CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION STATEWIDE Public Hearing And Possible Closed Session On Executive Director's Employment: Consideration of Dismissal of the Executive Director, Selection Process for Executive Director & Selection of Interim Executive Director or Executive Director

ABSTRACT: On February 10, 2016, the California Coastal Commission is scheduled to consider agenda item 8. Consideration of Dismissal of the Executive Director Consideration and possible action to dismiss the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Government Code § 11126(a), after the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission may deliberate regarding this item in closed session. If the Commission takes any action during closed session to dismiss the Executive Director, the roll call vote will be reported publicly when the Commission reconvenes in open session, at the Inn at Morro Bay, Morro Bay, CA. ADDENDUM (Comments received as of 01/29/2016) document copy and Hearing procedures for Agenda Item 8 document copy are embedded. Also on the agenda, agenda item 9 Selection Process for Executive Director If necessary, consideration and possible action regarding the selection process for a new Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission and agenda item 10 Selection of Interim Executive Director or Executive Director If necessary, at an appropriate time during the meeting, the Commission may meet in closed session to consider the appointment of an Interim Executive Director or a new Executive Director pursuant to Government Code § 11126(a). If the Commission takes any action during closed session to appoint an Interim Executive Director or new Executive Director, the roll call vote will be reported publicly when the Commission reconvenes in open session.
NOTE: E-mail correspondence concerning Items 8-10 may be sent to StatusOfExecutiveDirector@coastal.ca.gov

REFERENCES:
When it comes to the California Coastal Commission, 'cozy' is a four-letter word
Steve Lopez Contact Reporter Los Angeles Times
JANUARY 30, 3016

Column
Gov. Brown is mute as Coastal Commission Coup gains steam
Steve Lopez Contact Reporter Los Angeles Times
JANUARY 27, 2016

Op-Ed
The coastline belongs to all Californians—but maybe not for long
Steve Blank Los Angeles Times
JANUARY 26, 2016

Staff turmoil shakes Coastal Commission

By The Associated Press January 25, 201

California Coastal Commission members to consider firing executive director
Tony Barboza Contact Reporter Los Angeles Times
JANUARY 20, 2016

CCC w8-s-2-2016

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
ADDENDUM
January 29, 2016
TO: California Coastal Commission and Interested Parties
RE: Comments received as of 01/29/2016

Public Hearing Procedures ED Dismissal 021016

Hearing procedures for Agenda Item 8 

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT document copy is embedded. Disputed issues of material fact for which evidentiary hearings may be required are: 1. What are PG&E’s gas distribution system recordkeeping policies and practices; 2. What are the industry practices with respect to gas distribution asset recordkeeping; 3. Do PG&E’s existing and planned recordkeeping practices comport with those applicable industry practices; 4. What corrective actions and complementary initiatives has PG&E undertaken; and 5. Are such actions and initiatives sufficient to ensure adequate recordkeeping practices and access to those records going forward, while adequately reducing the possibility of incidents caused by imperfect records… discovery of PG&E should focus on obtaining information relevant to PG&E’s recordkeeping practices and the risk reduction resulting from PG&E’s corrective actions and initiatives.
Discovery Schedule
The following proposed schedule is designed to allow sufficient time for all parties to complete discovery in time for the Commission to issue a final decision in this matter within 12 months of when a final scoping memo is issued

Event	Date
Last day to submit non-expert data requests	May 8, 2015
Prepared direct testimony by SED and intervenors	June 29,, 2015
Prepared direct testimony by PG&E	August 10, 2015
Rebuttal testimony by SED and intervenors	September 10, 2015
Last day to submit expert data requests	September 30, 2015

NOTE: As described in PG&E’s Initial Report in Response to OII, PG&E’s gas distribution system consists of over 42,000 miles of mains and nearly 3.3 million gas services that provide natural gas to the company’s 4.3 million residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Its gas distribution system covers 70,000 square miles—an area larger than 33 of the 50 United States. The system is comprised of 826 hydraulically independent systems, with more than 77,000 miles of underground gas lines, including mains and services. PG&E’s gas distribution paper as-built and gas service records total over 18,000 linear feet which, if stacked vertically, would equal almost three miles—the height of 15 Empire State Buildings

Pgande Prehearing Conference Statement 03-05-15

Filing Date 03-05-15

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR PARTY STATUS

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR PARTY STATUS document copy is embedded. On December 19, 2014, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and on December 23, 2014, The Utility Reform Network filed motions requesting party status. The motions for party status of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and The Utility Reform Network are granted.
Prehearing Conference
A prehearing conference is scheduled:
Monday, March 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
Commission Hearing Room
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Alj's Ruling Granting Motions for Party Status 2025015

Filing Date 02-25-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULINGSETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND GRANTING MOTIONS FOR PARTY STATUS

Three Noteworthy 1 February 2016 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Three Noteworthy 1 February 2016 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Items, namely TOUR OF INSPECTION (Beginning at 3:30 P.M.), PUBLIC APPEARANCES and CLOSED SESSION (Beginning at 4:30 P.M.) 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9: 1 cases 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) Name of Case: Gerit Sand; Cobblestone Bakery, a sole proprietorship, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel- by-the-Sea, Defendant - Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M130393 and 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) Name of Case: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff v. Pacific Harvest Seafoods, are presented. The CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA document copy is embedded.

Special Meeting Agenda 02-01-16

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING

MONDAY, February 1, 2016

TOUR OF INSPECTION – 3:30 P.M.

CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.

Eleven Noteworthy 2 February 2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Eleven Noteworthy 2 February 2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items are featured, including ANNOUNCEMENTS, PUBLIC APPEARANCES, Monthly Reports for the Month of December, Forest Theater Project construction update, Authorization of Professional Services Agreements for Website Support and Code Enforcement for an Amount Not to Exceed $64,000 for All Agreements, Rio Park/Larsen Field Update: Authorize Professional Services Agreements for Permitting Related Services in an amount not to exceed $57,000 and Provide Direction on Pathway Materials, TAMC Presentation Investment Plan, Consideration of the Appointment of Chip Rerig as City Administrator and Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Employment Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Chip Rerig, City Administrator, Receive Mid-Year review report for FY15-16, and approve mid-year supplemental appropriation requests, Consideration of a proposal from Pacific Repertory Theater to install an ADA accessible pathway on the west side of the Forest Theater and Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Design Study (DS 15-327) application for the construction of a new rooftop deck on a single-family residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application is being appealed by property owner: Cathryn Carlson.  Agenda Bills document copies are embedded. 

Agenda 02-02-16

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

REGULAR MEETING – 4:30 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements will be made by the Mayor and Council Members, City Administrator, and/or City Attorney.

3. Centennial Committee Activities Update – Sue McCloud, Barbara Livingston, and Merv Sutton

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded.

.

CONSENT AGENDA

All items on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member or the public for special consideration. Otherwise the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by majority voice vote.

6. Monthly Reports for the Month of December

a. Contracts executed within the City Administrator’s Signing Authority

b. Community Planning and Building Department Reports

c. Police, Fire, Ambulance and Beach Reports

d. Public Records Act Request Logs – City Clerk and Police

e. Forester’s Report

f. City Treasurer’s Report
Monthly Reports 02-02-16

10. AB 1088 Forest Theater Project construction update.
Forest Theater Renovation Project Update 02-02-16

11. AB 1089 Authorization of Professional Services Agreements for Website Support and Code Enforcement for an Amount Not to Exceed $64,000 for All Agreements
Professional Services Agreements for Website Support and Code Enforcement 02-02-16

12. AB 1090 Rio Park/Larsen Field Update: Authorize Professional Services Agreements for Permitting Related Services in an amount not to exceed $57,000 and Provide Direction on Pathway Materials
Rio Park-Larsen Field Update 02-02-16

ORDERS

Orders of Council are agenda items that require City Council discussion, debate and/or direction.

13. TAMC Presentation Investment Plan

14. AB 1091 Consideration of the Appointment of Chip Rerig as City Administrator and Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Employment Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Chip Rerig, City Administrator
Appoint Chip Rerig as City Administrator 02-02-16

15. AB 1092 Receive Mid-Year review report for FY15-16, and approve mid-year supplemental appropriation requests.
Mid-Year Financial Review FY15-16 02-02-16

16. AB 1093 Consideration of a proposal from Pacific Repertory Theater to install an ADA accessible pathway on the west side of the Forest Theater
Pacific Repertory Theater Proposal 02-02-16

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearings consist of Zoning amendments, General Plan amendments, appeals of Commission decisions and other State-mandated items. If the Public Hearing is an appeal, appellants are allowed a total of 10 minutes to speak on their own behalf after the staff report and at the close of public comment in order to have an opportunity to rebut public comments. Other speakers will be allowed three minutes.

17. AB 1094 Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Design Study (DS 15-327) application for the construction of a new rooftop deck on a single-family residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application is being appealed by property owner: Cathryn Carlson.
Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Design Study Carlson 02-02-16

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Design Study (DS 15-327) application for the construction of a new rooftop deck on a single-family residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application is being appealed by property owner: Cathryn Carlson.

CITY COUNCIL: Draft Minutes of the Special Meetings held November 19, 2015, Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2015, Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 3, 2015, Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 29, 2015, Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 4, 2016 & Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2016

Minutes November, December, January 02-02-16

CITY COUNCIL
Draft Minutes of the Special Meetings held November 19, 2015
Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2015
Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 3, 2015
Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 29, 2015
Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 4, 2016
Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA: ‘ The question before us is whether the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC or Commission), which is empowered to regulate the rates and charges of public utilities, had the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee. We conclude that the PUC did not have such authority.’

ABSTRACT: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent; CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO., Real Party in Interest, the Court ruled that the PUC did not have “the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee.” “Petitioner Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, a public agency, imposed a fee on a public utility’s customers for work it had undertaken to mitigate environmental damage caused by the utility. The agency’s fee was charged as a line item on the utility’s bill and was collected by the utility on behalf of the agency. The question before us is whether the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC or Commission), which is empowered to regulate the rates and charges of public utilities, had the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee. We conclude that the PUC did not have such authority.” The Opinion document copy is embedded.

S208838 Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent;
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO., Real Party in Interest.
S208838
Cal.P.U.C. Decision Nos. 11-03-035 and 13-01-040

REFERENCE:
California Supreme Court clears way for user fee on Cal Am bills

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 01/25/16, 7:38 PM PST

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES January 27, 2016

TAC MPRWA Special Meeting Agenda Packet 01-27-16

AGENDA PACKET, SPECIAL MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
January 27, 2016

Tac Mprwa Minutes 01-27-16

DRAFT MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
January 27, 2016

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA & [PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and [PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROMINTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA document copies are embedded.

ARGUMENT 

A. The Information PG&E Requested Is Not Only Relevant, But Necessary to Clarify the Allegations Carmel Has Interjected into This Proceeding
B. No Attorney-Client Privilege Exists Between Carmel and Ms. Banach
C. Facts Learned from Ms. Banach Are Not Protected as Work Product.
D. Carmel Has Not Shown That the Official-Information Privilege Applies.
E. Carmel’s Objection Based on the “Characterization” or “Purpose” of the Subpoena Does Not Provide a Basis for Refusing to Respond

CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, PG&E respectfully requests that ALJ Bushey adopt the proposed ruling filed with this Motion, which directs Carmel to provide responses and all responsive, non-privileged documents to Questions 13 through 23 in PG&E’s third sets of data requests not later than January 14, 2016.

Motion to Compel Discovery 12-31-15

Filing Date12-31-15
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Attachment 2 I.14-11-008 12-31-15

Filing Date 12-31-15
DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Attachment 3 I.14-11-008 12-31-15

Filing Date 12-31-15
[PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROMINTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING document copy is embedded.

Proceeding Schedule

Event	Date
PG&E Circulate Draft Factual Stipulation	April 9, 2015
Parties Comment on Draft Stipulation	April 19, 2015
PG&E Circulate Final Stipulation	May 8, 2015
Quiet Period – No discovery requests from PG&E	August 14 to September 30, 2015
SED distributes Supplemental Testimony	September 30, 2015
SED witness available for informal clarification	After testimony distributed
Intervenors distribute testimony	October 14, 2015
PG&E distributes reply testimony, with cross-examination estimates	November 12, 2015
SED and intervenors distribute rebuttal testimony, with cross-examination Estimates	December 18, 2015
Evidentiary Hearing	January 19 – 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Commission Courtroom State Office Building 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Pursuant to Rule 13.2(a), I designate Judge Maribeth A. Bushey as the Presiding Officer.Presiding Officer

IT IS RULED that:

1. Ex parte communications are prohibited in adjudicatory proceedings, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2(b).
2. Procedural inquiries to decisionmakers, as defined in Rule 8.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, other than the assigned Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge, are prohibited.
3. The issues and schedule are as set forth in the body of this ruling unless amended by a subsequent ruling or order of the Presiding Officer.
4. Pursuant to Rule 13.2, Administrative Law Judge Maribeth A. Bushey is the Presiding Officer.
5. The preliminary categorization of this proceeding as adjudicatory and the need for evidentiary hearings are affirmed.

Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling 04-10-15

Filing Date 04-10-15
ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA'S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA'S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT document copy is embedded.
Conclusion
This OII (Order Instituting Investigation) must assist to prevent, whenever possible, future leaks and loss of property, as witnessed by Carmel residents on March 3, 2014 when a gas explosion occurred due to PG&E error. The federal National Transportation & Safety Board (NTSB) found in its August 30, 2011 accident report that one of the causes of the deadly 2010 San Bruno blast was PG&E's "deficient and ineffective" gas transmission integrity management program.6 The NTSB report recommended that PG&E "aggressively and diligently" search "all records" relating to its pipeline system, explaining that these records "should be traceable, verifiable, and complete."7
The Presiding Officers' Decision in the OII investigating PG&E's facilities records post-San Bruno concluded that many PG&E pipeline records were lost, misplaced, destroyed, or missing, even though PG&E has a statutory obligation to preserve them.8 The decision also concluded that PG&E knew of its deficiencies in its record management programs as far back as 1984, but failed to adequately respond to the problems.9 The Commission determined that PG&E committed 33 separate violations with respect to its recordkeeping failures, which amounted to 350,189 total days in violation of the law.
Californians would hope that the tragedy of San Bruno would have some semblance of a silver lining as a means to prevent future tragedy. Sadly, over three and-a-half years later, another gas explosion occurred in Carmel due to PG&E recordkeeping lapses. This repetition of error makes Carmel worry whether PG&E's self-proclaimed "substantial efforts to improve the accuracy of its gas distribution asset data"11 has sufficiently minimized risk to protect its customers.
We are fortunate that the home that exploded in Carmel was vacant on the day PG&E's crews performed work on its distribution line. The doubt and fear of Carmel residents regarding the safety of nearby gas lines nonetheless remains. The residents of Castro Valley, Morgan Hill, Milpitas, and Mountain View may have similar doubts and fears in response to the incidents that occur in their towns. Why did these accidents happen, did violations occur, and how can we prevent such accidents in the future? Carmel respectfully asks that it participate in answering these questions. Carmel respectfully submits this statement so that the issues discussed will facilitate in the investigation into these questions.

Prehearing Conference Statement 03-05-15

Filing Date 03-05-15
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA'S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA document copy is embedded.
Pursuant to Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the California Public Utilities Commission's (Commission)  Rules of Practice and Procedure, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Carmel) respectfully files this motion to intervene in the above-referenced proceeding. The Order Institution Investigation "invites interested parties to actively participate in this proceeding as it involves important safety and other policy matters that may benefits from the expertise, participation, and evidence of other parties."1 Carmel wishes to participate in order to provide and voice for the safety of its citizens in the wake of the March 3, 2014 pipeline blast in Carmel's neighborhood, which destroyed a resident's home and created grave concerns over pipeline safety amongst Carmel citizens. Carmel has a direct interest in this proceeding, because it will specifically address any statutory or regulatory violations committed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company which caused or contributed to the explosion in Carmel.2 There is no other patry to this proceeding that can protects or represent Carmel's interests.

Motion for Party Status 12-19-14

Filing Date 12-19-14
MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE & SED INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and SED INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS document copies are embedded.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. An investigation is instituted on the Commission’s own motion to determine whether PG&E violated any provision of the Public Utilities Code, general orders, federal law adopted by California, other rules, or requirements, and/or other state or federal law, by its recordkeeping policies and practices with respect to its gas distribution service.
2. PG&E is named as Respondent to this investigation.
3. SED is named as a party to this proceeding.
4. The SED Reports present us with a strong showing that PG&E violated applicable law.
5. Respondent PG&E is directed to show at hearings why the Commission should not find it in violation of provisions of the Public Utilities Code, general orders, decisions, other rules, or requirements identified in this Order, and/or engaging in unreasonable and/or imprudent practices related to these matters, and why the Commission should not impose penalties. If any violation by PG&E is found, PG&E is directed to show why penalties and/or any other form of relief should not be applied. PG&E is also directed to file reports as required in this order no later than 30 days after the issuance of this OII and providing the information required and specified in this order.
6. PG&E is hereby given notice that fines may be imposed in this matter pursuant to Public Utilities Code §§2107 and 2108.
7. PG&E is hereby given notice that the Commission may order PG&E to implement measures designed to prevent future recordkeeping failures pursuant to Public Utilities Code §§451, 701, 761, and 768.
8. This Order includes a preliminary scoping memo.

9. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this proceeding is categorized as adjudicatory and deemed to require hearings.

10. Ex parte communications are prohibited in this proceeding.
11. A prehearing conference shall be convened before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for the purpose of establishing a schedule in this matter, including the date, time, and location of an evidentiary hearing, and for good cause shown the ALJ and/or Assigned Commissioner may extend the report deadlines specified herein, for any particular responses required.
12. A moratorium on discovery conducted by PG&E on the Commission and its staff shall be in place until otherwise directed by a Ruling in this proceeding.
13. There shall be no moratorium on discovery conducted by the Commission and its staff on PG&E, at any time in this proceeding, unless otherwise directed by a Commission Decision.
14. The attached SED Incident Investigation Reports are publically released. Names of witnesses and residence addresses shall be redacted.
15. The Executive Director shall cause a copy of this Order to be served electronically and by certified mail on the Respondent, PG&E, at:

Anthony F. Earley, Jr., CEO

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

77 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Lise H. Jordan, Law Department

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

77 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Lhj2@pge.com

 i.14!11!008 Order Instituting Investigation and Order to Show Cause 11-20-14

Filing Date 11-20-14
ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Sed Incident Investigation Reports 11-20-14

SED INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS
(Safety and Enforcement Division)

NOTE:

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Safety and Enforcement Division

Gas Safety and Reliability Branch

Gas Engineering and Compliance Section

Incident Investigation Report

Report Date: 11/13/2014

Investigator: Nathan Sarina

Incident Number: G 20140303-01

Utility: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)

Date and Time of the Incident: 3/3/2014, 11:15:00 AM

Location of the Incident: Guadalupe Street & 3rd Avenue

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA

County: Monterey

(Pgs. 20-39)

November 20, 2014 COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

Order Instituting Investigation and Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines.

California American Water Company, Castroville Community Services District, Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Monterey County Farm Bureau & Land Watch ‘Deal’ ‘Illegal’

ABSTRACT: In a Guest Commentary entitled "Groundwater agreement illegal," The Monterey County Herald (01/16/16), Bill Hood, former executive director of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, states “…Jim Johnson reported on a “deal” reached between Cal Am, the Castroville Community Services District, the Salinas Valley Water Coalition, the Monterey County Farm Bureau, and Land Watch, whereby the utility will transfer a guaranteed amount of desalinated water whose intake source admittedly contains some amount of water extracted from an existing Salinas Valley groundwater aquifer.” “As a new appropriator, by law, Cal Am (nor the CCSD) cannot legally go forward with what is proposed.” Consider these facts:

• A 1975 California Supreme Court decision stated that, once a groundwater basin reaches a condition of overdraft, no new “appropriative” uses may be lawfully made;
• An August 2015 Bulletin issued by the California Department of Water Resources identifies a northern segment of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin, from Moss Landing to south of Salinas, as critically overdrafted;
• A report issued a year earlier by the California Water Foundation concludes that “groundwater basins in the Monterey and Salinas Valley are in a state of long-term overdraft”;
• A person or entity extracting groundwater and who is not an “overlyer” (meaning does not own the land directly overlying the basin at the point of extraction) is considered an “appropriator”; and
• Cal Am, who is neither the owner of the land overlying that part of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin where it will be extracting source water for its desal plant nor has ownership of that water, thus becomes a “new appropriator”; and
• The Castroville Community Services District, as a public agency, also owns no land or rights to the water, and upon delivery of the water would also be classified as a new appropriator.
“Failure to do due diligence, while perhaps understandable, is still no excuse. It is in no one’s short- or long-term interests to actually implement an illegal agreement.”

REFERENCES:
HISTORY OF ULARA (UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER AREA WATERMASTER) ADJUDICATION

City of Los Angeles vs City of San Fernando Et Al JUDGMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, et al., Defendants.
No. 650079
JUDGMENT
January 26, 1979

City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando , 14 Cal.3d 199
[L.A. No. 30119. Supreme Court of California. May 12, 1975.]
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN FERNANDO et al., Defendants and Respondents
In Bank. (Opinion by Wright, C. J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.)

GW BasinsCriticalOverdraft S-CentralRegion Draft5 CM

Critically Overdrafted Basins

Central California Draft Map

CALIFORNIA WATER FOUNDATIONCentral Coast Groundwater: Seawater Intrusion and Other Issues

COMMENTARY City Council’s Selection of City Administrator: The Antithesis of an Open and Competitive Process

“The process needs to be an open competitive process, where someone, such as an assistant from within, as well as qualified individuals from outside the organization compete for the job.”
Source: Alan Bergren, International City/County Management Association (ICMA), (2013)

Regarding the City’s Personnel System, specifically Recruitment, Selection and Appointment, the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code states, as follows:

Chapter 2.52
PERSONNEL SYSTEM

Article IV. Recruitment, Selection and Appointment

2.52.100 Recruitment and Selection Procedure.

When a position vacancy occurs or is impending which the City intends to fill, the following includes steps usually taken under the direction of the City Administrator:

A. Prepare a recruitment announcement;

B. Distribute the recruitment announcement for posting in the various City facilities, organizations and agencies;

C. Place paid advertisements in the appropriate news media and professional and technical publications;

D. Receive and evaluate applications;

E. Notify applicants as to whether they are qualified for further consideration;

F. Provide disqualified applicants an opportunity to submit additional clarifying information if the appointing authority requests it;

G. Notify candidates of the time and place of the selection process;

H. Conduct selection process;

I. Determine and notify successful candidates resulting from selection process; notify unsuccessful candidates;

J. Establish employment list, when appropriate, as determined by the appointing authority. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).

Yet the City Council did not follow the aforementioned Recruitment, Selection and Appointment process for city administrator with the announcement of Chip Rerig, AICP, as “City Administrator Candidate,” “a person whose application form has been accepted as meeting the specific qualifications for a class of position and the general requirements for City employment,” according to the Municipal Code. And while there are no laws requiring a city to post of advertise a job opening, “the best way to prevent having an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimination complaint or lawsuit filed against a hiring employer is to advertise a job opening and then ensure that the city hires the applicant that is best qualified for the position. Federal, state, and sometimes local laws prohibit hiring practices that discriminate on the grounds of age, disability, race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, military service and national origin. A city’s hiring practice of merely advertising an opening to a certain geographic area, or merely by word of mouth, for example, may be used as evidence of discriminatory intent if a claim is filed against the city. To avoid a discrimination claim, an employer should advertise a job opening so that it reaches a large cross-section of the population. Advertising in a general circulation newspaper and on the internet are good examples of places to post a job opening. Posting jobs internally that are promotional opportunities for current employees is usually a good idea and accepted as proper as long as it is pursuant to a consistent policy of doing so. If a city does not have a hiring policy, including a policy regarding the advertisement of a job opening, the city should seriously consider adopting one. Before advertising a job vacancy, an employer should ensure it contains a written job description that provides objective qualifications and responsibilities necessary to perform the job. The description should be devoid of any reference to sex, race, national origin, or any other protected class. In addition, a job description should include the essential functions of the position and other requirements, such as education, skills, and work experience. Once a job description is in place, it should be used as a template for the job advertisement.”
“By taking the time to adopt a hiring policy and to advertise a job opening to a wide range of people, an employer increases its chance of hiring the best qualified person for the job. In addition, an employer may avoid a discrimination claim or lawsuit.”

And importantly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) “does not apply only to hiring or firing an individual, but includes all aspects of the employment relationship, including: compensation, assignment, classification, transfer, promotion, layoff, recall, job advertisements, recruitment, testing, use of company facilities, training and apprenticeship programs, fringe benefits, pay, retirement plans, disability leave, or other terms and conditions of employment.”

Finally, arguably the most important decision any city council makes is the selection of a city administrator/manager. Did Mayor Jason Burnett and City Council Members Ken Talmage, Victoria Beach, Carrie Theis and Steve Dallas honestly evaluate the state of our city and tenure of the previous city administrators? Did they assess primary challenges and opportunities for the new city administrator? Did they assess our city's needs and key priorities? Did they fairly assess our city's strengths and challenges in attracting top candidates? Or did they take an “"I'll know it when I see it" stance? Answers to these questions are critical because it appears that the mayor and city council valued local ties to the Monterey Peninsula over qualifications and city management experience. Time will tell whether or not that decision was wise.

REFERENCES:
How to Successfully Recruit a City Manager In the 21st Century
Rod Gould and Glenn Southard
October 2004

Employment Law Manual for Texas Cities
Laura Mueller
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Municipal League
2014

Straight From The Mayor: Selecting a new City Manager
Submitted by Mayor John Sullivan on Thu, 03/29/2012
CapeCoral.com

Written & Published by L.A. Paterson

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Introduction of CHIP RERIG, AICP City Administrator Candidate January 2016

ABSTRACT: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Introduction of CHIP RERIG, AICP City Administrator Candidate January 2016 contains Press Release, Biography, Personal Statement and Resume and Background and Due Diligence Process. Importantly, Who is Chip Rerig? American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)

I am a public servant.  I greatly appreciate community, preservation of place, and work tirelessly to inspire residents and business owners to create a vision for their future.

I have vast experience creating collaborative relationships between and among businesses, neighborhoods, residents, and property owners. My approachability and easy-going nature has been a model of success in local government on the Monterey Peninsula.
I am passionate about the built and the natural environments. I use my enthusiasm and experience to create communities that thrive economically and preserve character. Part of my vision of community includes inspiring citizens to participate in local government to help effectively guide and inform leaders.

I am a leader. My leadership mantra is simple: lead by example from the heart. I have a highly inquisitive nature and a profound love for learning and resourcefulness. I am solutions oriented. I believe the best approach to any enterprise or objective is working collaboratively on a team. I have high standards for ethics and transparency, and I work to instill these virtues throughout any organization that I’m part of (let alone manage). I also have high expectations for customer service and implementation of new ideas and processes to better serve constituents. I praise in public and discipline in private, and always highlight and credit the work of those who work for me.

I am a family man. My family is everything to me. My wife is my best friend and my closest advisor. I believe in the balance between professional and personal needs, and also believe that my colleagues and community become part of my extended family and that we work to earn and maintain trust in one another over time.

I aspire to inspire. I inspire people to follow me by requiring unblemished integrity of myself and those who serve, and building consensus though initiative and relentlessness.

I am excited and eager and humbled by the opportunity to serve the City of Carmel-by- the-Sea again, to support the City staff, and to work together with the community to preserve and enhance the character of our unique village.
The Introduction of CHIP RERIG, AICP, document copy is embedded.

Chip Rerig Introduction Packet January 2016

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Introduction of CHIP RERIG, AICP
City Administrator Candidate
January 2016

PETITION: Allow Woodburning fires in Portable Pits on Carmel Beach

ABSTRACT: Jeanne McCulloch started the Petition “Allow Woodburning fires in Portable Pits on Carmel Beach,” Letter to Mayor of Carmel Jason Burnett, Vice Mayor of Carmel by the Sea Ken Talmage, City Council Member Carmel by the Sea Carrie Theis, City Council Member Carmel by the Sea Steve Dallas, City Council Member Carmel by the Sea Victoria Beach, California Coastal Commission Staff Mike Watson and Chief of Police/ Interim City Supervisor Mike Calhoun. McCulloch asked at the end of January 5th's meeting that it be put on next month's City Council Agenda, February 2, 2016. The Petition states, in part, “We the undersigned would like to encourage the City Council to embrace another plan. One that would preserve the age old tradition of a Natural Wood burning fire, while maintaining the integrity of the beautiful white sands of Carmel Beach, as well as limiting the number that could take place at one time. We are endorsing the limited use of Portable Fire Pits, as well as a ban on burning all toxic substances including lighter fluid. A viable Police presence walking the beach to maintain a level of moderation in all things. Ordinances & signage against littering & burning toxic substances to allow enforcement. Two Lender Kiosks (placed at 10th & 13th Aves) with a minimum of 4 portable pits each for visitors to borrow with a current Driver's License. Residents have option of bringing their own. Two fire proof receptacles installed for disposal of charcoal. Fires would be permitted Monday through Thursday and forbidden on the Weekends & Holidays. A Volunteer brigade of locals to help monitor the beach & educate the Public on preserving its natural beauty.” Sign Petition @ https://www.change.org/p/jeanne-mcculloch-woodburning-fires-in-portable-pits-on-carmel-beach#petition-letter

REFERENCE: Something’s Burning

Salinas is (almost) all in on pot, while Carmel rallies bonfires.

Mary Duan, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY