&E’s 33%2 renewable generation service or one of their other options, such as their 100% solar option.3 Because California State law (Assembly Bill 117, 2002) requires CCA programs like MCE to become the default provider of electric generation service, customers will be automatically enrolled with MCE unless they choose to opt out and continue purchasing PG&E’s energy supply. MCE’s outreach strategy focuses on providing customers with information about their electric service options to ensure that customers are choosing the electric service that’s right for them.

Light Green is MCE’s default service for automatic enrollment. If customers take no action, they will automatically jump from 33% to a minimum of 50% renewable energy at the start of their April 2018 billing period, which varies by customer. Customers may request to opt out of MCE service at any time after their first mailer arrives, in February 2018.

Customers may also request to enroll in MCE’s Deep Green 100% renewable energy service starting in January of 2018. Requests to enroll early in MCE’s Local Sol, 100% local solar option for residential and small commercial customers will also be accepted.

Customers with rooftop solar are also eligible for early enrollment in either Light Green, Deep Green, or Local Sol beginning in January 2018 to better align with their true-up bill. When customers participating in Net Energy Metering (NEM) are enrolled in MCE’s service, PG&E will automatically bill the customer for their owed charges. This may result in some customers paying a large bill. To avoid confusion with this process these customers may opt into MCE early, or wait to enroll in MCE to better align with their true-up date. MCE’s account services team can process these requests via [email protected].

There is no fee for customers who opt out before MCE service starts or within the first 60 days of service. Customers who opt out after 60 days of service with MCE will be subject to a one-time $5 (residential) or $25 (commercial) administrative fee. Customers will also be subject to PG&E’s terms and conditions of service and will not be able to return to MCE service for 1 year.4

2 As reported in the Annual Report to the California Energy Commission Power Source Disclosure Program in June 2016 (www.energy.ca.gov/sb1305/labels)
3 Visit www.pge.com to learn more about other PG&E service options 4 More information on PG&E’s terms of service can be found here: www.mcecleanenergy.org/terms $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 7 MCE Customer Service
MCE provides customer service via telephone, email, letter and in-office meetings. MCE currently has a single office location, in the City of San Rafael. Arrangements are being made to have a secondary location in Contra Costa County, in the City of Concord. 1 (888) 632-3674 [email protected] 1125 Tamalpais Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901
The call center is dedicated to assisting customers with questions and processing opt outs and Deep Green enrollments. To process opt out and Deep Green requests call center representatives are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The start of 24/7 call center hours coincides with the mailing of the first notices and ends 60 days after MCE service begins. Regular call center hours, for all other inquiries, are Monday-Friday, 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. Translation services for more than 240 languages are also available to non-English and non-Spanish speaking callers. A list of available translations services – including Mandarin, Cantonese, Tagalog, and Hindi – is included at the end of this document.

The [email protected] email address is monitored and maintained by MCE senior account management staff. Customers may request to opt out via the [email protected] email by sending the first six digits of their PG&E account number, the account holder’s name, and service address.

MCE can also provide in-office support at a central location chosen by city or town staff after the first enrollment notices are delivered, in order to respond to any public inquiries relating to enrollment and/or opting out. Traditionally, this has been a temporary desk space in City or Town offices. For a list of dates that MCE will be available on-site in city or town offices, visit www.mceCleanEnergy.org/meetings.

During these days, MCE staff can provide trainings to public-facing local government staff, provide answers to commonly asked questions and provide the protocol for escalating a concern to the call center. Part of this training will include providing a short “MCE Basics” document as well as a longer, more thorough “MCE Primer.” These documents can be used as reference material if ever a member of the public brings their questions to their local government offices. If additional MCE presence is requested by staff, MCE staff will include additional in-person locations on the second mailed notice.

For customers who prefer to speak to a representative in person, MCE’s San Rafael office customer service hours are Monday – Friday from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. Once a Contra Costa location is arranged, this location will also be available for walk-ins.

Community Leader Advisory Group
Local input is central to MCE’s mission, so forming a volunteer Community Leader Advisory Group (CLAG) to guide outreach efforts is a priority. MCE proposes that the $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 8 CLAGs be composed of various community representatives with diverse perspectives.

Examples include people from industry and business associations, sustainability, English as a Second Language (ESL), or senior-focused community organizations and local government officials or staff from each of the participating jurisdictions. MCE will also ensure that invited CLAG participants include community members who are not necessarily enthusiastic about enrollment with MCE, as well as those who are supportive, and/or undecided. Participants are invited based on consultations with city staff and council. Specific duties of the CLAG are listed below. x Meet to advise on outreach. This group will provide valuable insight to MCE helping to determine strategies for public engagement, outreach opportunities, and venues for reaching a broad cross-section of Contra Costa County. x Recommend ad venues including specific community publications, unique outdoor advertising venues – such as recycling trucks – or radio and print advertisements. These will be shared with MCE’s Marketing team for necessary budget allocation planning.
x Help MCE disseminate information about services and the enrollment process by posting directly on social media and/or responding to posts that contain misinformation about MCE (particularly on Nextdoor and Facebook). x Help organize and promote at least three MCE-hosted town hall-style meetings, preferably before April. These meetings will provide an additional venue to provide residents and businesses with information and answer questions about the new energy choices available. CLAG participants can help organize and promote attendance at these meetings. These meetings have been more effective if invited to share in a pre-established venue with hosts who are visible in the community. To that end, a CLAG participant could invite MCE to give a presentation to groups in their networks, such as groups of businesses they know, or at their places of worship.
x Provide feedback throughout the outreach process. The second CLAG meeting will be conducted for the purposes of participants providing MCE with feedback on how the outreach has been conducted up to that point. This may include feedback on where ads are located, how information about MCE is being distributed, events, and other components. CLAG participants can provide feedback to improve MCE’s outreach strategy during the second half of the enrollment period.

Communitywide Outreach Strategies
Mailed Enrollment Notices
Enrollment notices will be sent to every electricity customer in Concord, Danville, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Pinole, Pittsburg, San Ramon, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. This is required by California law, which requires that four such notices be sent.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 9 The notices, mailed in English and Spanish, will inform customers of the April 2018 enrollment, along with MCE’s Terms & Conditions of Service, with instructions on how to opt out if they’d like to keep PG&E’s electric generation supply. The notices will also include a referral to the website, which is also available in Spanish.

Two notices will be mailed before enrollment and two will be mailed after service starts.

The first and second notices will be sent within 60 days prior to the start of service, depending on the date of MCE service start (e.g. some start first week of April and others the second, third or fourth week of April, depending on the start of their billing period). The third and fourth notices will be sent within 60 days after starting service. If a customer opts out, they will not receive additional enrollment notices.

Draft Enrollment Notice Schedule:

Notice 1 (mailed letter in envelope)
x February to March, staggered by meter read dates
Notice 2 (tri-fold direct mail piece; NEM customers receive mailed letter in envelope)
x March to April – staggered by meter read date

APRIL ENROLLMENT
Notice 3 (postcard)
x April to May – staggered by meter read date
Notice 4 (postcard)
x May to June – staggered by meter read date
MCE Contra Costa County Webpage
MCE has created a webpage dedicated to the enrollment of the nine Contra Costa communities joining MCE in 2018: www.mcecleanenergy.org/ContraCosta This URL will be present on customer outreach materials. The webpage includes the enrollment timeline, information on the electricity choices available to customers including the choice to opt out, cost comparisons, frequently asked questions and a calendar of community events where MCE will be present.

Advertising Strategy
Digital Advertising
x Geographically targeted online advertising
x Social media posts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor) x Search ads
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 10 TV & Radio Advertising
x On air and streaming Comcast ads
x Streaming radio (e.g., Spotify)
Print Advertising
x East Bay Times
x Martinez Gazette
x Richmond Pulse (bilingual Spanish publication)
x Local newspapers
Out-of-Home Advertising
x BART station ads
Targeted Outreach Strategies

MCE recognizes that community borders are porous and community affiliations are not always easily defined. In order to maximize enrollment outreach, a number of strategies will be used to reach different stakeholder groups, generally outlined below. For communities that have specific events, requests, or cultural sensitivities, please see pages 17 through 37 for a more detailed breakdown of this general outreach. There are currently approximately 237,324 eligible electric accounts in Contra Costa County. Of those, roughly 217,142 (91.49%) are residential accounts and 17,947 (7.56%) are commercial accounts.

MCE will contact community based organizations to offer a presentation (at a meeting or community event), to provide information for newsletters or websites, and/or to partner in any other way to inform their audience about MCE’s service.

MCE will work with municipal staff to contact City Commissions, Boards, and local school districts to offer a presentation (at a meeting or community event), to provide information for newsletters or websites, and/or to partner in any other way to inform their audience about MCE’s service.

Commercial and industrial customers consume the majority of electricity in Contra Costa County. Commercial customers also have the greatest potential for build out of solar, electric vehicle, or storage infrastructure. There are 145 accounts that use over 140,000 kWh annually. Consequently, they have the opportunity to reduce the largest portions of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. MCE will contact organizations that work with Contra Costa County businesses to offer a presentation (at a meeting or community event), to provide information for newsletters or websites, and/or to partner in any other way to inform their audience about MCE’s coming service. This includes the $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 11 Industrial Association for Contra Costa County and the City-County Engineering Association.

MCE will reach out to the largest employers in Contra Costa County, including the following:5
AAA Northern CA, Nevada & Utah Contra Costa
Center
Automobile Clubs
Bay Alarm Co Concord Burglar Alarm Systems (whls)
BAY Area Rapid Transit Richmond Transit Lines
Broadspectrum Americas Richmond Oil Refiners (mfrs)
Chevron Corp San Ramon Oil Refiners (mfrs)
Chevron Global Downstream LLC San Ramon Petroleum Products (whls) Chevron Richmond Refinery Richmond Oil Refiners (mfrs)
Contra Costa Regional Med Centr Martinez Hospitals
U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Martinez Clinics
John Muir Health Concord Hospitals
Kaiser Permanente Martinez Med Martinez Clinics
Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Walnut Creek Hospitals
La Raza Mkt Richmond Grocers-Retail
Robert Half Intl San Ramon Employment Agencies &
Opportunities
Santa Fe Pacific Pipe Lines Richmond Pipe Line Companies St Mary's College Of Ca Moraga Schools-Universities &
Colleges Academic
Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Pacheco Oil Refiners (mfrs) USS-POSCO Industries Pittsburg Steel Mills (mfrs)
Special Populations
While MCE will be doing general outreach to the entire community, we have learned that there are certain customer groups that may require and benefit from more customized outreach. Due to particular circumstances (such as mobility, language, or financial barriers), these customer groups may need customized outreach sensitive to their situations. The following is a suggested list of community groups which would require additional outreach to compliment the general engagement strategy.

5 State of California Employment Development Department. "Major Employers in Contra Costa County," June 24th 2017. www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000013; This list of major employers was extracted from the America's Labor Market Information System (ALMIS) Employer Database, 2017 2nd Edition. Employer information is provided by Infogroup, Omaha, NE, 800/555-5211. 2017. $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 12 MCE will focus specific outreach to non-native English speakers. According to the 2015 census, approximately 34% of the population in unincorporated Contra Costa County speak a language other than English at home. This ranges from 14.7% in Danville to 49.1% in Pittsburg.6

MCE has a Spanish website, Spanish speaking customer service specialists available through its call center, and will provide printed informational material in Spanish. There are also call center translation options for more than 240 languages, including Tagalog, Cantonese, Mandarin, Hindi, Lao, and Vietnamese. A list of available languages can be found at the end of this document.

6 Language other than English spoken at home, percent of persons age 5 years+, 2011-2015. Unincorporated Contra Costa County 33.9%; Concord 36.1%; Danville 14.7%; Martinez 16%; Moraga 18.5%; Oakley 31.7%; Pinole 34.3%; Pittsburg 49.1%; San Ramon 42.2%.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/POP815215

33.9% 36.1%

14.7% 16.0% 18.5%

31.7% 34.3%

49.1%

42.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%
ESL (2011-2015)
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 13 Low-income customers are typically defined as those who qualify for the standard energy discounts. According to the 2015 census, approximately 10.2% of the population in unincorporated Contra Costa County live below the poverty line. When looking at the spread in incorporated communities, this demographic ranges from 4.1% in Danville to

17.9% in Pittsburg.7
This group will receive special consideration in MCE’s outreach. Discounts like the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) and Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) are unaffected by MCE service and continue to be managed and billed by PG&E. If a customer is already enrolled in these programs, they do not need to do anything if they stay with MCE; their discount will remain the same.

According to our initial data request from PG&E, we see that there are approximately 40,000 eligible electric accounts enrolled in CARE or FERA in the nine new communities. This represents a full 18.23% of all eligible accounts. There is a statistically significant number of customers that are on both CARE/FERA as well as Medical Baseline. If you include the eligible accounts on Medical Baseline and remove the double-counting overlap between those on both CARE and Medical Baseline, the number of Contra Costa accounts on CARE, FERA, or Medical Baseline is approximately 45,500 or roughly 21% of eligible residential accounts.

For a single family residence, the CARE discount eligibility is broken down as follows:

7 Persons living in Poverty, 2015: Unincorporated Contra Costa County 10.2%; Concord 13.3%; Danville 4.1%; Martinez 6.1%; Moraga 5.0%; Oakley 8.2%; Pinole 7.8%; Pittsburg 17.9%; San Ramon 4.2%. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/POP815215

24.4%

30.6%

6.8%

14.7%

7.0%

34.9%

21.8%

42.4%

8.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%
Hispanic or Latino (2010)
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 14 Number of Persons in Household Total Gross Annual Household Income 1-2 $31,860 or less
3 $40,180 or less
4 $48,500 or less
5 $56,820 or less
6 $65,140 or less
7 $73,460 or less
8 $81,780 or less
Each additional person, add $8,320
MCE will focus outreach to low-income residents by contacting community based organizations that work specifically with low-income residents, such as affordable housing developments, to offer a presentation (at a meeting or community event), to provide information for newsletters or websites, and/or to partner in any other way to inform their audience about MCE’s coming service.

Senior citizens may live on fixed incomes or have special electricity discounts, so MCE makes outreach to seniors a priority. MCE considers it particularly important for individuals on fixed incomes to understand their electricity options and to know that discounts like the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) and Family Electric

10.2%

13.3%

4.1%

6.1% 5.0%

8.2% 7.8%

17.9%

4.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%
Persons in poverty (2015)
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 15 Rate Assistance (FERA) are unaffected by MCE service and continue to be managed and billed by PG&E. If a customer is already enrolled in these programs, they do not need to do anything if they elect to stay with MCE.

For solar customers, MCE has a Net Energy Metering (NEM) program.8 A special
meter tracks the difference between the amount of electricity solar panels produce and the amount of electricity used during each billing cycle. When more electricity is produced than used, a credit is generated for the excess power.

For any excess electricity a solar system produces, MCE credits customers at the Deep Green premium rates (MCE’s Light Green retail rates + $0.01/kWh). Excess credits roll over each month and never zero out. NEM accounts with credits over $100 can be “cashed out” each year in April. PG&E bills once a year with a “true-up” statement but MCE bills monthly, so annual “true-ups” are smaller.

Please note that when a NEM account enrolls with MCE, PG&E performs an automatic “true-up” and bills that account for all electric charges incurred since their last “trueup” statement.

To educate solar customers, MCE will send customized enrollment notices to NEM customers, discuss NEM account considerations during public presentations, and distribute NEM-specific outreach materials (e.g., one-page flyers) at community events.

MCE will also contact solar businesses to ensure that they are aware of MCE’s NEM program.

8 MCE’s Net-Energy Metering (NEM) program may be available for other qualifying, small-scale renewable energy technologies besides photovoltaic (PV) solar. These could include wind, biopower, micro-hydroelectric resources, etc.

12.4% 11.8%

14.4%

12.1%

19.1%

6.7%

15.5%

8.6% 7.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
Senior Citizens (2010)
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 16 Community Demographics9
The below demographics provide more detail on the communities to help guide our special populations outreach.

Figure 1: Demographics by community10

Total
Pop.
(2016)
Veterans
(2011-
2015)
65+
(2010)
Language other
than English
spoken at home
(2011-2015)
Hispanic
or Latino
(2010)
Persons in
poverty
(2015)
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
County
1,139,513 53,270 12.4% 33.9% 24.4% 10.2%
Concord 128,726 6,915 11.8% 36.1% 30.6% 13.3%
Danville 44,631 2,362 14.4% 14.7% 6.8% 4.1%
Martinez 38,259 2,464 12.1% 16.0% 14.7% 6.1%
Moraga 17,416 820 19.1% 18.5% 7.0% 5.0%
Oakley 40,622 1,640 6.7% 31.7% 34.9% 8.2%

9 All information taken from the census data: http://www.census.gov/ 10 All information taken from the census data: http://www.census.gov/

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%
Unincorp.

CC County
Concord Danville Martinez Moraga Oakley Pinole Pittsburg San Ramon
Contra Costa Community Characteristics
ESL (2011-2015) Persons in poverty (2015) Senior Citizens (2010) Hispanic or Latino (2010) $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 17 Pinole 19,293 1,142 15.5% 34.3% 21.8% 7.8%
Pittsburg 70,679 2,762 8.6% 49.1% 42.4% 17.9%
San Ramon 75,639 2,468 7.8% 42.2% 8.7% 4.2%
Totals/Average 1,570,392 73,843 12.04% 30.72% 21.26% 8.53% Analysis of Strengths, Challenges and Opportunities
Strengths
x MCE’s stable and competitive rates
x Generous Net Energy Metering program (for customers with rooftop solar) x Increased renewable energy supply
x Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
x Community energy choices where none existed before
x Unique multifamily energy efficiency program options

Challenges
x Correcting misinformation
x Ensuring all customers are informed of their choices
x Informing solar customers of net energy metering program and enrollment impacts
Opportunities
x Community members may already be aware of MCE because Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Lafayette and Walnut Creek started MCE service between 2013 and 2016
x Outreach overlap between target sectors
x Well organized community based organizations and trade organizations x Community emphasis on sustainability values
x Ability to offer tailored energy efficiency programs in the future x Free marketing and co-branding opportunities for green businesses x Opportunity to develop local renewable energy projects and related local hiring with MCE’s Feed-In Tariff

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 16 General Outreach Timeline
MCE Board Approves Includsion
of New Communities
MCE Begins Attending New
Community Events
County Convenes
New Community Meeting
New Board Members Sworn
in at MCE Board Retreat
MCE Hires Additional Outreach
Staff
MCE Presence at Community
Events Increases
First CLAG
Meetings
COP Finalized
Deep Green and Local Sol Early
Enrollment Available
NEM (Solar) Customers Early
Enrollment Available
Second CLAG
Meetings
First MCE
Mailers Drop
MCE Staff in Community Offices
by Request
Second MCE
Mailers Drop

MCE DEFAULT SERVICE BEGINS
Third CLAG
Meetings
Third MCE
Mailers Drop
Fourth MCE
Mailers Drop
Post Enrollment Council Updates
July August September October November December January February March April May June July MCE Staff Present at Community Events
MCE Staff Available for Council Updates as Requested
MCE Hosted Town Hall Meetings MCE Hires Additional Staff 3DFNHW3DJHRI $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 17 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Unincorporated County To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events, advertising, and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, high-visibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

Contra Costa County (unincorporated) was one of the original 27 counties of California and is home to approximately 1,139,513 people. 173,454 people live in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The County spans more than 800 square miles and is by far the most heavily populated prospective MCE jurisdiction. Correspondingly, it also represents the single largest electricity load— approximately 25% of the combined load of all eligible incorporated and unincorporated communities. The cities of Concord and Pittsburg together represent another 25%. Contra Costa is a dynamic jurisdiction in terms of geography and demographics, and includes Mt. Diablo, historic Delta communities, extensive Bay Shore borders, multiple oil refineries and heavy industry, rich agricultural lands, and a broad array of ethnic groups, foreign languages, and socio-economic diversity.

Community Events & Tabling
x Annual Festivals
x Earth Day Events
x Farmers Markets
x Fourth of July Events
x Music in the Parks
x Alamo Women’s Club
x Other events as suggested by staff and the CLAG
Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Local Rotary
x Local Soroptimists
x Local Kiwanis Clubs
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services o Arlington Community Church
o Member of Interfaith Power & Light
El Sobrante United Methodist Church, El Sobrante
Arlington Community Church, Kensington
x Local Sierra Club
x Water Districts
x Sustainable Contra Costa
x Communities for a Better Environment
x Interfaith Council of Contra Costa County
x Contra Costa Climate Leaders
x Commission on Aging
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 18 Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses x Chamber of Commerce
x Farm Bureaus
x Visit Contra Costa
x East Bay Leadership Council
x Industrial Association of Contra Costa County
x Municipal Advisory Committee
x City-County Engineering Association of Contra Costa County o Debbie Hince – [email protected]
Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
Non-native English community
x Local Hispanic Market
x English Language Learning (ELL) Night Classes
x Family Center
x Spanish Clinics
x Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
x Non-Latino ELL
Senior and Veterans
x Agency on Aging
x Senior centers
County Employees
Betsy Burkhart suggested contact – County’s Communications Officer

53,270
6,915 2,362 2,464 820 1,640 1,142 2,762 2,468
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
Unincorp. CC
County
Concord Danville Martinez Moraga Oakley Pinole Pittsburg San Ramon Veterans (2011-2015)
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 19 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Concord
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events, advertising, and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, high-visibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The City of Concord is Contra Costa’s largest incorporated jurisdiction with a population of nearly 130,000 and more than 30.5 square miles within its borders. It is located toward the geographic center of the County at the base of Mt. Diablo and is home to many large businesses. The City has two BART stations and about one-fifth of the County’s population reportedly commutes to Concord for work. Concord alone represents more than 12% of MCE’s prospective additional electricity load, the second largest among all applicant communities. The Concord Naval Weapons Station is a focus of the City’s redevelopment efforts and it is widely considered to be an ideal site for innovative renewable energy projects. Wells Fargo and PG&E are among the City’s largest employers.

Community Events & Tabling
x Annual Festivals
x Earth Day Events
x Farmers Markets
x Fourth of July Events
x Music in the Parks
x Other events as suggested by staff and the CLAG
x Mayors State of the City
x Armed Forces Half Marathon
x Mayor’s Cup
x Fourth of July Parade
x Cool Concord Car’s Tree Lighting
x Winter Brews Festival
x Spring Brews Festival
x Concord Vibe events
x Tuesday Night Blues
x MOMDay in the Plaza
x Mayor’s Cookoff
Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Rotary Club of Concord
x Rotary Club of Concord/Diablo
x Diablo Toastmasters
x Local Soroptimists
x Local Kiwanis Clubs
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 20 x Members of California Interfaith Power & Light:
o St. Agnes Catholic Church
o St. Bonaventure Catholic Community
o St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church
o St. Michael and All Angels
x Local Sierra Club
x Water Districts
x Mount Diablo Resource Recovery (formerly Concord Disposal Service) x St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church
x Calvary Temple Church
x Sustainable Contra Costa
x Concord Police Association
x Family Justice Center
x Concord Art Association
x Historical Society
x Contra Costa Climate Leaders
x Bike Concord
Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses
x Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce
x Todos Santos Business Associations
x Visit Concord
x Farm Bureaus
x Visit Contra Costa
Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
ESL community
x Local Hispanic Market
x English Language Learning (ELL) Night Classes
x Family Center
x Spanish Clinics
x Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
x Non-Latino ELL
x Monument Impact
Senior and Veterans
x Agency on Aging
x Senior centers

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 21 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Danville
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, highvisibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The Town of Danville is located within the San Ramon Valley in the southwestern part of the County and is home to approximately 45,000. The incorporated area spans approximately 18 square miles.

Community Events & Tabling
x Annual Festivals
o Danville Tree Lighting Ceremony
o Sunday Summer Car Show
o Summer Fest
o Fall Crafts Festival
o Recreation Fair
x Earth Day Events
x Farmers Markets
o Danville Farmer’s Market at the Railroad Avenue Parking Lot, Sunday x Danville July 4th Parade (consider a float)
x Music in the Parks
x Mayor’s Town Hall (in conjunction with the Town of Danville) Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Danville Rotary
x Danville/Sycamore Valley Rotary
x Local Soroptimists
x Kiwanis of the San Ramon Valley
x Danville Women’s Club
x Real Estate Marketing Association (RMA)
x Local PTA organizations
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services x Members of California Interfaith Power & Light
o Beth Chaim Congregation
o Danville Congregational Church
o Peace Lutheran Church
o San Damiano Retreat Center
o St. Mark’s Episcopal Church Danville
o St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church
x Local Sierra Club
x Water Districts
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 22 Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses x Danville Area Chamber of Commerce
x Visit Tri-Valley (Tri-Valley Convention & Visitors Buraeu) x Contra Costa Association of Realtors

Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
Senior and Veterans
x Veterans Service Organizations at the Veterans Memorial Building o Marine Corps League
o American Legion
o MOAA
o Viet Nam Veterans of the Diablo Valley
o Blue Star Moms

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 23 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Martinez
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, highvisibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The City of Martinez is the county seat of Contra Costa County with a population of nearly 36,842 and more than 13.1 square miles within its borders. Established in 1849, Martinez is one the oldest communities in California. Martinez has a rich history being the home of John Muir as well as the birthplace of Joe DiMaggio. It is located along the Carquinez Strait and is home to many large businesses. Contra Costa County, the Veterans’ Administration Hospital, Shell Oil, Kaiser Permanente and the Martinez Unified School District are the City’s largest employers.

Community Events & Tabling
x Annual Festivals/Holiday Frolic (December)
x Earth Day Events (April)
x Farmers Markets (every Sunday in Downtown Martinez)
x Fourth of July Events
x Other events as suggested by staff and the CLAG
Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Local Rotary
x Local Soroptimists
x Local Kiwanis Clubs
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services o Members of California Interfaith Power & Light
Cal-Nev Conf United Methodists; Martinez UMC
First Baptist Church
First Congregational Church of Martinez
Grace North Church
Martinez United Methodist Church
x Local Sierra Club
x Water Districts
x Sustainable Contra Costa
Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses
x Chamber of Commerce
x Main Street Martinez
x Visit Contra Costa
Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 24 ESL community
x Local Hispanic Market
x English Language Learning (ELL) Night Classes/Martinez Adult School x Family Center
x Spanish Clinics
x Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
x Non-Latino ELL
Senior and Veterans
x Agency on Aging
x Martinez Senior Center

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 25 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Moraga
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, highvisibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The Town of Moraga spans approximately 9.4 square miles in the central-western part of the County commonly known as ‘Lamorinda’ (the combined name of three incorporated jurisdictions: Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda). As of 2010, the Town has a population of just over 16,000. Moraga’s Town Council was the first to vote to join MCE in 2017.

Community Events & Tabling
x Moraga Triathlon
x Pear and Wine Festival
x Moraga Community Faire
x Cinco de Mayo (Hacienda Foundation), very light touch x Friday Food Truck events (talk to Parks & Rec)
x Moraga Farmers Markets
x Fourth of July Celebration
x
o Summer Concerts in the Park (talk to Parks & Rec)
x Parks and recreation
Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Saint Mary’s College
x Moraga Rotary
x Kiwanis Club of Moraga Valley
x Moraga Community Foundation
x Moraga Movers
x Moraga Junior Women’s Club
x Moraga Women’s Society
x Lions Club
x Moraga Park Foundation
x Hacienda Foundation of Moraga
x Moraga Library
x Parents for a Safer Environment
x :Lamorinda Open Space (Susan Jones)
Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses
x Moraga Chamber of Commerce
x VivaMoraga
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 26 x John Muir Landtrust (Lynus Eukel)
Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
ESL community
x Chinese American Political Association (contact Ching Liao; Ching and Kathy Wu (on the Board of CAPA))
x Asian Pacific American Caucus
x
Senior and Veterans
x Contra Costa County Council on Aging (meets regularly) x Agency on Aging
x Senior centers (Aegis of Moraga, Moraga Royale)
Homeowners Associations (ask Moraga staff for fuller list) x Moraga Country Club
x Sanders Ranch
x SamSara
x Carroll Ranch
x Campolindo
x Alta Mesa (on St. Mary’s Road)
x Miramonte Gardens
x Rancho Moraga
x Via Moraga
x Harvest Court

$WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 27 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Oakley
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, highvisibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The City of Oakley is located in the eastern-most part of the County along the Delta and is home to approximately 40,600. The City incorporated relatively recently (1999) and spans just over 16 square miles. Oakley has been exploring CCA generally, and MCE membership specifically, for longer than most other jurisdictions seeking membership this inclusion period. In 2016, Oakley nearly joined MCE along with Lafayette and Walnut Creek. The City’s moto is “A Place for Families in the Heart of the Delta.”
Community Events & Tabling
x Annual Festivals – Heart of Oakley, Harvest Festival
x Earth Day Events
x Farmers Markets – we don’t have any Farmers Markets
x Fourth of July Events – Cityhood Celebration
x Music in the Parks – Movie in the Park
x Other events as suggested by staff and the CLAG
Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Local Rotary – not in Oakley (closest is Antioch)
x Local Soroptimists - Soroptimist International of the Delta x Local Kiwanis Clubs -
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services (do you want a list of all the places of worship in Oakley?)
x Water District – Diablo Water District
x Sewer District – Ironhouse Sanitary District
Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses
x Chamber of Commerce
x Farm Bureaus
x Visit Contra Costa
Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
ESL community
x Local Hispanic Market
x English Language Learning (ELL) Night Classes
x Family Center
x Spanish Clinics
x Hispanic Chambers of Commerce – (I don’t think one exists in Oakley) $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 28 x Non-Latino ELL
Senior and Veterans x Agency on Aging x Senior centers

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 29 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Pinole
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, highvisibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The City of Pinole is among the County’s smallest jurisdictions and is home to approximately 20,000.

It has a sizable Latino population and spans approximately 5 square miles. The downtown area has many turn-of-the century buildings, which contrast with the many “big box” stores closer to Fitzgerald Drive, Appian Way, and Pinole Valley Road.. Pinole’s MCE inclusion would extend West Contra Costa County’s membership, along with Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito.

Community Events & Tabling
x National Night Out
x Earth Day Events
x Pinole Weekly Farmers Markets
x Fourth of July Events
x Office hours at City Hall & Senior Center
x Additional presentations to City Council
x Pinole PD social media if agreeable
x Pinole website scrolling message
x Tabling outside local businesses if agreeable: Target, Trader Joe’s, Sprouts, Kaiser, Osh, Starbucks etc.

Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Local Rotary
x Local Soroptimists- Richmond is nearest
x Local Kiwanis Clubs- Richmond is nearest
x Local Lions Club – Pinole/Richmond
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services o Member of California Interfaith Power & Light
Christ the Lord Episcopal Church
Pinole United Methodist Church
x Local Sierra Club
x Water Districts
x Schools
x Mayor announcements at City Council
Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses
x The Bayfront Chamber
x Farm Bureaus
x Visit Contra Costa
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 30 Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
ESL community x Local Hispanic Market x English Language Learning (ELL) Night Classes x Family Centers o Tiny Tots daycare facility o City of Pinole youth center x Spanish Clinics x Hispanic Chambers of Commerce x Non-Latino ELL Senior and Veterans x City of Pinole Senior Center

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 31 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: Pittsburg
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, highvisibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The City of Pittsburg is a jurisdiction of both progress and promise with a population of about 70,000.

It is located at the point where the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers meet and is home to a rich history of industry. It has substantial Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and African-American communities, and spans nearly 20 square miles. Pittsburg alone represents more than 8% of MCE’s prospective additional electricity load, the third largest among all applicant communities. Pittsburg is home to two natural gas fired power plants as well as the Transbay Cable, a 53 mile high-voltage direct current underwater power transmission cable interconnecting PG&E’s Pittsburg and Potrero power substations, which provides San Francisco with an estimated 40% of its baseload electricity needs. All these projects came to fruition under the Pittsburg Power Company which is the City’s municipal utility. The City also has a small municipal utility (Island Energy), which serves Mare Island, Vallejo with natural gas and electricity services. The City has the resources and expertise of seasoned energy professionals as it explored the possibility of joining MCE. Currently, MCE is working with CalPine, AnswerNet, FutureBuild and the City to site a CCA call center in Pittsburg which will create 10 to 15 full time jobs.

Community Events & Tabling
x Annual Festivals
x Earth Day Events
x Farmers Markets
x Fourth of July Events
x Music in the Parks
x Other events as suggested by staff and the CLAG
Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Local Rotary
x Local Soroptimists
x Local Kiwanis Clubs
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services o Member of California Interfaith Power & Light
Community Presbyterian Church of Pittsburg
Pittsburg United Methodist Church
x Local Sierra Club
x Pittsburg Art and Community Foundation
Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses
x Chamber of Commerce
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 32 x Contra Costa Workforce Development Board x Visit Contra Costa T
argeted Outeach to Special Populations
ESL community x Local Hispanic Market x English Language Learning (ELL) Night Classes x Family Center x Spanish Clinics x Hispanic Chambers of Commerce x Non-Latino ELL Senior and Veterans x Agency on Aging x Senior centers

$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 33 Community Specific Outreach Strategy: San Ramon
To the extent possible, MCE will attempt to maximize the channels that cross into various Contra Costa communities. This general outreach will be complimented with community specific events and outreach, as outlined by the following pages. Staff and possibly Council members from each of the nine new MCE member communities will be asked to help refine their community’s strategy, by helping MCE identify the most important media outlets, community leaders, local nonprofits, highvisibility events and other suggestions to reach the highest percentage of the population possible.

The City of San Ramon is the namesake jurisdiction of the San Ramon Valley in the southwestern part of the County and is home to approximately 75,000. Its Bishop Ranch office park development is occupied by offices of multiple large corporations, including Chevron and AT&T. PG&E is among the City’s largest employers.

Community Events & Tabling
x Annual Festivals
o Art and Wine Festival
x Earth Day Events
x Farmers Markets
x Fourth of July Events
x Music in the Parks
x Other events as suggested by staff and the CLAG
Community Leaders
Local nonprofits
x Tassajara Valley Preservation Association
x Local Rotary
x Local Soroptimists
x Local Kiwanis Clubs
x Places of Worship, including those with non-English services x Member of California Interfaith Power & Light
St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church
x Local Sierra Club
x Water Districts
x Local service clubs
Organizations that work with Contra Costa businesses
x San Ramon Chamber of Commerce
x Bishop Ranch
x San Ramon Regional Medical Center
x Community Theater
Targeted Outeach to Special Populations
Senior and Veterans
x Senior Center
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 34 x Community Center
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation &,7<2))$,5),(/'
5(62/87,2112

5(62/87,212)7+(&,7<&281&,/2)7+(&,7<2))$,5),(/'5(48(67,1* 0(0%(56+,3,10$5,1&/($1(1(5*<$1'$87+25,=,1*7+(&,7< 0$1$*(572(;(&87(7+(0(025$1'802)81'(567$1',1*$1'$// 27+(55(/$7(''2&80(176
:+(5($6RQ6HSWHPEHUWKH*RYHUQRURI&DOLIRUQLDVLJQHGLQWRODZ$VVHPEO\ %LOO
6WDWXWH&KDSWHU
VHH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RGHVHFWLRQ

KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³$FW´
ZKLFKDXWKRUL]HVDQ\&DOLIRUQLDFLW\RUFRXQW\ZKRVH JRYHUQLQJERG\VRHOHFWVWRFRPELQHHOHFWULFLW\ORDGRILWVUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVLQD &RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQSURJUDP
&&$

DQG
:+(5($6 RQ 6HSWHPEHU $VVHPEO\ %LOO $%
WKH *OREDO:DUPLQJ
6ROXWLRQV $FW ZDV VLJQHG LQWR ODZ HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH JRDO RI UHGXFLQJ &DOLIRUQLD¶V JUHHQKRXVHJDV
*+*
HPLVVLRQVWR

3* (
ZLWKQRDOWHUQDWLYHSURYLGHUIRUWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOG3* (LVFXUUHQWO\PHHWLQJ WKHUHQHZDEOHSRUWIROLRVWDQGDUGWRLWVSRZHUPL[DVUHTXLUHGE\([HFXWLYH2UGHU6
DQG
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGLVFRPPLWWHGWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\ JHQHUDWLRQDQGHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\LPSURYHPHQWV UHGXFWLRQRI*+*¶VDQGSURWHFWLRQRI WKHHQYLURQPHQWLQVXSSRUWLQJ0&(¶VHOHFWULFLW\SURFXUHPHQWSODQWKDWRIIHUVFXVWRPHUV DPLQLPXPHQHUJ\FRQWHQWRIUHQHZDEOHWRXSWRUHQHZDEOH DQG
:+(5($60&(SULPDULO\VRXUFHVLWVHOHFWULFDOHQHUJ\IURPQRQSROOXWLQJUHQHZDEOHV VXFKDVVRODUZLQGJHRWKHUPDOELRHQHUJ\DQGK\GURHOHFWULF DQG
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVLWLPSRUWDQWWKDWLWVUHVLGHQWVEXVLQHVVHVDQGSXEOLF IDFLOLWLHVKDYHDOWHUQDWLYHFKRLFHVWRHQHUJ\SURFXUHPHQWEH\RQG3* ( DQG
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 5(612
±
3DJH
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVWKDWMRLQLQJ0&(ZLOORIIHUFXVWRPHUVFKRLFHLQWKHLU SURYLGHURIHOHFWULFJHQHUDWLRQDQGKHOSPHHWWKH*+*HPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQJRDOVRI$%
DQG
:+(5($6WKH0&(-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQWUHTXLUHVWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGWRLQGLYLGXDOO\ DGRSWDUHVROXWLRQUHTXHVWLQJPHPEHUVKLSLQWKH0&(-RLQW3RZHUV$XWKRULW\DQGDGRSW DQRUGLQDQFHHOHFWLQJWRLPSOHPHQWD&&$ZLWKLQLWVMXULVGLFWLRQ 12: 7+(5()25( 7+( &281&,/ 2) 7+( &,7< 2) )$,5),(/' +(5(%< 5(62/9(6

6HFWLRQ -RLQLQJ D &&$ GRHV QRW FRQVWLWXWH D ³SURMHFW´ ZLWKLQ WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH 3XEOLF 5HVRXUFHV &RGH 6HFWLRQ &DOLIRUQLD &RGH RI 5HJXODWLRQV 6HFWLRQ
F

RU &DOLIRUQLD &RGH RI 5HJXODWLRQV 6HFWLRQ EHFDXVH LW KDV QR SRWHQWLDO IRU UHVXOWLQJ LQ HLWKHU D GLUHFW SK\VLFDO FKDQJH LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW RU D UHDVRQDEO\ IRUHVHHDEOH LQGLUHFW SK\VLFDO FKDQJH LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG LQYROYHV DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DFWLYLWLHVWKDW ZLOO QRW UHVXOW LQ GLUHFW RU LQGLUHFW SK\VLFDO FKDQJHV LQWKH HQYLURQPHQW
6HFWLRQ 7KH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDSSURYHVWKH0&(&OHDQ(QHUJ\ -RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQW
6HFWLRQ 7KH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDXWKRUL]HVWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRID &RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ3URJUDPLQWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOG 6HFWLRQ 7KH &LW\ &RXQFLO RIWKH &LW\ RI )DLUILHOG DXWKRUL]HV WKH &LW\ 0DQDJHU RU GHVLJQHH WR H[HFXWH WKH 0HPRUDQGXP RI 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ ZLWK 0&( VXEMHFW WR &LW\ $WWRUQH\RULQGHSHQGHQWFRXQVHODSSURYDO
6HFWLRQ 7KH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGUHTXHVWVPHPEHUVKLSLQWKH0&( -RLQW3RZHUV$XWKRULW\
6HFWLRQ 7KH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGUHTXHVWVWKH%RDUGRI'LUHFWRUVRI 0&(DSSURYHWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDVDPHPEHURI0&(-RLQW3RZHUV$XWKRULW\ 6HFWLRQ 7KH &LW\ &RXQFLO RIWKH &LW\ RI )DLUILHOG DXWKRUL]HV WKH &LW\ 0DQDJHU RU GHVLJQHHWRH[HFXWHRWKHUGRFXPHQWVQHFHVVDU\RUGHVLUDEOHWRLQLWLDWHPHPEHUVKLSZLWK 0&(VXEMHFWWR&LW\$WWRUQH\RULQGHSHQGHQWFRXQVHODSSURYDO $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 5(612
±
3DJH
3$66('$1'$'237('WKLVUGGD\RI'HFHPEHU
E\WKHIROORZLQJYRWH

$<(6
&281&,/0(0%(56
35,&(%(57$1,02<7,009$&&$52
12(6
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%6(17
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%67$,1
&281&,/0(0%(56

0$<25
$77(67

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&,7<&/(5.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation Memorandum of Understanding between MCE and City of Fairfield Exploring Inclusion in MCE
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), regarding Marin Clean Energy (MCE) membership consideration is entered into by and between MCE and the City of Fairfield.

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield has expressed interest in exploring membership in MCE, and WHEREAS, MCE has a Policy to consider new community inclusion, subject to receipt of a complete application and subject to MCE analysis and approval, and WHEREAS, MCE and the City of Fairfield are collaborating to determine the feasibility of including the City of Fairfield within MCE’s Service area and approving the City of Fairfield’s application for membership; and
WHEREAS, MCE and the City of Fairfield have a mutual interest in following the guidelines below,
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. The City of Fairfield agrees to assign one staff member as primary point of contact with MCE. Assigned staff member will support and facilitate communication with other City of Fairfield staff and officials, as well as provide input and high-level assistance on community outreach.

2. The City of Fairfield will work with MCE to conduct public outreach about the MCE program to aid in outreach and education and to collect feedback from the community.

Options to publicize include, but are not limited to, website, social media, public events, community workshops, and newsletter announcements, as well as distribution of flyers and handouts provided by MCE.

3. The City of Fairfield will complete and submit ‘MCE Membership Application’ to MCE.

4. After receipt of complete Membership Application MCE will conduct a quantitative analysis to determine feasibly of adding the City of Fairfield to the MCE Service Area, and approve membership if analysis results are positive.

5. Subject to membership approval by the MCE Board, the City of Fairfield agrees to publicize and share information about MCE within its community during the six-month enrollment period. Options to publicize include, but are not limited to, website, social $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation media, public events, community workshops, and newsletter announcements (where feasible), as well as distribution of flyers and handouts provided by MCE at City of Fairfield offices.

6. Subject to membership approval by the MCE Board, the City of Fairfield agrees to provide desk space for up to two MCE staff during the six-month enrollment period, and agrees to consider ongoing desk space availability if needed for effective and efficient outreach.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU.

Marin Clean Energy:

By: ____________________________ ______________________ Dawn Weisz, CEO Date
MCE
City of Fairfield:

By: ____________________________ ______________________ Sean P. Quinn, Interim City Manager Date
City of Fairfield
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation &,7<2))$,5),(/'
25',1$1&(12

25',1$1&(2)7+(&,7<&281&,/2)7+(&,7<2))$,5),(/'$87+25,=,1* 7+(,03/(0(17$7,212)$&20081,7<&+2,&($**5(*$7,21352*5$0 ,17+(&,7<2))$,5),(/'$1'$87+25,=,1*7+(&,7<0$1$*(572 (;(&87(7+(0$5,1&/($1(1(5*<-2,1732:(56$*5((0(17
:+(5($6RQ6HSWHPEHUWKH*RYHUQRURI&DOLIRUQLDVLJQHGLQWRODZ$VVHPEO\ %LOO
6WDWXWH&KDSWHU
VHH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RGHVHFWLRQ

KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³$FW´
ZKLFKDXWKRUL]HVDQ\&DOLIRUQLDFLW\RUFRXQW\ZKRVH JRYHUQLQJERG\VRHOHFWVWRFRPELQHHOHFWULFLW\ORDGRILWVUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVLQD &RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQSURJUDP
&&$

DQG
:+(5($6 RQ 6HSWHPEHU $VVHPEO\ %LOO $%
WKH *OREDO:DUPLQJ
6ROXWLRQV $FW ZDV VLJQHG LQWR ODZ HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH JRDO RI UHGXFLQJ &DOLIRUQLD¶V JUHHQKRXVHJDV
*+*
HPLVVLRQVWR

OHYHOVE\
DQG
:+(5($6WKH$FWH[SUHVVO\DXWKRUL]HVSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQD&&$WKURXJKDMRLQWSRZHUV DJHQF\DQGRQ'HFHPEHU
0DULQ&OHDQ(QHUJ\
0&(
ZDVHVWDEOLVKHGDVD
MRLQWSRZHUVDXWKRULW\SXUVXDQWWRD-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQWDVDPHQGHGIURPWLPHWR WLPH
DQG
:+(5($6RQ)HEUXDU\WKH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RPPLVVLRQFHUWLILHGWKH ³,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQ´RI0&(FRQILUPLQJ0&(¶VFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH UHTXLUHPHQWVRI WKH$FW
DQG
:+(5($6FXUUHQWO\HOHFWULFLW\LVJHQHUDWHGDQGSURYLGHGWRWKHUHVLGHQWVRIWKH&LW\RI )DLUILHOGE\3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\
3* (
ZLWKQRDOWHUQDWLYHSURYLGHUIRUWKH
&LW\RI)DLUILHOG
DQG
:+(5($6DOWKRXJK3* (LVFXUUHQWO\PHHWLQJWKHUHQHZDEOHSRUWIROLRVWDQGDUG LQLWVSRZHUPL[DVUHTXLUHGE\([HFXWLYH2UGHU6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGLVFRPPLWWHG WRWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\JHQHUDWLRQDQGHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\LPSURYHPHQWV UHGXFWLRQ RI*+*¶V DQG SURWHFWLRQ RIWKH HQYLURQPHQW LQ VXSSRUWLQJ0&(¶V HOHFWULFLW\ SURFXUHPHQWSODQWKDWRIIHUVFXVWRPHUVDPLQLPXPHQHUJ\FRQWHQWRIUHQHZDEOHWR XSWRUHQHZDEOH
DQG
:+(5($60&(SULPDULO\VRXUFHVLWVHOHFWULFDOHQHUJ\IURPQRQSROOXWLQJUHQHZDEOHV VXFKDVVRODUZLQGJHRWKHUPDOELRHQHUJ\DQGK\GURHOHFWULF DQG
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVLWLPSRUWDQWWKDWLWVUHVLGHQWVEXVLQHVVHVDQGSXEOLF IDFLOLWLHVKDYHDOWHUQDWLYHFKRLFHVWRHQHUJ\SURFXUHPHQWEH\RQG3* ( DQG
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 25'12
±
3DJH
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVWKDWMRLQLQJ0&(ZLOORIIHUFXVWRPHUVFKRLFHLQWKHLU SURYLGHURIHOHFWULFJHQHUDWLRQDQGKHOSPHHWWKH*+*HPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQJRDOVRI$%
DQG
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVWKDWMRLQLQJD&&$GRHVQRWFRQVWLWXWHD³SURMHFW´ ZLWKLQWKHPHDQLQJRIWKH3XEOLF5HVRXUFHV&RGH6HFWLRQ&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI 5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ
F

DQG
3$66('$1'$'237('WKLVBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBE\WKHIROORZLQJYRWH
$<(6
&281&,/0(0%(56
35,&(%(57$1,02<7,009$&&$52
12(6
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%6(17
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%67$,1
&281&,/0(0%(56

0$<25
$77(67

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&,7<&/(5.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH

RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation ARTICLE 9

SIGNATURE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Joint Powers Agreement establishing Marin Clean Energy (formerly, Marin Energy Authority) By: _______________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: ________________________________
Date: ________________________________
Party: City of _________________________ )DLUILHOG
,QWHULP&LW\0DQDJHU
6HDQ34XLQQ
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 3DFNHW3DJHRI $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 3DFNHW3DJHRI $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $JHQGD,WHP1R

$*(1'$5(3257
'$7(
'HFHPEHU

72 0D\RUDQG&LW\&RXQFLO
)520
6HDQ34XLQQ,QWHULP&LW\0DQDJHU
68%-(&7
6HFRQG5HDGLQJDQG$GRSWLRQRI2UGLQDQFH
RIWKH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI
)DLUILHOG$XWKRUL]LQJWKH,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRID&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ3URJUDP LQWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDQG$XWKRUL]LQJWKH&LW\0DQDJHUWR([HFXWHWKH0DULQ&OHDQ (QHUJ\-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQW
5(&200(1'('$&7,21
$GRSW2UGLQDQFH

67$7(0(172),668(
7KHILUVWUHDGLQJRIWKHDWWDFKHGRUGLQDQFHZDVLQWURGXFHGDWWKH'HFHPEHU &LW\&RXQFLO
PHHWLQJ$GRSWLQJWKLVRUGLQDQFHLVWKHILQDOVWHSLQLPSOHPHQWLQJD&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWRU

&&$
SURJUDPIRUWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDQGDXWKRUL]HVWKH&LW\0DQDJHUWRH[HFXWHD0HPRUDQGXPRI 8QGHUVWDQGLQJZLWK0&(
',6&866,21
3XUVXDQWWR$VVHPEO\%LOO
6WDWXWH&KDSWHU
VHH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RGH

DQ\&DOLIRUQLDFLW\RUFRXQW\ZKRVHJRYHUQLQJERG\VRHOHFWVLVDXWKRUL]HGWRFRPELQHHOHFWULFLW\ORDG RILWVUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVLQD&&$$&&$LVVXEMHFWWRWKHUHJXODWLRQVJRYHUQHGE\WKH &DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RPPLVVLRQ
&38&
DQGLVLQYROYHGRQO\LQWKHVRXUFHDFTXLVLWLRQRI
HOHFWULFDOSRZHUJHQHUDWLRQQRWWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGGLVWULEXWLRQRIHOHFWULFLW\ ,Q$SULO
&LW\&RXQFLOGLUHFWHGVWDIIWRHYDOXDWHDQGFRPSDUHWKH&LW\¶VRSWLRQVIRUD&&$7KH ILQGLQJVRIWKLVHYDOXDWLRQZHUHSUHVHQWHGDWWKH2FWREHU &LW\&RXQFLOPHHWLQJDQG&RXQFLO
GLUHFWHGVWDIIWRPRYHIRUZDUGLQWKHSURFHVVZLWK0&( $WWKH'HFHPEHU
&LW\&RXQFLOPHHWLQJ5HVROXWLRQ
ZDVDSSURYHGDXWKRUL]LQJWKH
H[HFXWLRQRIWKH0HPRUDQGXPRI8QGHUVWDQGLQJEHWZHHQ0&(DQGWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOG$WWKHVDPH &LW\&RXQFLOPHHWLQJ2UGLQDQFH
ZDVLQWURGXFHGZKLFKZRXOGDXWKRUL]HWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI D&RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ3URJUDPLQWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDQGDXWKRUL]HWKH&LW\0DQDJHUWR H[HFXWHWKH0&(-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQWXSRQDFFHSWDQFHLQWR0&(E\WKHLU%RDUGRI'LUHFWRUV 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 616 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
),1$1&,$/,03$&7
7KHUHDUHQRILQDQFLDOLPSDFWVWRSURFHHGZLWKLQFOXVLRQLQ0&( &,7<&281&,/:25.3/$1
&RPPXQLW\6DIHW\ &RPPXQLW\,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 4XDOLW\RI/LIH )LQDQFLDODQG2SHUDWLRQDO
6XVWDLQDELOLW\ (FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW 7UDYLV$LU)RUFH%DVH &LW\&RXQFLO*RDOWKLVLWHPVXSSRUWV

&RPPXQLW\,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
3URMHFW

1RW$SSOLFDEOH
38%/,&&217$&7$'9,625<%2'<5(&200(1'$7,21
1$
$/7(51$7,9($&7,21
'HOD\SURYLGLQJIXUWKHUGLUHFWLRQXQWLODQ\&RXQFLOFRQFHUQVFDQEHDGGUHVVHG 67$))&217$&7
)HOL[5LHVHQEHUJ$VVLVWDQW3XEOLF:RUNV'LUHFWRU8WLOLWLHV
IULHVHQEHUJ#IDLUILHOGFDJRY
&225',1$7(':,7+
&LW\$WWRUQH\
V2IILFH2XWVLGH&RXQVHO
$77$&+0(176

' HVF UL SW L R Q
3URSRVHG2UGLQDQFH
3URSRVHG$JUHHPHQW
5(9,(:(56

5HYLHZHU $FWLRQ 'DWH
3DQJDQLEDQ5\DQ $SSURYHG

30
.DXVKDO3DXO $SSURYHG

30
$OH[DQGHU$PEHU $SSURYHG

30
$OH[DQGHU$PEHU $SSURYHG

30
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 617 Att
h
t
F
i
fi
ld St
ff R
t
(2723
P
ibl
C
id
ti
f R
i
iti
D
i
i
R
di
J
i
i
C
it
Ch
i
A
ti
&,7<2))$,5),(/'
25',1$1&(12

25',1$1&(2)7+(&,7<&281&,/2)7+(&,7<2))$,5),(/'$87+25,=,1* 7+(,03/(0(17$7,212)$&20081,7<&+2,&($**5(*$7,21352*5$0 ,17+(&,7<2))$,5),(/'$1'$87+25,=,1*7+(&,7<0$1$*(572 (;(&87(7+(0$5,1&/($1(1(5*<-2,1732:(56$*5((0(17
:+(5($6RQ6HSWHPEHUWKH*RYHUQRURI&DOLIRUQLDVLJQHGLQWRODZ$VVHPEO\ %LOO
6WDWXWH&KDSWHU
VHH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RGHVHFWLRQ

KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³$FW´
ZKLFKDXWKRUL]HVDQ\&DOLIRUQLDFLW\RUFRXQW\ZKRVH JRYHUQLQJERG\VRHOHFWVWRFRPELQHHOHFWULFLW\ORDGRILWVUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVLQD &RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQSURJUDP
&&$

DQG
:+(5($6 RQ 6HSWHPEHU $VVHPEO\ %LOO $%
WKH *OREDO:DUPLQJ
6ROXWLRQV $FW ZDV VLJQHG LQWR ODZ HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH JRDO RI UHGXFLQJ &DOLIRUQLD¶V JUHHQKRXVHJDV
*+*
HPLVVLRQVWR

OHYHOVE\
DQG
:+(5($6WKH$FWH[SUHVVO\DXWKRUL]HVSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQD&&$WKURXJKDMRLQWSRZHUV DJHQF\DQGRQ'HFHPEHU
0DULQ&OHDQ(QHUJ\
0&(
ZDVHVWDEOLVKHGDVD
MRLQWSRZHUVDXWKRULW\SXUVXDQWWRD-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQWDVDPHQGHGIURPWLPHWR WLPH
DQG
:+(5($6RQ)HEUXDU\WKH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RPPLVVLRQFHUWLILHGWKH ³,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQ´RI0&( FRQILUPLQJ0&(¶V FRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH UHTXLUHPHQWVRI WKH$FW
DQG
:+(5($6FXUUHQWO\HOHFWULFLW\LVJHQHUDWHGDQGSURYLGHGWRWKHUHVLGHQWVRIWKH&LW\RI )DLUILHOGE\3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\
3* (
ZLWKQRDOWHUQDWLYHSURYLGHUIRUWKH
&LW\RI)DLUILHOG
DQG
:+(5($6DOWKRXJK3* (LVFXUUHQWO\PHHWLQJWKHUHQHZDEOHSRUWIROLRVWDQGDUG LQLWVSRZHUPL[DVUHTXLUHGE\([HFXWLYH2UGHU6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGLVFRPPLWWHG WRWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\JHQHUDWLRQDQGHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\LPSURYHPHQWV UHGXFWLRQ RI*+*¶V DQG SURWHFWLRQ RIWKH HQYLURQPHQW LQ VXSSRUWLQJ0&(¶V HOHFWULFLW\ SURFXUHPHQWSODQWKDWRIIHUVFXVWRPHUVDPLQLPXPHQHUJ\FRQWHQWRIUHQHZDEOHWR XSWRUHQHZDEOH
DQG
:+(5($60&(SULPDULO\VRXUFHVLWVHOHFWULFDOHQHUJ\IURPQRQSROOXWLQJ UHQHZDEOHV VXFKDVVRODUZLQGJHRWKHUPDOELRHQHUJ\DQGK\GURHOHFWULF DQG
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVLWLPSRUWDQWWKDWLWVUHVLGHQWVEXVLQHVVHVDQGSXEOLF IDFLOLWLHVKDYHDOWHUQDWLYHFKRLFHVWRHQHUJ\SURFXUHPHQWEH\RQG3* ( DQG
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 25'12
±
3DJH
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVWKDWMRLQLQJ0&(ZLOORIIHUFXVWRPHUVFKRLFHLQWKHLU SURYLGHURIHOHFWULFJHQHUDWLRQDQGKHOSPHHWWKH*+*HPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQJRDOVRI$%
DQG
:+(5($6WKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGILQGVWKDWMRLQLQJD&&$GRHVQRWFRQVWLWXWHD³SURMHFW´ ZLWKLQWKHPHDQLQJRIWKH3XEOLF5HVRXUFHV&RGH6HFWLRQ&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI 5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ
F

RU&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ
6HFWLRQ 7KH &LW\ &RXQFLO RIWKH &LW\ RI )DLUILHOG DXWKRUL]HVWKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI D &RPPXQLW\&KRLFH$JJUHJDWLRQ3URJUDPLQWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGDQGDXWKRUL]HVWKH&LW\ 0DQDJHUWRH[HFXWHWKH0&(-RLQW3RZHUV$JUHHPHQW
6HFWLRQ $Q\ SRUWLRQ RI WKLV RUGLQDQFH GHHPHG LQYDOLG RU XQHQIRUFHDEOH VKDOO EH VHYHUHGIURPWKHUHPDLQGHUZKLFKVKDOOUHPDLQLQIXOOIRUFHDQGHIIHFW 6HFWLRQ7KLVRUGLQDQFHVKDOOWDNHHIIHFWGD\VDIWHULWVDGRSWLRQ 6HFWLRQ $ VXPPDU\ RI WKLV RUGLQDQFH ZLOO EH SXEOLVKHG ZLWKLQ GD\V DIWHU LWV DGRSWLRQLQWKH)DLUILHOG'DLO\5HSXEOLFDQHZVSDSHURIJHQHUDOFLUFXODWLRQLQWKH&LW\RI )DLUILHOG
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 25'12
±
3DJH
,1752'8&('DWDUHJXODUPHHWLQJRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI)DLUILHOGRQWKHUG GD\RI'HFHPEHU
DQG
3$66('$1'$'237('WKLVWKGD\RI'HFHPEHU
E\WKHIROORZLQJYRWH

$<(6
&281&,/0(0%(56
35,&(%(57$1,02<7,009$&&$52
12(6
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%6(17
&281&,/0(0%(56

$%67$,1
&281&,/0(0%(56

0$<25
$77(67

&,7<&/(5.
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI 3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation ARTICLE 9

SIGNATURE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Joint Powers Agreement establishing Marin Clean Energy (formerly, Marin Energy Authority) By: _______________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: ________________________________
Date: ________________________________
Party: City of _________________________ )DLUILHOG
,QWHULP&LW\0DQDJHU
6HDQ34XLQQ
$WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH
RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJH

RI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI
3DFNHW3DJHRI
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 3DFNHW3DJHRI $WWDFKPHQW3DJHRI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation 3DFNHW3DJHRI $WWDFKPHQW3DJH
RI

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Fairfield Staff Reports (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community Choice Aggregation April 8, 2022
Mayor Dennis Fay
Councilmembers, City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Re: Consideration by City of Orinda -- Joining Community Choice Aggregation Agency (MCE) City Council Regular Meeting on Apr. 19, 2022
Dear Honorable Mayor Fay and City Councilmembers,
Thank you for your ongoing partnership with my office and for your steadfast dedication to the well-being of our mutual constituents in the City of Orinda. I urge that the City seriously consider and schedule for a formal vote at a future meeting the issue of whether to join a CCA.

The growing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) movement in cities throughout the Bay Area and California seeks at its core to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by allowing consumers who currently obtain electricity from PG&E to opt instead to obtain a majority or all of their energy needs from clean renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power. As CCAs have been approved by city after city in California over the past five years, the CCA model can no longer be considered new or experimental, but is in fact the wave of the future. These cities in Contra Costa County have all joined a CCA (MCE) between 2015 and 2018: Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Danville, San Ramon, San Pablo, Richmond, El Cerrito, Pinole, Pittsburg, and Oakley.

I thank you for your leadership in discussing and contemplating opting in to a CCA for Orinda, which will be a critical step towards helping City residents transition to utilizing renewable sources for their electricity needs. This action would be a win-win change in the status quo that would be excellent for the City, the County and the State. Our municipalities are the incubators for good public policy and your actions will support the State’s broader effort to combat climate change throughout California.

H.2.d
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: RBK CCA Ltr to Orinda Council 4.8.22 (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community I look forward to hearing about the outcome of your discussion on April 19 and I urge you to place this matter on an upcoming City Council agenda this spring for a formal vote.

Sincerely,
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Assembly District 16
cc via email: David Biggs
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: RBK CCA Ltr to Orinda Council 4.8.22 (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community From: Gene Gottfried [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:59 AM
To: [email protected]; David Biggs <[email protected]> Subject: MCE Clean Energy
I was surprised to discover that MCE Clean Energy is now available throughout Contra Costa County, including Lafayette and Moraga – but not Orinda.

I have been using an alternative provider of gas at a cost a little lower than PG&E’s, as well as PG&E’s own 100% solar electric option with a trivial difference in cost. No matter where the energy comes from, PG&E continues to control and charge separately for its distribution. There is no difference in service at the user level.

I believe the residents of Orinda deserve the same opportunity as our neighbors to choose MCE Clean Energy, and I urge you to make that possible.

Gene Gottfried
**********************************
Eugene L. Gottfried, M.D.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 925-254-6756
**********************************
H.2.e
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Communication from Gene Gottfried (2723 : Possible Consideration of Revisiting Decision Regarding Joining a Community City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: April 19, 2022
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Non-Renewal/Termination of Agreement for Street Maintenance and Public Access of Village Gate Road, Ridge Gate Road, and Watchwood Court (Orindawoods).

RECOMMENDATION:

Direct the City Manager to Provide Notice of Non-Renewal/Termination of Agreement for Street Maintenance and Public Access of Village Gate Road, Ridge Gate Road, and Watchwood Court (Orindawoods).

BACKGROUND: In 1992, the City of Orinda entered into an Agreement (Attachment 1) with the Homeowners Association for the Orindawoods subdivision which has the City performing maintenance on designated private roads within the subdivision as specified.

The staff report and an excerpt from the minutes when this was initially discussed in 1991, together with the staff report and an excerpt from the minutes, together with the full version of Reso. 56-90, when the subject agreement was approved, are attached (Attachment 2).

DISCUSSION: During the 2020 review of the status of private roads, the City Council expressed an interest in terminating the Agreement for Street Maintenance and Pubic Access for the Orindawoods subdivision as the approach under the Agreement is inconsistent with the current City policy regarding private roads. This matter has been on a pending actions list for Public Works since that time. As the Agreement is set to automatically renew on June 9, 2022, for another five years pursuant to Section 9, of the Agreement, it is timely to give notice of non-renewal, or termination pursuant to Section 10.

The City Manager advised the Orindawoods Home Owners Association (HOA) in writing via letter dated March 3, 2022, that the Orinda City Council would be considering the possible termination of the Agreement (Attachment 3). It should be noted that the City last resurfaced the roads covered in the agreement as part of the 2019 annual pavement maintenance project, and as such has met its obligations to date and no additional work is anticipated in the next five year period, and given this fact and the upcoming renewal, consideration of this matter is timely.

It should be noted that the HOA did acknowledge receipt of the March 3rd letter and requested a copy of the Agreement. Since that time we have not had any feedback from the HOA on the proposed action.

NEXT STEPS: If the City Council approves the recommended action, the City Manager will provide the actual Notice of Non-Renewal/Termination to the HOA.

H.3
Packet Pg. 683
FISCAL IMPACT: Assuming that the obligation to maintain the specified roads is ended, the City would no longer have any annual maintenance costs or more substantial repair/rehabilitation costs for these roadways in the future.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement
B. Prior Staff Reports and Reso
C. Orinda Woods Consideration of Termination Letter
Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: David Biggs, City Manager
Approved by:

H.3
Packet Pg. 684
When Recorded Return To:

City CIerk
City of Orinda
26 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
//^uqo'< clgl4_couNw tn
neconos
AUG 1 3 1992
AT
CONTRA
FEE $
STEPHEN L WE|R
COUNTY RECORnTT RECORDER
C9
Ct
G,
-
l-s
A
t\) -tt
q?
A
g)
g)
AGREEI{ENT FOR
STREET },{ATNTENANCE AND PUBLIC USE OF
VILLAGE GATE ROAD, RTDGE GATE ROAD AND WATC}TWOOD CTRCLE ( oRTNDAWOODS )
THfS AGREEMENT is made this 9th day of June
Lgg2, between the orindawood.s es@ a dalif@i
Mutual Benef it Corporation ( "OA" ) and the city of Orin-da, a municipal corporation ( "City" i .

RECITALS
THIS AGREEMENT is based upon the following facts:
1 - oA is a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation established by the Covenants, Conditioni and Restrictions ( I'cc&R' s'r ) for subdivision tract number 3833, record.ed on March a6 , L973 , at Book 6890, pages 551 et s€g- , of the of f icial Record.s of the Contra Costa County Recorder. Under the CC&R's, OA has certain maintenance, repair and management responsibilities for common areas within. the geographical area of Subdivision Tract 3833, including private streets known as village Gate Road, Ridge Gate Road, and Watchwood Circle.

2. oA proposes to open portions of these streets to public use.
3 - The city of orinda will agree to accept responsibility for the routine maintenance of the paved surfice areas of. tha designated streets, itqluding the curbs and gutters, and excluding drainage facilities, Iighting, sidewalks and landscaping and road embankments, aII as more particularly set forth in accordance with the terms of this agreement. .
4 - The parties wish to enter into this Agreement to set forth their respective obligations and to set forth the terms under which the OA and the City wiII share responsibilities for maintenance of the streets.

RECEIVED
sEP 1 0 1992
clTY OF 9RINDA

CITV MANAGER/OLERK

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) NOW THEREFORE, t.he pa rt ies agree :
1 ' P a r t i e s - The parties to this Agreement are the city of orinda ( "city") and the orindawoods Asso"iation (,,oA,,) . 2 ' Purpose - The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions by which ( 1) oA shalr make the streets open to publ ic use, and (2) the city and oA sha I r share responsibility for maintaining the stieets, curbsr gutters, sidewalks, Iandscaping, Iighting and drainage on the streets in orindawoods which are the subject of this egieement, 3 - Areas subiect to Aqreement - This Agreement concerns those portions of village Gate Road, Ridge Gate {oaa and watchwood Circl-e in the orindawoo_ds pro j ect as shown on Exhibits ,rArr and 'rB'r attached hereto and made a part of this agreement.

E
o!
o
-
F
\t\t
$
Ncs
qt
5 Areas ESI ed Stree Sub ct Mai nanc he Citv of Orinda. city shall main-tain the paved surface areas of the designated streets including the curb and gutter and excluding =ia"r-Iks, Iandscaping, lighting, storm drains-and other drainagJ-e f;;irities. The city shall maintain the streets at a level comparable to city streets- rn the case of major damage to the streetJ, the city wili be responsible for repairs to the road surface, base, and. curbs and gutters- ft is not responsible for the-street embankment or any part of the road structure berow the base. -
oA agrees to accept responsibility for the rnaintenance of the sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, storh drains and other drainage facilities for the designated streets. rn case of major damage to the street, oA is responsible for repairs needed in the street embankment and road structure below thL base. oA sha1l apply for an encroachment permit from the city for work on the paved areas of the streets which is its responsibility under this agreement 5-
In the event there is major street damage due to events that subseguently result in a declaration of a disaster by State or Federal agencies, the gity sirall assist the oA in fili"g for and obtaining disaster relief funding.

6. Public Use of Streets.

OA agrees the designated streets shall be open to public use

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) 7 - Not u D"d i.-tio. "r . p,rbl i. st.""t.
fL is understood by the parties that this agreement is not intended to nor does it constitute an offer of dediCation by OA nor an acceptance by the City of any respons ibi I ity f or ma i.,t.nance except as expressly set forth ,in this agreement- The areas subject to this Agreement are not dedicated or accepted as public streets.

The City assumes no responsibility for these streets other than those responsibilities set forth in this Agreement.

B . E f f e c t i v e Date.

The effective date of this Agreement is June g
, rggz
9 . Term of Agreement.

This Agreement sharr remain in effect for five
shall automatically be renewed every five vears unless
give a Notice of Termination.
years. It
the parties
.'f
<p
o
€
T
H
\t\t
t
H€r
Dgl
C'I
1O. Termination.

This Agreement may be terminated by the city of orinda by five years written notice to OA or by OA with three months wiitt"n notice to the City.

11. Hold Harrnless and f ndemnif ication.
oA shall protect, hold free and harmless and indemnify the clty
-
( including lts officers, agents and employees) from all Iiability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expel-tses ( including attorneys' fees) resulting directly or indirectly from nonfeasance or rnisfeasance of OA hereunder, including claims of inverse condemnation connected with OA's performance under this Agreement or from design defects in the streets, landscaping, curbs, gutters or drainage appurtenant thereto.

Upon demand by the city, oA shall also defend and protect city from aIl claims, demands, charges and causes of action Uy employi"i competent counsel and paying aII costs and fees necessary ion-th; defense.
city sha1l hold free and indemnify oA (including its officers, agents and employees) from aI! Iiability, penalties, costs, Iosses, damages, expenses (including attorneys' fees) resulting from its maintenance of the streets pursuant to this igr*ement. The city is not responsible for claims, Iiabilities,
-
penalti€s, costsl
Ioss€s, damages or expenses (including attorney;' fees) resulting directly or indirectly from the desig., of the streets.

This Agreement shall be enforced to the fullest extent
permitted by law, but nothing in it shaII be construed as

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) indemnif ying the City against. it.s wiII f u I misconduct or sole negligence performed under a construction contract. as def ined in CiviI Code section 2782-
L2 f nsura nce .

OA shaII obtain and m a i n t a i n f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f this Agreement insurance against claims or injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Agreement by oA, its agents, representatives, €rployees or contractors. This insurance may be part of its general property and personal injury coverage in effect for the entire Orindawoods project and OA, its Directors, Officers, and representatives.
a. Minimum Scope and Limits of fnsurance. OA shall
maintain comprehens ive general I iabi I ity and broad form comprehensive greneral liability insurance i p limits no less than $3 , O0o, oo0 combined single tinit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.
b. Deductibles and SeIf-Insured Retentions. Any
deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured retentions as respects the City, its officials and employees; or OA shaLI procure a bond guaranteeing payment of Iosses and related investigation I claims administration and defense expenses.
c. other Insurance Provisions. The pol j-cies are to
contain, or be endorsed to contain, the fotlowing provisions:
(1) The City, its Officials and employees are to
be covered as insureds as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the OA,
hereunder.
gE
e
e
:r
F
\
\
*
\
c
I
a
v
o
(2) The OA t s insurance
insurance as respects the
employees. Any insurance or
by the City, its officials
excess of OA's insurance and
it.
coverage shall be primary
city, its officials' and
self insurance maintained
or employees, shall be in
shaII not contribute with
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions
of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the city, its Officials or employees.
(4) Coverage sha}l state that OA's insurance shaII
apply separately to each insured against whom claim is
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the
)

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) I i m i t . s o f the insurer, s I iabi I ity.
( 5 ) Each i nsurance pol icy sha I r b e endorsed to
state that coverage sha I I not be suspended, voided,
cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after f if teen ( r5 ) days prior written notice by cert.if ied mail return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
d. Verification of Coveraqe. oA shaII furnish the city
with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting coverage required by this section. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
13 Notice
Notice to either party may be given by personal delivery or nra i I sent to the address shown : .

City Manager
City of Orinda
26 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Orindawoods Association
P . O . Box 29L
5Ol Orindawoods Drive
Orinda, CA 94553
1 4 . R e c o r d a t i o n .

The city shall have this Agreement recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Contra Costa County. The Agreement shall be binding on any successor in interest to the parties.

15. fndependent Capacity.

The parties agree that oA and its agrents in the perf ormance of this Agreement are acting in an independent capacity and, not as officers, €rployees or agents of the City.

16. Resolution of Disputes.
fn the event of a dispute between the parties arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the parties shall exercise good faith efforts to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after the dispute arises, each party shall have the right to require that the dispute be settled by mandatory arbitration by the American Arbit,ralion Association pursuant to the then applicable arbitration rules .rD
a'o
-
H
\
qh
rt
q
dl
tr rb
{

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) governing real estate disputes -
L7- Attorneys/ Feesrf it becomes necessary to resolve a dispute through arbitration in connection with a provision of this Agreement, tfie prevailing party is entitled to reasonable at.t.orneys, fees and costs.
1B . Entire Aqreement ; M o d i f i c a t i o n s .

This writing contains the full, final and exclusive statement of the parties. Modifications or Amendments sha}l be made in writing and be signed by both parties.

The parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year both written.
city of orinda Orindawoods Association of
California, a California
ATTEST:
gl
c
c
t
H
{
N
A
hJ
-
q:

A
A
a
Subscribed and sworn
me chis 2, n I
Eo before
d.y of
99Z^
I
:
,
\
.l
California,
Nonprofit Mutua
Benefit Corporat
Pres ident Mayor
Secretary
Ut Cdiltt €rgirrJrl- 16' l9A,
orin\agr\street,. agr

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement)

EXHIBIT A
LegaI Description of Streets Subj ect to I'Agreement f or Street Maintenance and Public Use of Vitlage Gate Road, Ridge Gate Road and Watchwood Circle (Orindawoods) f'.

ViIIage Gate Road
Beginning at the intersection of Villagre Gate Road and orind.awoods Drive and terminating at the the end of village Gate Road where it intersects Lot 9o, as shown on the final,map for Subdivision 3833 recorded March 7 ' L973 in Book 155 pages 1 thru 26 in the Office of the Contra Costa County Recorder;
Ridge Gate Road
Beginning at the intersection of vil lage Gate Road and Ridge Gate Road and te::minating at the end of Ridge Gate Road. as shown on the final maP for Subaivision 5545 recorded octbber Z, LgTg in Book Z3o page 25 in the Of f ice of the Contra Costa County Record.er; Watchwood Court
Beginning at the intersection of Watchwood Road. and Village Gat,e Road; thence alongr Watchwood Road to the -intersection of Walchwood
Road and Watchwood. Court including the intersection pavement to a line that is the projection of the westerly line of Watchwood Court; thence to the end of Watchwood Court as shown on the final map for Subdivision 6528 recorded September 24, 1985 in Book Zg4 page 11 thru L4 in the Office of the Contra Costa County Recorder; all as shown on attached plat Exhibit B.
e: \wtrl\orndwood. lgl
@
At 'o
-
ts
{
{
5 -ttro
a
{Lg)
@

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) '/,/ ffiF str*-t; 5 ,,1 *- ---y' -f o A Sr 1> <'t- r71 t 't t t5l4
.'7,n
&a
I
e,
(,
15l5
(t
7tf
/^::JOO,
3833
I
{
.,
(
0 h
I
8?
J. F. K.

UNIVERSITY
i c/TY otr 2R|NOA
fxrr rBrr
F/a* s h oh/ ; nJ s/re */:

S u 6i" cy' '/- A 1 7oi'na n f
/;, S/"oo* M";n/e fta rt (e
rc
SANTA.MARIA CHURCH
%&\
-"%o\
w

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement)

GEN ERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of bal i forn ia On this 16s 22nddav ol Jrrne 1992 , before me.

S a l Iy Diamond
the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
G. Blake Calder
{1 personally known to me
fl proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s)whose name(s) subscribed to the
County of Alameda )..
within instrument, and acknowledged
WIINESS my hand and officialseal.
executed it.

NOTrfinaLE-clr{clrl
ruufnACCl,t{TY
r+Orit-nr.rr-tCtrel
Notary's Signafure
ATTENTION NOTARY: Altho"rSh tfre hfornntion requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent anachrnent of ths certificate to another document.

Tlue or Type of Document

THIS CERNFICATE

MUST BE ATTACHED
TO T]_IE DOCUMEM
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
71200t9
" CEruERAL ACKNO\IyLEDGMENT
Number of Pages
Signe(s) Other Than Named Above
Date of Document
lr|tqtrcNAl- ilOtTAFl/ ASS@AIU{ . 85 Fhrrrrct Aa . P.O. Bq 71&a . Canoga hrt. CA State
County
O n t h i s t h
the undersigned Notary Public,personally
v
,Z/personally known to me
,fprored to me on the basis of satisfact
to be the person(s)whose name(s)
w i t h i n i n s t r u and acknowledged that

WITN ESS
U^/J,/, 1).,J
subscribed to tF
executed i
evidence
and official seal. ,.)
fu,ultJrU,
Notary's Signature
OFFCIAI. S€AL
PATSCIA A UIOS{G
t{atqy Rlclc'Collforrlo
ccF{rnA cosfA couNrY
tvtY Carmtsgqt F1grer AJgu$ 4' 1995
n10 12, NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION o 2301 2 Ventura Bhld- r P.O. Box 4€;25 . Woodhnd Hllls CA 91

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) ALL. PU R.POSE ACKNOWIEDGME NT
O 1991 NATIONAL NOTARY A^SSOCIATFN . 8236 Renrrrt Ave. . P.O. Box 71&4 . Cqrpga Parlq CA State of
County of
On before me,-L6 rJ LcNAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G,,'JANE DOE. NOTARY PUBLIC' -\/\
personally appeareO Jr+-zr,ss /-D- &U/")

ME(S) OF STGNER(S)
&personally known to me - OR - fl proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence

OFFICIAL SEAL
VON LfE

NOTAMT PUBLIC - CAL'FORNIA
CONTRA COSTA COI.$ITY
to be the person{s} whose namets} is/ais
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heAe,heltfuy executed the same in hislh€.#th€'iF authorized
capacity(ies|,. sn6 that by hislh€#+h€.ir.
signature{efon the instrument the person{e)rorthe entity upon behalf of which the person€F acted, executed the instrument.

My comm. expires AUG 20, 1993 ,
__( -^-.
l

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY S
D TNDtvIDUAL(S)
n coRPoRATE
oFFtcER(S)

TTTLE(S) ,
fI PARTNER(S)
D ATTORNEY-]N-FACT
fl TRUSTEE(S)

D SUBSCRTBTNG WTTNESS

D GUARDTAN/CONSERVA
fl orHER:

SIGNER IS REPRESENTI

NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)
ATTEXTIoN NoTARY: Although tt|€ infonnalion tequested b€low is OmONAL il corild prevent traudutenl attacfiment of this cenificate lo unauthoized documgnt.

THIS CERTIFICATE

MUST BE ATTACHED

TO THE DOCUMENT
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:

Title or Type of Document
Number of Pages
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
Date of Document

ATTACHMENT I
I.2.i
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Orindawoods - Street Maintenance Agreement June 9, 1992 (1344 : Discussion - Orinda Private Roads) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Orindawoods Maintenance Agreement (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) AGENDA TOPIC:

REPORT BY:

BACKGROUND
Agenda Item_~I _-~6 _________ _
Agenda Date September 10 . 1991

ORINDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING

STAFF REPORT
Orindawoods Homeowners Association Request
Acceptance of Certain Roads in Orindawoods
Public Maintenance
John Lisenko
Public Works Director\City Engineer
for
for
On August 14, 1990, the City Council adopted a policy and criteria for acceptance of private streets. Since then, staff and representatives of the Orindawoods Association have been working toward the goal of presenting to the council an acceptance "package" that meets the intent of the acceptance criteria as it pertains to three specific streets in orindawoods. The Association has completed a legal vote of the owners (results attached) and a soils reconnaissance report. Staff has matched the proposed streets to the adopted criteria, and this comparison is presented in matrix form.

DISCUSSION
Village Gate Road meets or exceeds all relevant criteria. The other two streets proposed for acceptance are Ridge Gate Road and Watchwood Circle. Ridgegate, in combination with Village Gate meets the criteria. At the present time there is a difference of opinion between the Association and staff regarding the acceptability of Watchwood Circle. The Association position is that Watchwood together with Village Gate forms a complete loop and is a logical combination to be considered for ac~eptance. i The remaining issues yet to be resolved includes the preparation of a formal acceptance agreement, terms and conditions related to future maintenance and recordation of necessary easement and agreement documents. The model for the maintenance agreement would be the current agreement that exists between the City and the Association for other streets in the area (Orindawoods Drive, Kite Hill Road, etc.), which spells out the limits of City
responsibility and leaves responsibility for landscaping, sidewalks, drainage system and other roadway appurtenances with the Association.

In order to proceed with final arrangements involving the preparation of the necessary legal documents, both staff and the Association would like to receive a tentative approval from the Council. Based on this approval we would proceed with the details H.3.b
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) ..
·-.;#-

ORINDAWOOOS ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL FOR ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE STREETS FOR MAINTENANCE PRIVATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
==================================

POLICY CRITERIA

1. All OWNERS SIGN REQUEST

2. CONNECTS DIRCTLY TO PUBLIC STREET

3. A. CONNECTS 2 PUBLIC STREETS
B. CONNECTS PUBLIC TO PRIVATE
C. PUBLIC STREET BY PASS

TECHNICAL CRITERIA

1. PAVEMENT CONDITION

2. DRAINAGE SYSTEM

3. SOIL STABILITY

4. ROADWAY GRADE NOT IN EXCESS OF 20%

5. HINIHUH WIDTH 16 FEET

6. TRAFFIC HAZARD MITIGATION

7. ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES

8. 15 HPH SIGHT DIST/HIN 50 FT RADIUS

9. CLEAR TITLE OF R/W
-----------------:------------·----:-----------------
VILLAGE GATE : RIDGE GATE RO : WATCHWOOO :

L = 1,960 FT : L = 637 FT : CIRCLE ONLY :
=================:=================:=================:

YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
GOOD
SEE ( 1)
OK
OK
I I
I , I
YES
*
NO
NO
NO
GOOD
SEE ( 1)
OK
OK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I I
YES
*
NO
NO
NO
GOOD
SEE ( 1)
OK
OK
W = 25, R/W = 50 'W = 25, R/W = 50 :w = 21, R/W = 28 I
I

HINIHAL HINIHAL I HINIHAL ' I
1 OK OK , TURNAROUND : NOT TO STANDARD

OK OK OK

I OK OK OK

10. CITY STREET NAHE SIGNS WILL REQUIRE INSTALLATION----------------------------- (1) DRAINAGE SYSTEH DISCHARGES THROUGH PRIVATE EASEMENTS ANO IS NOT PART OF

ACCEPTANCE
* CRITERIA HET INDIRECTLY - IF VILLAGE GATE BECOMES PUBLIC H.3.b
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) J

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:

Establishing a Policy and )
criteria for the Acceptance)
of Existing Private Streets)
for Public Maintenance ) _______________ )
RESOLUTION NO. 56-90
Section 2.3.2-H of the Orinda General Plan provides that:
"Voluntary dedication of private streets will be considered for acceptance by the city on a case-by-case basis when streets and drainage systems are improved to city standards and present no expense to the city upon dedication."
A draft document entitled "Development Standard Guidelines" has been developed by the Development Standards Committee and staff and considered by the Planning commission. Following several public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the "Development · Standard Guidelines" which included a chapter on existing roads.

On June 12, 1990, the City Council considered the "Development Standard Guidelines" at a public hearing.

NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Orinda finds, determines and orders as follows:

The policy and criteria for acceptance of existing private roads as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution is adopted.

Passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda at a meeting held on August 28, 1990 by the following vote:

AYES:
, NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

COUNCILMEMBERS:

Clerk
Dabel, Heggie, Landers, Knebel
Guidotti
None
Linda ~ Knebel,
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) J
Resolution No. 56-90
Exhibit A

EXISTING PRIVATE ROADS
city of Orinda Policy statement Regarding Acceptance:

The acceptance of existing, privately maintained roads into the city's street system shall be by Resolution of the City Council and shall be subject to the following criteria:

A. The request for acceptance shall be signed by all record owners of fee interest in the road in ques~lbn. This will apply in all cases where a private road has not been covered previously by ._an offer of dedication.

B. The road shall directly connect to a public street or highway.

C. There shall be demonstrated a need for the incorporation of the road into the City I s road system for purposes of traffic circulation, for example:
- the road connects two existing public streets and
provides the only means of access to one of those
streets.
- the road is a "collector" street that connects a public street with other private streets, particularly in
situations where maintenance of the private streets is
under separate agreement from the "collector" street. - the road can provide a viable alternative to an existing public street in the event that public street is impassable.

D. Any road proposed for inclusion in the public street system shall be upgraded, at no expense to the City, to standards that the City has adopted for this purpose, which · are as follows:

1. Pavement conditions - improvements shall be made as
necessary to the asphalt and/or roadbed to provide
a pavement life of 20 years. The roadway shall be
in a condition as to not need surface maintenance
treatment for a minimum of 5 years.

2. Drainage adequate capacity of all drainage
facilities shall be demonstrated and all damaged
and undersized facilities shall be replaced.

3. Soil stability A soils investigation, by a
Registered Civil Engineer with the title of "Soils
Engineer" or "Geotechnical Engineer" as outlined in
section 6736.1 of the Professional Engineers Act,
shall be conducted for the roadway, right-of-way
and adjacent up and down slopes. The investigation
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) /· .

John Lisenko
City Engineer
26 Orinda Way
Ortndawoods Association
P.O. Box 291
Orinda. CA 94563
March 22, 1991
Orinda, CA 94563
Dear John:

Subject: Proposed Roads for City Maintenance.

Regarding our request to the City to maintain specifically named roads in Orindawoods, a vote of the owners was concluded Saturday, March 16, 1991 on this issue. Per your request I am presenting the results of that vote, and a copy of the material that was sent to the owners.

In order for this type of action to pass, our CC&Rs require two tests:

1. There must be a quorum -- which means that 50% of the owners must vote. Since Orindawoods has a possible 258 votes. a quorum is 129.

Since we had 18 0 voters, we met this test.

2. The majority of those voting then determine the outcome.

Since the vote was 179 FOR and 2 AGAINST,
the measure passed with extremely strong su.i:wort.

I'll give you a call to discuss the next steps.

Sincerely,
<'\ ,-
> IM
,,--,/ :.fa1: v
/ i '---
',--Jim es C. Ellis
Treasurer
cc Orindawoods Board of Directors
Attachment: Material sent to owners on this issue.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) ...
or1naawooos Assoc1at1on
P.O. Box 291
John Lisenko
City Engineer
26 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Dear John:

Orinda. CA 94563
June 26, 1991

RECEIVED
JUN 2 ti 7997
Cll I' Ut- . ENG/NE~R-iN;t
Subject: Proposed Roads for City Maintenance -- Soils Report The previous correspondence to you. dated April 12th. included a copy of the soil reconnaissance proposal to ensure that the scope of the work would meet your needs. Having received go ahead, we hired MS Geotechnical Consultants to perform the study.

The attached report contains their findings regarding the two areas of Village Gate that you wanted studied. The bottom line is summarized in the study as follows:
"It is our opinion that the distress observed in the pavement of Village Gate Road at the two (2) locations in question is relatively minor." We have now obtained:
- The approval of the Orindawoods owners'. (Letter of March 22nd.) · - Soils reconnaissance.

I ·11 give you a call on Friday to discuss next steps.

Sincerely,
Treasurer
cc Orindawoods Board of Directors
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) PRB..IMINARY EVALUATION OF

PAVEMENT AREAS

VILLAGE GATE ROAD
ORl"°A, CALIFORNIA
'\y:)1lf ti1!t(i}itf ~i~;~}}}{'.!:!Fi:'.\l;!,;:? . ~ :. \ -c~ -· ~•-
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
120 Spring Street, Pleasanton, California 94566
. \
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Orindawoods Homeowner's Association
Woodhall, 501 Orindawoods Drive
Orinda, California 94563
Attention:

Gentlemen:

Mr. Jim Ellis
ffiB...IMINARY EVALUATION OF

PAVEMENT AREAS
·VILLAGE GATE ROAD

ORINDA, CALIFORNIA
Michael J. Merrill
James R. Mullen
May 24, 1991
Project 91476-01
As requested by Mr. Jim Ellis of the Orindawoods H:>meowner's Association and as authorized by a signed copy of our proposal 91-111, dated April 23, 1991, we have conducted a preliminary site reconnaissance and assessment of pavement distress observed in two (2) areas along Village Gate Road in Orinda, California. The purposes of our preliminary evaluation were to provide a preliminary opinion of the cause of the observed distress and to provide an opinion regarding the future performance of those sections of roadway. The Orindawoods Homeowner's Association has retained MS Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. to perform this preliminary study.

It is our understanding that both the Orindawoods Homeowner's Association and the City of Orinda are considering making Village Gate Road a public thoroughfare by turning this road over to the City of Orinda. The Orindawoods Homeowner's Assoclation has requested a preliminary evaluation of two (2) specific pavement areas of Village Gate Road.

Specifically, our scope of work for this study included the following:
• · Review readily available information regarding the general geologic and subsurface conditions in the vicinity of Village Gate Road;
• Review available previous geotechnical engineering studies conducted in the vicinity of the project site;
• O>serve site conditions including pavement distress, surface drainage, adjacent slopes and provide photographic documentation;
120 Spring Street • Pleasanton, CA 94566 • (4"15) 462-7038 H.3.b
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) 2 • Review aerial photographs of the site area to assess the general preconstruction conditions;
• Formulate preliminary opinions and conclusions based on the above tasks; • Prepare an engineering letter report summarizing the results of our study as well as our opinions and recommendations.

OBSERVATIONS OF PAVEMENTS
We visited the subject site on March 29, 1991 to observe the two (2) pavement areas in question. The site conditions were documented with field notes and photographs. Observations were made by Mr. Michael Merrill, Principal, with our firm and Mr. Barry Butler, a Project Engineer with our firm. Mr. Jim Ellis of the Orindawoods t-:-lomeowner's Association was also present. During our site visit, we made the following observations.

Site I
• Site I is located on the southwest side of Village Gate Road, just northwest of its intersection with Ravenhill Road as shown on the attached Site Location Map (Figure 1). • Site I exhibits linear cracking along the outside lane of a curve at this location. The cracking is linear; i.e., parallel to the road, and has been filled with some sort of asphalt emulsion (Photograph I, 2 and 3). No vertical displacement across the cracks was observed.
• Site I is located adjacent to a steep, short slope (Photograph 3). The presence of this ste~p slope suggests that some fill could be present beneath the sidewalk or beneath the edge of the pavement at this location.

Site 2
• Site 2 is located on the east side of Village Gate Road, just south of its intersection with The Glade as shown on the Site Location Map (Figure I). • Site 2 also exhibits some linear cracking on the outside lane of a curve (Photograph 4).

The cracks have been sealed previously with some type of asphalt emulsion and do not exhibit signs of vertical displacement across the cracks (Photograph 5). (Ms GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) 3 • Site 2 is located adjacent to a relatively steep slope on the east side of Village Gate Road (Photograph 6).

The presence of this steep slope, the presence of mature trees adjacent to the sidewalk and the presence of a steep cut on the uphill (west) side of Village Gate Road suggest that the outside, or east, edge of ViJlage Gate Road is underlain by some native soils.

DISCUSSION
Very little information regarding previous studies at the site is available with respect to roads. l-lowever, our review of previous work done during development of the Orindawoods complex, as well as aerial photographs of the site vicinity (Pacific Aerial Surveys, 1953, 1973, 1984) suggests that both sites in question (Figure I) are located where Village Gate Road crosses the top of a pre-existing topographic swale. This suggests that the uphill portions of these areas are probably located over bedrock, while the downhill portions are most likely located over fill underlain by either weathered bedrock or some residual soils. In addition, the downhill portions of these roadways appear to be located at the outsides of curves. Thus, it appears likely that the minor linear crocking in these areas is probably due to a tendancy of the road surface to spread as a result of the forces of traffic on the outside of the curve combined with a soil subgrade material that is less resistant to deflection than the surrounding subgrade materials.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of available geologic and geotechnical information, on our review of previous geotechnical work done at the site, on our review of aerial photographs of the site vicinity and on our examination of the two (2) pavement areas, we have formulated the following conclusions.
• It is our opinion that the distress observed in the pavements of Village Gate Road at the .two (2) locations in question is relatively minor.
- • It is our opinion that the distress to the pavements at both locations is most likely the result of a combination of the forces of traffic traveling on the outside lanes of the curves of those areas and an underlying soil subgrade which, most likely, is slightly weaker than the surrounding bedrock subgrade materials.
• It is our opinion that these two (2) areas are likely to require some minor maintenance from time to time, such as periodic patching of the longitudinal cracks to prevent the intrusion of surface water.
'M ·s GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) 4 It has been our pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding the information presented herein or if we can be of additional service.

Sincerely yours,
MS GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS, INC.
~"~1/\b~
Michael J. Merrill
Principal Engineer
MJM:pd
Attachments: References
Figure 1
Photographs I through 6
Copies: Client (3)
·Ms GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement)

REFERENCES
Pacific Aerial Surveys, 1953, 1973, and I 984, Black-and-white, stereo-pair aerial photographs, AV-119-14, frames 13 and 14, taken 8-17-1953; AV-1100-11, frames 19 and 20, taken 4-30- 73, and AV-2480-10, frames 19 and 20, .taken 5-17-1984, Pacific Aerial Surveys, Oakland, California.
tMs GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) SITE 1 ------
Site Location Map
Om: CB Chkd: MJM Projed: 91416-01
Scale:Not To Scale Figure: 1
;Ms GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
Project 91476-01
Photograph I - View of minor pavement cracking at Site I on Village Gate Road, looking northwest. l\lote cracking is in outside lane only.
'M·s GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. ,Ne.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement)

Project 91476-01
Ol
.!:
8 -
+-
0 Ol
£
"U
0 ...
u
+-
~
E
Cl.)
~ 0.
...
0 £
E -0
~ Cl.)
>
I
N
l\t'f,9 GEOTECHN\CAL CONSULTANTS, \NC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) . '
Project 91476-01
rl! -· ----·----·-··---·-
I
Photograph 3 - View of Site I, looking southeast. Minor pavement cracking is not readily visible in this photograph. Note steep slope on right (southwest) side of Village Gate Road.

Photograph 4 - View of Site 2, looking northeast. Note minor cracking on right (outside) traffic lane of curve.
·Ms GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) ..

Project 91476-01
Photograph 5 - View of Site 2, looking :southwest. Note minor cracking on left side of Village Gate Road, adjacent to slope. ';-
Photograph 6 - View of area of Site 2, looking west. Note steep slope left of Village Gate Road.

Ms GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Prior Staff Reports and Reso (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance Agreement)

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
City of Orinda  22 Orinda Way Orinda  California  94563 March 3, 2022
Orindawoods Homeowners Association
Julie Franklin, Community Manager
Silvercreek Assn. Mgmt.
2950 Buskirk Ave, # 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
RE: NOTICE OF NON-REWNEAL/CONSIDERATION OF NOTICE OF TERMINATION – STREET MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 9, 1992
I am writing to share that the Orinda City Council will consider the possible termination of the Agreement for Street Maintenance and Public Use of Village Gate Road, Ridge Gate Road, and Watchwood Court (Orindawoods) pursuant to section 10 of said agreement. However, the Agreement is set to automatically renew as on June 9, 2022, for another five years pursuant to Section 9, and by this letter, the City is giving notice of non-renewal prior to automatic renewal.

The City last resurfaced the roads covered in the agreement as part of the 2019 annual pavement maintenance project, and as such has met its obligations to date and no additional work is anticipated in the next five year period, and given this fact and the upcoming renewal, consideration of this matter is timely.

This item is planned to be before the City Council on April 19, 2022, and I wanted to the HOA advance notice that the matter will be considered at that time.

Please feel free to reach out to discuss this matter if you have any questions.

Regards,
David Biggs
City Manager
xc: Mayor & City Council
City Attorney
Acting Public Works Director
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Orinda Woods Consideration of Termination Letter (2744 : Orindawoods Non-Renewal Termination of Street Maintenance City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.4
Date: April 19, 2022
Department: City Council
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of Annual Update to the Capital Improvement Plan RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council conduct its first review and discussion of the annual update to the City's rolling five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2021/22-2026/27. No action is being taken to approve projects or appropriate funds.

The information obtained from this meeting will be used to develop formal updates to the CIP, including the addition of new projects. The City Council will have additional opportunities to review and provide input in the next two months along with the midcycle budget adjustments before the CIP is approved.

CIP PLANNING PROCESS IN UNCERTAIN TIMES:

The CIP is a financial planning document which relies on estimates of available resources. The plan then presents a road map, balancing the various funding needs over numerous proposed projects, to ensure sufficient funding exists. For capital projects it is important to look beyond one year. In some cases the City may have accumulated funds over multiple years, or it may still be in a saving mode to address critical deficiencies. The COVID-19 pandemic will continue to have an impact on City resources, along with more recent changes to the economy, such as significant increases in inflation, changes in the labor market, and supply chain interruptions.

These developments have resulted in increased prices for construction materials and supplies, such as asphalt, fuel, lumber and metals. This leads to higher bid prices for projects. In light of this environment, Staff recommends a fiscally conservative approach to only fund the most essential projects.

BACKGROUND:

The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies projects and funding sources for longterm capital investments that are designed to protect, preserve, and enhance the City's infrastructure, extend the useful service life of public facilities and improve or enhance delivery of City services. The City Council annually discusses priorities, overall funding of future projects, and potentially new projects to be added to the CIP. To set the stage for consideration of the annual update of the Five Year CIP, staff will make a presentation at the City Council meeting updating the Council and Community on the projects completed to date in the 21/22 fiscal, both prior and current fiscal year projects, and the status of the balance of the programmed 21/22 capital projects.

The City Council last approved the CIP on June 29, 2021, for the five-year period FY 2021-2025, which included expected expenditures for fiscal year which was underway (July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022) and forecasted expenditures for a four-year period (to June 30, 2025). Attachment A is a listing of the current approved CIP projects by H.4
Packet Pg. 732
category. Programming for future years enables the CIP to be used as a planning tool to prioritize potential projects and schedule them in light of projected fund balances.

This year, in order to forecast a conventional five year period, the CIP will encompass an additional year. It should also be noted that in order to be consistent with the twoyear overall city budget cycle, the CIP will be updated annually, and then comprehensively adopted during the two-year cycle with the overall budget.

The CIP update and adoption process encompasses three City Council meetings:
 City Staff meets with the City Council to present proposed changes to the CIP which includes consideration of new project. (This is the subject meeting.)  Based on input received at the first meeting, Staff prepares a proposed updated CIP, including new projects proposed at the above meeting, fiscal changes to current projects, and removal of completed or discontinued projects. This will be presented to the City Council, tentatively in May 2022.  (Planning Commission reviews new projects in the CIP update to determine conformance with the General Plan, prior to adoption by City Council)  Staff prepares the final updated CIP that will be recommended for adoption by the City Council, tentatively in June 2022.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of the subject item is to receive input from the City Council (concurrence and/or direction) on allocating funding for capital projects as described in the various Tables below. This will allow Staff to be better informed before proceeding with further analyses which includes balancing the various fund sources to ensure minimum levels are maintained. Depending on the priority and needs for proposed project(s), it may be warranted to reschedule or even cancel future year projects already in the approved CIP to allow funding of such new projects.

It should be noted that Staff is not including maintenance related projects under $60,000 such as building painting and carpet installation, as these typically are not classified as capital improvements. Costs for such work would be incorporated into the operating budget.

Staff have separated the potential projects into the categories as described below:

Table 1 - Proposed New Projects with proposed funding identifiedthese include projects (highlighted) from the Unfunded Project List (Attachment B) in last year’s approved CIP
No. Project Name Expenditure
Year(s)
Potential Fund
Source (Fund #)
Estimated
Cost

1.1 San Pablo Creek Box
Culvert Repair
21/22 to
25/26
Road/Drainage
Stabilization (#700),
Measure R (#106) $5,000,000

1.2 2025 Annual Pavement
Project
25/26 Various (*)
$2,000,000

1.3 2026 Annual Pavement
Project
26/27 Various (*)
$2,000,000
H.4
Packet Pg. 733
Table 1 - Proposed New Projects with proposed funding identifiedthese include projects (highlighted) from the Unfunded Project List (Attachment B) in last year’s approved CIP
No. Project Name Expenditure
Year(s)
Potential Fund
Source (Fund #)
Estimated
Cost

1.4 RRFB Crosswalk Moraga
Way at Valley View
23/24 TDA (#263) $100,000

1.5 Library elevator
modernization
24/25 Library parcel tax
(#520) $350,000

1.6 Emergency Generators –
various city buildings **
23/24 State Grants (#260) TBD

1.7 Lighting retrofit (LED) –
tennis courts
22/23 Park Dedication fees
(#240) $65,000
* Gas Tax (Fund #200), Garbage Co. Road Maint. Fees (#335), CCTA Return To Source (#330) ** Replace community center and City Hall generators, obtain generators for library and maintenance yard, add battery back-up system to AGC solar - primarily grant funded by California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES - 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP) Table 2 - Selected Projects from the CIP Unfunded Project List - Staff selected for discussion on priorities, should funding sources become available in the future.

No. Project Name Estimated Cost

2.1 Lighting retrofit (LED) – Wilder fields #1 & #2 $250,000 Table 3 - Changes to the Unfunded CIP Projects list - Staff recommends the addition of new projects as shown, which may include requests from the public.

No. Project Name Estimated Cost

3.1 Camino Pablo medians – landscaping upgrade for
remaining areas following 2019 project – Santa
Maria to Brookwood
$120,000
NEXT STEPS:

Staff will follow the direction given by the City Council and address/incorporate any comments into the draft of the CIP Update to be reviewed by Council in May 2022. Staff will further analyze the selected projects, and determine impact to the funding sources and the fund balances.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Project budgets, cost estimates, and potential project funding sources are preliminary.

No funding is being appropriated by the City Council with this item – it is for preliminary review only, and no new projects are approved to move forward.

H.4
Packet Pg. 734
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Projects by Category CIP final 6-29-21
B. Master Unfunded CIP Project List post June 29, 2021 CC mtg Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Scott Christie, Public Works Director
Approved by:

H.4
Packet Pg. 735
Capital Improvement Plan
City of Orinda, California

PROJECTS BY CATEGORY
'20/'21 thru '24/'25
Category Project # '20/'21 '21/'22 '22/'23 '23/'24 '24/'25 Total

CITY BUILDINGS & FACILITIES
Community Center Window Replacement 4016 120,000 120,000 Sewer Line Community Center 4017 50,000 50,000
Community Center HVAC 4050 50,000 50,000
Community Center Exterior Painting 4083 75,000 75,000
Community Center Accessibility Improvements 4086 5,800 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 65,800 City Hall Slide Stabilization 4108 50,000 835,000 885,000 Art and Garden Center Sound Absorption 4113 15,000 15,000 Community Center Roof Replacement 4141 5,000 295,000 300,000 City Hall Elevator 4145 20,000 20,000
Install Mini Split HVAC System at Orinda Library 4160 30,000 30,000 Library Boiler Replacement 4161 75,000 75,000
Solar Back-Up Community Center 4164 52,000 313,701 365,701 Library Roof Replacement 4173 85,000 85,000
Replace Library Air Handlers 4174 190,000 190,000
Library Painting (Ext. & Interior) 4175 60,000 60,000
Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement 4179 100,000 100,000 Community Center Vinyl Flooring Replacement 4180 40,000 40,000 Art & Garden Ctr Audio Visual 4181 20,000 20,000
City Hall Exterior Painting 4182 65,000 65,000
Wilder Ranch House Roof Replacement 4184 35,000 35,000
CITY BUILDINGS & FACILITIES Total 162,800 2,018,701 435,000 15,000 15,000 2,646,501

LONG TERM PLANNING
Downtown Precise Plan 4163 217,860 205,131 97,000 519,991 Housing Element Update 5501 25,000 219,000 181,000 425,000 LONG TERM PLANNING Total 242,860 424,131 278,000 944,991

PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Wilder Fields 1&2 Turf Replacement 4013 30,000 1,334,680 1,364,680 Fencing & Gate Wilder Field 4 4018 33,000 0 33,000
Resurface Community Park Tennis Courts 4052 168,020 168,020 Wilder Park Field#4 Synthetic Turf 4061 256,328 256,328 Mini Park (Crossroads Park) 4103 30,000 328,000 358,000 Community Park Renovation Plan & Improvements 4112 140,000 652,000 792,000 PARK IMPROVEMENTS Total 517,348 1,802,680 652,000 2,972,028

TRANSPORTATION / DRAINAGE
Miner Road Bridge Seismic Retrofit 0044 140,000 116,000 301,000 557,000 Bear Creek Bridge Seismic Retrofit 0087 212,000 220,000 778,000 1,210,000 Camino Pablo Path-Orinda Way to Monte Vista 3066 50,000 580,000 30,000 660,000 Glorietta-Rheem SD Repair PL-492 3100 175,000 25,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Orchard SD Repair PL-409 & PL-513 3101 50,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 Ivy Dr. SD Repairs, PL-958/959 & PL864 3102 200,000 1,100,000 1,300,000 2021-2025 CIP

Page 2 ends

Orinda City CouncilApril 19, 2022

Orinda City Council
April 19, 2022