Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Statements Sce Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to press Southern California Edison on power shutoffs; one requests appeal of Montero project CEQA exemption
Summary
Residents asked the Simi Valley City Council to press Southern California Edison for alternatives to large‑area power shutoffs and to mitigate fire risk; another speaker requested the council accept an appeal of a planning administrative decision, saying CEQA documents were not posted in time.
Get email alerts on the Public Statements Sce Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple residents used the public‑statement period to press the City Council on power shutoffs and on a potential procedural error in a recent planning decision.
Michael Radka, a West Simi Valley resident, said his neighborhood lost power for about half of a recent wind event and urged the council to engage directly with Southern California Edison (SCE) to seek alternatives to preemptive power shutoffs. Radka said large area power shutoffs are not a long‑term solution to fire risk and argued they reduce public safety at darkened intersections and disrupt daily life. He asked the city to request an alternate plan from SCE within about a year, to take measures to mitigate fire risk in chaparral areas, and to meet with Edison field crews during events so councilmembers can hear residents’ experiences.
Corey Fromm requested that the council accept an appeal of an administrative decision for case PDS20230004 (identified at the hearing as the Monterra/Montero Community Gating project). Fromm asserted that the staff report and the notice of exemption (NOE) were not available online 72 hours before the Jan. 23, 2025 public hearing and said that lack of posting would violate the Ralph M. Brown Act’s public‑access expectations and CEQA posting practices. Fromm asked that the appeal be filed on or before Feb. 3, 2025. He also said the NOE in Attachment A appeared to have been signed in advance by staff.
City staff response: The City Attorney said staff had not received complaints that the staff report was unavailable and noted that the public hearing in question was an administrative hearing rather than a planning commission meeting; staff said it was not aware the report was not accessible. The City Manager said an email was sent to council earlier the same day related to a possible appeal and confirmed that the last day to file an appeal with the city council would be February 3, 2025. Staff identified Stratos Peros as available to answer specific questions about the project.
Why it matters: Power shutoff protocols and vegetation management relate to public safety, traffic control and emergency preparedness. Allegations about missing CEQA documents and procedural posting affect the public’s ability to review environmental determinations and may trigger an appeal or re‑notice of a project.
Next steps: Councilmembers and staff did not take formal action at the meeting on either item. The record shows staff and the city attorney noting the February 3 appeal deadline and that staff had not been informed the report was unavailable; residents urged that the city engage with SCE and pursue vegetation and intersection safety measures.

