Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-12-07TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of December 3 - 7, 2012 Ti l -rv rn-n 1. Letter - Jim Fraser - Thank You to Richard Spotswood 2. Letter - Belvedere Lagoon Property Owners Assoc. - Storm Water Runoff and Trash Gate 3. Monthly Report - Design Review - November 2012 4. Yearly Recap - Design Review - November 2012 5. Notice of Reorganization - Town of Tiburon 6. Notice of Reorganization - City of Larkspur 7. Notice of Reorganization - City of Novato Agendas & Minutes 8. Meeting Cancellations - Town Council - December 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013 9. Meeting Cancellations - Planning Commission - December 12, 2012 and December 26, 2012 10. Meeting Cancellations - Design Review Board - December 20, 2012 and January 3, 2013 Regional o- a) Memo - Delta Stewardship Council - Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking b) Notice of Application Filing - PG&E - 2014 General Rate Case c) Request for Help: EAH: The American Dream * Agendas & Minutes d) None Council Only Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 • vmrv,.ci.tiburon.ca.us Office of the Mayor / 415.435.7373 December 3, 2012 Mr. Richard Spotswood 200 Magee Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 SUBJECT: MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS & COUNCILMEMBERS Dear Dick, On behalf of the Tiburon Town Council and membership of MCCMC, I would like to thank you for speaking to our group on November 28 at Ristorante Servino. Your discussion of the 2012 election was very insightful, especially the way you were able to connect the lessons learned to our experience as local elected officials We appreciate your good humor and candid insights. Once again, thank you for joining us and eniighJ eni g us. j Sin p I* r Jim1 F a er, Mayor To n of Tiburon I Cc: " own Council Jim Fraser Mayor Emmett O'Donnell Vice Mayor Richard Collins Councilinernber Frank' Doyle Councilmember AliceFredericks Councilmember Margaret A. Curran Town Manager DEC - 5 2012 BELVEDERE LAGOON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO ,,~;ORNETS T113URON OFFICE P.O. BOX 465 • BELVEDERE, CALIFORNIA 94920 415-382-9483 December 5, 2012 Margaret Curran City Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 HAND DELIVERED Dear Ms. Curran, The recent rains have caused us concern for the damage being done to our property from preventable circumstances. I know that your public works department is aware of these situations and they have been helpful, but it is important to bring this directly to your attention because it has caused damage to our property and we wish to avoid further damage hi the future. The first problem is the run off from the parking lot construction and the second is the trash gate protecting the culvert that is under the multi use pathway across from approximately 915 Tiburon Blvd. The parking construction project needs to do something to prevent dirt from entering the drains that empty into our lagoon property. We can provide pictures if you wish to verify this condition. The Tiburon trash gate problem occurred last weekend because it was backed up with debris and that condition caused water to overflow onto residential property and eventually into the lagoon instead of Richardson Bay, which was also verified by photographs. We believe both these situations can be avoided in the future by proper supervision of the construction project and proper maintenance of the trash gate. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated because more rain is predicted. Very truly yours, Patricia Carapiet President 415-990-9125 pcarapiet ct paragon-re.com CC Jim Fraser, Mayor Tiburon Sandy Donnell, Mayor Belvedere Scott Derdenger, Public Works Manager Belvedere TOWN OF TIBURON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEW MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER 2012 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED ■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 0 ■ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS 1 ■ MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS 2 ■ (not eligible for Staff Review) ■ SIGN PERMITS ■ TREE PERMITS ■ VARIANCE REQUESTS ■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS ■ EXTENSION OF TIME STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500 square feet. 1 4 2 2 0 12 APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL 2011 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 13 REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary DATE OF REPORT: December 5, 2012 ~ F- O r to r r r co M r N O T- CY) M r, N N ~ (N 0 O N r r r 00 O d M r N O r O co N W p a o r- N O m O a' Z N N T" N > o Z O r N r v N N O N i a U O IT O O r co r In O O W W r O O O ti O M O O C:) ❑ V) Cl) 300 W w (D Q N O r O M r N Cr0 O LO ` W z r O O r r O O LO O CO C) _ CO w w ~ O N r r M O O m N 0. U W Z M M r O 'Ct Cfl M O c j Li. ~ Q r O r O LO M N O N W ~ O N N N r M N T- O N m w N r O r N N N r- O ti LL r Q ~ r r O O M r N N N I W - U U- N w Z Q a J Q O Z F- w z (D CO F- W CL W w F- w U z a a > W U x w a LL w W LL Fa- N j w a Q Q p F- 41, y Town of Tiburon, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 - 435-7373 At its December 5, 2012 regular meeting, the Tiburon Town Council reorganized as follows: NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL MAYOR EMMETT O'DONNELL VICE MAYOR COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER S/ ALICE FREDERICKS RICHARD COLLINS FRANK DOYLE JIM FRASER Diane Crane lacopi, CMC Tiburon Town Clerk December 6, 2012 City of Larkspur 400 Magnolia Avenue, Larkspur, California 94939 Telephone: (415) 927-5110 Fax: (415) 927-5022 VA%ebsite: www.cityoflarkspur.org NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION On December 5, 2012, at a Regular City Council meeting, the Larkspur City Council reorganized as follows: Dan Hillmer, Mayor Ann Morrison, Vice Mayor Larry Chu, Councilmember Brad Marsh, Councilmember Len Rifkind, Councilmember Cynthia Huisman, CMC City Clerk City of Larkspur December 6, 2012 planning: (415) 927-5038 larks & Recreation: '415) 927-6746 Library: (417) 927-5005 Public'Aorks: (41.5) 927-5017 Tvin Cities Police: (41.5) 927-5150 Fire: (415) 927-'51.1.0 F v Y.: THE CITY OF N 0 V A T 0 CALIFORNIA 75 Rowland Way, #200 Novato, CA 94945-3232 415/899-8900 FAX 415/899-8213 unVv:ci.novato. ca. us Mayor Pat Eklund Mayor Pro Tem Eric Lucan Councilmembers Denise Athas Madeline Kellner Jeanne MacLeamy City Manager Michael S. Frank NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION NOVATO CITY COUNCIL At its December 4, 2012 meeting, the Novato City Council reorganized as follows: Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Pat Eklund Eric Lucan Denise Athas Madeline Kellner Jeanne MacLeamy Sheri Hartz City Clerk 71 • NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATIONS The regular Town Council Meetings on December 79, 2012 and January 2, 2013 have been cancelled. 0 THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING is scheduled for WEDNESDAY, January 16, 2013 in the Town Council Chambers located at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. S/ DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Posted at Town Hall cc: The Ark and Marin Independent Journal NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012 and WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2012 HAVE BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2013 DAN WATROUS, SECRETARY e NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2012 and THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2013 HAVE BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2013 DAN ATROUS, SECRETARY /o~ DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL 980 9th Street, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-5511 Fn EIVED EC -32012 TOWN CLERK -TOWN OF TIBURON Please find enclosed: 1. Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Plan 2. Delta Stewardship Council Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RECIRCULATED DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A THE DELTA PLAN hat state agency, is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Deci Mated Draft Volu The Delta Stewardship Council, an independent Prog n, which Program ram Environmental Impact Report (Recirculated Draft PEIR) forta the is Inowlavai able for pub c review and comment for 45 Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Plan, has be ea p a pa14, d 2013. This notice is provided pursuant to noticing days, from November 30, 2012 through (and including) public Resources Code Sec. 21092), and the State CEQA requirements found in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Guidelines (Guidelines Sec. 15087). SUMMARY p Council ncil) In November 2009, the California Legislature enacted SBX7 1. It requires the Delta Stewardshi ement plan for the Sacrament/o- "'Coequal goals' San adopt, Joaquiandn imp Delta and the Delta Plan, a legally enforceable, comprehensive, long term mag nd the Suisun Marsh (Delta) that furthers the coequal goals (Wde rsection estor ng and enhancing the Delta means the two goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, ecosystem. The coequal goals shall be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the uniqurthelturgal, recreational, natural rin achievement 1, the resource and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place"P (Water Code section 85054 coequal goals is a primary and fundamental purpose of the Delta lan. The Recirculated Draft PEIR analyzes the significant adverse environmental effects of the Novembe20201 Fifth l Draft Delta Pla n Draft Staff ugust Delt he Council developed the Final Draft Delta Plan in response to Report (Draft E R), wh ch analyzed the Fifth Draft Delta Plan T Plan and the November 2011 Draft Program Environmental Impact and consist re pared and is the en p s of Volumes 1 and 2. A Final Draft Delta Plan to meet the requiof he Draft PEXR. Foatheepurpo es of this „ project being evaluated in the Recirculated Draft PEIR, which is Volume Draft PEIR is the "Revised Draft Delta Plan analyzed in the November 2011 Draft PEIR is referred to as the Proposed Recirculated Draft PEIR, the Fifth Staff Project" or the "Proposed Project Alternative." The Final Draft Delta Plan analyzed in the Recirculated Project." PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT AREA I reliability, restoration of the Delta ecosystem, and als: inceased water the The Final Draft Delta Plan covers five topic aransevoly going placer, mimproved water quality, and reduced risks of l ~o eis g in elated to protection and enhancement of the Delta as or operating any Delta. The Delta Plan does not propose or contemplate the Council constructgiesWre'commendations, performance measures the Delta Plan contains regulatory poli ojects these five topic areas, however. Rather, cit and coordination that seek to influence and encourage actions, uacti alv'o'alsaExamrples oft e types es, and issues for further evaluation counties, and State, federal, regional and local agencies that will nclude, but aee not Ihm tedao: new or expanded water of actions/activities the Delta Plan seeks to influence an encourage s and riparian restoration; invasive species management; water flow pternsoodthe plaDeet storage reservoirs; wetland xpansion; wastewater, stormwater and agricultural runoff water treatmenthe;Deltalevee modification and construction; new/improved active and passive recreation opportunities in beyond Delta and Suisun Marsh, although the Delta Plan could have influence network of wat r„a Delta. The The focus of the Delta Plan is on the area within th Delta area is generally located west of Sacramento and east of and the Sa Francisco rivers. A B ties the Delta Plan could influe ects among formed primarily by the confluence of the Sacramento however, and recrea ioolpe physical actions Delta and Suisun Marsh could include, for example, levee improvements, wetlands la restoration, others. Accomplishing the coequal goals across the five topic areas the Delta of the Sacramento in areas outside the Delta, including the Delta Watershed to the north of the Delta and (should other agencies undertake them) examp eas that currently rely on water exported from the Delta. Theses areas could influencerin tho el areas could include, for other ar and San Joaquin Valleys and southern Camentsanew/expandedDrestervoirs, and treatment plants, among others. example, groundwater storage enhance DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Draft Delta Plan Program EIR are available online at the Delta Stewardship Council ng an a mabl ite: the Copies of the Recirculated of the Recirculated Draft PEIR y http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov. You can obtain a CD-ROM copy ilable for v or byv calling Co of Recirculated DPEIR" to recirculateddpeircomments@deltacounc al i avag subject line Request for ROM COPY of the 916-445-0144. A copy of the Recirculated Draft PEIR and any docu s1500r Sporated acramentoeCA 95814. Lastly, a copy at the Delta Stewardship Council offices located at 980 9th Street, Suite lable in the main branch of each County library in counties that possibly could be affected by the Recirculated Draft PEIR is avai www.deltacouncil.ca.gov. Delta Plan; addresses for these libraries can be found at http:// PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT PEIR Written comments on the Recirculated Draft Delta Plan Program EIR should be provided to before January 14, 2013. Written comments on the Recirculated Draft Delta Plan Pro ra the Delta Stewardship Council on or Draft PEIR Comments," Delta Stewardship Council, 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1500, Sacramento, should be sent to: "Recirculated , CA 95814. Comments on the Recirculated Draft Delta Plan Program EIR also may be submitted electronically Council's web site at http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov, or via e-mail with the subject line "Recirculated through the Delta Stewardship recirculateddpeircomments@deltacouncil.ca.gov. Draft EIR" to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Messer, Acting Deputy Executive Officer D0258 980 9th Street, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA 95814 (telephone: 916-445-0144 or 916-445-0258)Stewardship Council, ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT: The Council does not propose . or maintenance of any facilities as part of the Delta Plan. Rather, the Council seeks to influence and encourage construction, operation, take certain actions. The degree to which that influence or encouragement results in uncertain, and depends upon what specific actions those other propose. agencies d Dencourage other agencies to physical changes I the environment is approach, however, in concluding that activities/projects other agencies could implement that the Delta lta takes a conservative may have significant environmental impacts to resources in the following areas: water resources, Plan could influence management, land use and planning, agriculture and forestry resources, visual resources, air quality, and soils, paleontological resources, mineral resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, recreation tr nsportationology I,acD~ sls , ou ,l TPlNiTY - SHASTA 1MF.C%L Redding LASSEN TEHAMA ,r PL WAS BUTTE f 101 GLEIJII SIERRA a YUBAI IJEVA.D l COL A\: PLACER LAKE r- SAN FRANCISCC San Franc 40~ C, P t ~Qv ` AFJ" TUOLUMtJE J, OUIN! 1M A i ST ISLAUS, MARIPOSA i _ NTA. -V MADERA Mr ,gL A;.- M ED r r sno _ SA 1.4 FRESFIO -~EIJITG <4 TULARE 101 KINGS i LEGEND Rivers, Streams and Lakes - Highways County Boundaries Legal Delta and ❑ Suisun Marsh ❑ Delta Watershed Area Areas Outside the Delta Watershed That Use Delta Water 0 45 90 I I I N MILES Base Map CASIL Hillshade x 10110054 05 242 10111 SAN LUIS OBIS PO Bakersfield KERN ,x IdTA BAR .A -Santa rla VENTURA Barba 0 SanD SAN r MPEFIt+L UIEGG SAID " ` BEPHARDINO LOS GELES t S. Angeles - a RIVERS-1 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A RECIRCULATED DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DELTA PLAN SCH #2010122028 Title 23. Water Division 6. Delta Stewardship Council Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Delta Stewardship Council (hereafter Council) proposes to adopt the proposed regulation described below after considering comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. Opportunity for Public Comment • Public Hearings. The Council will hold one public hearing. This hearing will be held in accordance with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 11346.8. Date: January 24, 2013 Time: The public hearing will convene at 9:30 a.m. and remain open as long as attendees are presenting testimony. Location: Ramada Inn & Suites 1250 Halyard Drive, West Sacramento, CA 95691 • Written Comment Period. The opportunity to submit written comment begins November 30, 2012, and closes January 14, 2013. Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action. Submit written comments to: Cindy Messer Delta Stewardship Council 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0258 cindy.messer@deltacouncil.ca.gov Authority and Reference Water Code section 85210(i) authorizes the Council to adopt the propose&regulations. The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specific sections 10608, 10610.2, 10610.4, 10801, 10802, 85020, 85021, 85022, 85023, 85032, 85052, 85054, 85057.5, 85058, 85059, 85225, 85300, 85302, 85303, 85305, 85306, 85308, 85001(c), and 85004(b) of the Water Code. The proposed regulations make references to: sections 1702, 8201, 9600 et seq., 10608.12, 10610 et seq., 10853, 12300 et seq., 12570 et seq., 12930, 12980 et seq., 12994.5, 85001(c), 85004(b), 85020(a), 85020(d), 85020(h), 850320), 85087, 85210(i), 85304, Division 6, Parts 2.55, 2.6, and 2.8 of the Water Code; sections 12220, 21065, 21080(b), 29101 of the Public Resources Code; California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 1; 33 C.F.R. Section 320.4(i)(1), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1451 et seq., 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., P.L. 84-99, P.L. 90-448, and Section 226 of P.L. 97-293. Informative Digest Policy Statement Overview Explaining the Broad Objectives of the Regulations In 2009 the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Delta Reform Act), Water Code sections 85001 through 85308, established a new governance approach for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) that is focused on achieving the coequal goals. As stated in the California Water Code, "`Coequal goals' means the two goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The coequal goals shall be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resources, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place" (Water Code section 85054). Under the authority stated in the Delta Reform Act, the Council proposed to adopt and implement the Final Draft Delta Plan, November 2012 (Delta Plan), which includes a suite of regulatory policies, to ensure achievement of the coequal goals and the objectives inherent in the coequal goals, including long- term management of the Delta's water and environmental resources and the water resources of the state; protecting and enhancing the unique cultural, recreational, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place; restoring the Delta ecosystem; promoting statewide water conservation, water use efficiency, and sustainable water use; improving water quality to protect human health and the environment; improving the water conveyance system and expanding statewide water storage; reducing risks to people, property, and State of California (State) interests in the Delta; and establishing a governance structure with the authority, responsibility, accountability, scientific support, and adequate and secure funding to achieve these objectives. Throughout the three-year process of developing the Delta Plan and the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), the Council sought extensive public, stakeholder, and government agency input. Using input from the broad base of expertise and resources, the Council developed a long-term management plan for the Delta that used the best available science and was built upon the principles of adaptive management. The Delta Plan contains a foundational set of policies and recommendations to guide Plan implementation. Consistent with the Delta Reform Act, the regulatory policies set a comprehensive, legally enforceable direction for how the State manages important water and environmental resources in the Delta, and ensure coherent and integrated implementation of that direction through a certification process. Policy Statement Overview Explaining the Specific Benefits Anticipated from the Proposed Action Implementation of Delta Plan policies would provide the best means to achieve the coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The comprehensive set of policies would ensure that the coequal goals will be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resources, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place while reducing risks to people, property, and State interests in the Delta. Summary of Existing Laws and Regulations Related Directly to the Proposed Rulemaking The Delta Plan draws upon existing State and federal laws and policies and ongoing programs to chart a course to further the coequal goals. The regulatory policies are all targeted toward the goal of aligning significant activities in the Delta with State policy priorities. Since no single entity in California has the sole responsibility or authority for managing water supply and the Delta ecosystem, the Council asserts its leadership role through the appellate authority vested by the Delta Reform Act to enforce the regulatory policies contained in the Delta Plan. Consistent with sections 85302 to 85308 of the Water Code, the proposed regulatory policy actions contained in the Delta Plan constitute measures that promote all the characteristics of a healthy Delta ecosystem; a more reliable water supply; actions to implement the sub-goals and strategies for restoring a healthy ecosystem; statewide water conservation, water use efficiency, and sustainable use of water; options for new and improved infrastructure; and effective emergency preparedness, appropriate land uses, and strategic levee investments to reduce risks to people, property, and State interests in the Delta. Consistency with Existing State Laws and Regulations The Council developed the Delta Plan consistent with the following sections of Water Code: Section 85302 through 85306 specifying requisite content of the Delta Plan. Furthermore, the Council developed the Delta Plan consistent with existing laws and regulations. • Water Code section 85031(a). The proposed regulations, under the authority provided in the Delta Reform Act, do not affect water rights protections under existing laws. Water Code section 85031(d). The proposed regulations, under the authority provided in the Delta Reform Act, do not affect existing authorities of the State Water Resources Control Board or the courts to regulate the diversion and use of water. Water Code section 85032. The proposed regulations, under the authority provided in the Delta Reform Act, do not affect the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act; the California Endangered Species Act; the Fish and Game Code; the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; Water Code section 12930 related to Water Resources Development Bonds; the California Environmental Quality Act; Water Code section 1702 related to change of point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use, the application of the public trust doctrine, any water right, or the liability of the State for flood protection in the Delta or its watershed. In addition to the consistency of the regulatory policies with the above listed laws, the policies are also consistent with existing laws and regulations that relate to specific policies, as discussed below: • Terms such as Agricultural water- management plan, agricultural water supplier, coequal goals, Delta, Delta Plan, urban area, urbanizing area, urban water management plan, urban water supplier, urban retail water supplier, and urban wholesale water supplier are all defined consistent with the Water Code. • Covered action is defined pursuant to Water Code section 85057.5. The definition of a "project" is as defined in Public Resources Code section 21065. Exemptions to the covered action definition are consistent with Water Code §85057.5(b) and Public Resources Code §21080(b) and §21002.1(c). • Requiring mitigation measures is consistent with CEQA contained in the Public Resources Code §21002.1(b). • Requiring reduced reliance on the Delta is consistent with the Delta Reform Act contained in Water Code §85021, the Urban Water Management Planning Act contained in Water Code §10610-10610.4, and the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act contained in Water Code § 10820-10821. It is also consistent with Water Code §85023 mandating the use of the constitutional principle of reasonable use and the public trust doctrine as the foundation of State water management policy. The reasonable use doctrine is described in the California Constitution, Article 10, Sec. 2. • The water contracting transparency requirement is consistent with existing polices of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) contained in DWR Guidelines 03-09 and/or 03-10 (each dated July 3, 2003), as well as section 226 of P.L. 97-293 or section 3504(a)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-575. • The development, implementation, and enforcement of new and updated flow objectives are consistent with the authorities and responsibilities of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and regional water quality control boards pursuant to Water Code §13000-13002 and § 13240-13242. The Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C., section 1251 et seq.) regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates quality standards for surface waters. Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 131.37, established water quality criteria applicable to waters specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for Salinity for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Although the attairunent of salinity standards and fish migration criteria would be influenced by flows and Delta operation, the SWRCB may not have to submit the updated flow objectives to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval as long as the regulatory standards are met. Nevertheless, it is expected that the SWRCB will provide the updated flow objectives to U.S. EPA for its consideration in accordance with Water Code §13144. • The policies on Delta habitat restoration are consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act described in the Public Resources Code §21000-21006; the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan described in the Public Resources Code §29000-29014; the Delta Protection Act of 1992; Water Code §8611, which requires the Central Valley Flood Protection Board to develop a mitigation plan prior to flood control construction; and Water Code § 12842, which requires flood control and watershed protection projects to include features to preserve the state's fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreation. • The policies to reduce risks in the Delta are consistent with the State's flood management interests in §8325 and §8532 of the Water Code, and §29702(d) and §29704 of the Public Resources Code. The policies will further the intent of the Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 mandating a 200-year level of flood protection in urban and urbanizing areas, contained in Government Code §65865.5. Prohibiting encroachments and protecting floodplain functions and values will further the intent contained in sections 8410, 8608, and 8609 of the Water Code. Protecting floodways and floodplains also furthers the authorities of the State Lands Commission, as stated in Public Resources Code §6001-6314, to enforce public trust protection onto swamp and overflowed lands in the Delta. These regulations complement federal regulatory authority and responsibilities in the Delta, described in C.F.R. Title 44, Chapter 1, Parts 60.3(d)(3), and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Chapter 1, §9.1 1 (4). • Policies to protect private property rights are consistent with Public Resources Code §29714. • The policy does not increase the State's flood liability, consistent with Water Code §850320). Substantial Differences from Existing, Comparable Federal Regulations or Statutes To avoid substantial difference with existing comparable federal regulation or statute, the Delta Plan was developed in accordance with the Delta Reform Act requirement of consistency with the federal Clean Water Act, section 8 of the federal Reclamation Act of 1902, and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, or an equivalent compliance mechanism. (Water Code §85300(d)(1)) In addition, the federal Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2012 (Title II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L.112-074)) requires that federal policy for addressing California's water supply and environmental issues related to the Bay-Delta to be consistent with State law, including the coequal goals. The proposed regulations are consistent with and complement existing federal regulations and statutes. Whether the Proposed Regulation Is Inconsistent or Incompatible with Existing State Regulations None of the proposed regulations are inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations. The Council has developed these regulations in alignment with existing state law and regulations. The section above titled "Summary of Existing Laws and Regulations Related Directly to the Proposed Rulemaking" provides a detailed explanation of how individual policies proposed in the regulation are consistent with existing laws and regulations. Documents Incorporated by Reference None. Definitions, policies, and other portions of the Delta Plan are included within the text of the proposed regulation or attached as appendices. Mandated by Federal Law or Regulations The proposed regulations are not mandated by federal law or regulations, although they complement their intents and further their implementation in the Delta. i Other Statutory Requirements None. Local Mandate The local agency or school Government Code section 17556 provides that no mandate other charges sufficient to pay for the district has the authority to levy assessments, rates, fees, o mandated program or increased level of service." The Cost Analysis for Proposed Delta nl ~ D g taati can s provides general information on the authority and mechanisms by which local ageloci a enc or school any recover any costs potentially resulting from the proposed mmencinregulation. h se~tion 17500) of Division 4, district that is required to be reimbursed under Part 7 (co g with Government Code, other nondiscretionary costs or savings imposed on local agencies, or costs or savings in federal funding to the state are not expected. Fiscal Impact The fiscal effects of Delta Plan policies and administrative requirements t state occur es undertaking a covered in two forms. First, administrative requirement require State and local description of the covered action, action to prepare and file a Certification of Consistency. This documentation, summary of other government approvals, and the certification of consistency with CEQA each of the Delta Plan policies. The agency may also incur the costs of consulting with the Council prior to submi tin he Cedric a tnonf submitting Consistency, or the costs relating to an appeal of the certification, Council upholds the appeal, record, attending and providing testimony at the appeal hearing, an modifying and re-filing the Certificate of Consistency. local agencies Second implementation of Delta Plan policies may result in costs to State and hem consistent resulting from modifications to an agency's existing different tfor covered actions to make t han whatthe agency would have done in absence of the development of covered actions that ar Delta Plan, changes in water supply reliability, ecosystem restoration, or oflootdorisk tot affect 1 acgtency whether or not it has proposals for covered actions; and administrative attend meetings, and review documents and findings. It is anticipated that costs would be recovered by an agency of a covered~io in some cases Statets, rates, user fees, or other mechanisms the agencies use to fund activities local agencies would be able to absorb the additional costs within their existing budgets and resources, other circumstances may require the aforementioned funding mechanisms total cost State and local agencies may incur to prepare and file a Certifications dof Consistency ocument tit ed and The implement Delta Plan policies could range from $11.9 toa million annually. A "Cost s of the cost to State and local Analysis for Proposed Delta Plan Regulations provide agencies of Delta Plan regulations, and is available for review. Housing Costs lan No significant direct impacts on housing costs are likely to occur from imple c uentation nteracting effecps on policies. The benefits and costs of Delta Plan policies can have complex and Delta Plan policies may increase housing prices. For housing directly affected by covered actions, housing costs for two reasons: consistency certification costs will likely bepassed on,iat l ncreaseeast part, property buyers; and the benefits of improved flood protection and ecosystem amenities could value thereby increasing housing costs. Importantly, the Delta Plan policies are expected tosprov de substantial benefits to housing by increasing value due to improved flood pro reliability, and environmental amenities. A document titled "Cost Analysis for Proposed Delta Plan Regulations" provides a detailed analysis on the effects of the Delta Plan regulations on hou and is available for review. sing costs, Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Includin California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States g the Ability of Although the total indirect cost of Delta Plan policies to private business or individuals is proposed action is not anticipated to have significant statewide adverse economic impact dir ctl uncertain, the affecting business, including the ability to compete with businesses in other states. Y Statement of the Results of the Economic Impact Assessment Although the total indirect cost of Delta Plan policies to private business or individuals is u proposed action is not anticipated to have significantly impact on: ncertain, the I. The creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California 2. The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the State of California. 3. The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California. The proposed action would provide significant long-term benefits to the state by meeting the coequal goals of providing a more-reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing Delta ecosystem. The comprehensive set of policies would ensure that the coequal goals shall ae the in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource be achieved agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place, improving the welfare and state's environment. and Cost Impacts on Representative Person or Business °nment. Delta Plan policies and administrative requirements apply to State and local agencies. Private and individuals are not directly affected by costs of Delta Plan policies or administrative re businesses However, private businesses and individuals could be affected indirectly in two ways. First, costs cots. be passed directly to private businesses and individuals b an agency ,costs could cost could be recovered by an agency of a covered action through t xesl,os er fees, assessments, o Second, mechanisms the agencies use to fund activities. The total indirect cost of Delta Plan policies to olicies to riother business or individuals is uncertain. private Because private businesses and individuals are not directly affected by costs of Delta Plan administrative requirements, the Council is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative policies t person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Thise statement is accurate also for small business. Business Reporting Requirements The proposed regulations require State and local agencies undertaking a covered action to a Certification of Consistency. However, the administrative requirements of the Proposed regulations and file not apply to business or private individuals. Therefore, the report requirement does not aPP1Y business. busss Small Business ness. The proposed regulatory policies do not affect small businesses. The direct cost of the r regulatory policies falls on State and local public agencies, not on businesses. Businesses nosed affected by: 1) costs passed on by a local agency through assessments, rates, fees, or other general are benefits foregone if a covered action must be modified to comply with Delta Plan policies charges; and 2) evidence that small businesses would be disproportionately affected or overly burdened b y There is regulations. y the proposed 6 Several policies are specifically designed to avoid impacts on small businesses in the Delta. For example, limitations on construction or development in the Delta (§5012) specifically exempt "commercial recreational visitor-serving uses or facilities for processing of local crops or that provide essential services to local farms." Also, §5013 directs covered actions to avoid conflicts with existing land uses including farming. Alternatives Statement The Council must determine that no reasonable alternative considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost-effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. The Council has prepared an initial statement of reasons that contains an analysis of alternatives considered and rejected due to reasons as described. Interested persons may present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period. Contact Persons Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Cindy Messer Delta Stewardship Council 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0258 cndy.messer@deltacouncil.ca.gov Dan Ray Delta Stewardship Council 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-5511 dan.ray@deltacouncil.ca.gov Availability Statements The following materials are available for public review throughout the public comment period: • Text of Proposed Regulation • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking • Initial Statement of Reasons • Materials Relied Upon • Form 400 • Form 3 99 • Final Statement of Reasons (upon completion) • Final Text of Regulation (upon completion) These materials may be viewed in two ways: • Visiting the Council's website (http://deltacouncil.ca.gov) • Arranging an in-person review. Please contact Cindy Messer (contact information provided above) After holding the hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Council may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If the Council makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Council adopts the regulations as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Cindy Messer at the address indicated above. The Council will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. Final Statement of Reasons The Final Statement of Reasons will be posted on http://deltacouncil.ca.gov, along with the date the rulemaking is filed with the Secretary of State and the effective date of the regulations. Internet Access All materials published or distributed by the Council are available at its internet website at http://deltacouncil.ca.gov November 28, 2012 l'1 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF APPLICATION FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COM Y'~EC - 4 2~ ~Z 2014 GENERAL RATE CASE (GRC) A. 12-11-009 FINANCE D~ P gRT(MOEN I On November 15, 2012, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a proposed Application (12-11-009) wi c Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting authority to increase the base revenue that PG&E uses to operate and maintain its electric and gas distribution and electric generation facilities. The request also includes the cost of owning and building additional electric and gas distribution and electric generation facilities. PG&E is requesting a total increase of $1.282 billion for gas and electric service, effective January 1, 2014. PG&E's proposal would increase the monthly electric bill for typical residential bundled-service customers (those who receive electric generation, as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E) using 550 kilowatt hours (kwh) per month by $4.61 or 5.2% from $89.36 to $93.97, and for typical residential gas customers using 37 therms per month by $7.06 or 15.3% from $46.13 to $53.18. The proposed electric and gas rate increase consists of the following: An increase in electric revenues of $796 million over the currently authorized level for 2014. The increase is made up of two components: (1) the cost of delivering electricity to PG&E's customers ($587 million); and (2) the cost of operating and maintaining PG&E's power plants ($209 million). This increase does not include the cost of electricity procured for PG&E's customers or the cost of fuel used in generating electricity by PG&E, which are recovered in a separate proceeding; and (3)an increase in gas revenues of $486 million over the currently authorized level for 2014. The increase does not include gas procured for PG&E's customers, which is recovered in a separate proceeding. PG&E is also requesting approval for additional base revenues in 2015 and 2016 to cover additional infrastructure improvements and increased costs of labor, materials, supplies and other expenses. PG&E estimates that these increases will total $492 million in 2015 and $504 million in 2016. Key reasons why PG&E is asking for increases: This funding request reflects PG&E's commitment to provide its customers with safe and reliable service. PG&E is building a safer and more reliable energy system that will continue to help California remain competitive on a national and global scale. The funding will be used to: - Assure a high level of public safety in the operation of PG&E's gas and electric facilities; - Invest in and maintain the system of power plants, poles, wires, pipes and equipment needed to deliver electricity and gas to PG&E's customers; and - Improve customer service and maintain the support structure necessary to keep PG&E operating and to provide PG&E's customers with safe, reliable and responsive customer service. Estimated impact of this proposed request on gas and electric rates PG&E provided estimates of the impact on each customer class of its proposed gas and electric rate increases in a bill insert that was sent directly to customers beginning on November 29, 2012. All customers will have received the bill insert by mid-January 2013. The actual distribution of the requested $796 million electric rate increase and the requested $486 million gas rate increase to each customer class depends on how the CPUC ultimately decides all issues in the GRC, as well as in separate electric and gas rate design proceedings that are expected to be filed with the CPUC during the first and third quarters of 2013, respectively. If the CPUC approves PG&E's proposed request for an electric rate increase, the bill for a typical residential customer using 550 kilowatt hours per month would increase by $4.61 or 5.2% from $89.36 to $93.97. If the CPUC approves PG&E's proposed request for a gas rate increase, the bill for a typical residential customer using 37 therms per month would increase by $7.06 or 15.3% from $46.13 to $53.18. Individual customer bills may vary. Rates would become effective January 1, 2014. What is a General Rate Case? Every three or four years, investor-owned utilities such as PG&E are required to file a General Rate Case (GRC) in which the CPUC sets annual base revenue levels. Annual base revenue is the total amount of money a utility collects through rates in a given year for specific purposes. PG&E's GRC base revenues do not include fuel-related costs addressed in the CPUC's Energy Resources Recovery Account proceedings, electric transmission-related costs addressed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or gas transmission and storage costs which are filed in a separate application. After PG&E's GRC proposal is reviewed in a public process, the CPUC then makes a decision on what is reasonable for customers to pay in rates. While the GRC will determine the total amount of money PG&E can collect in rates, the design of the actual rates themselves (that is, the price charged to customers) will be determined in separate proceedings to be filed in the future with the CPUC. The GRC is publicly available to ensure transparency and opportunity for public involvement. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARINGS The CPUC welcomes the public's Before deciding on PG&E's application, the CPUC will hold public hearings participation. participation (PPH) to provide customers with an opportunity to express their views before a CPUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Notification of these hearings will be sent to you either by a separate mailing or included as a bill insert in your monthly bill. The notice will identify all of the locations that the PPHs are being held for your convenience and planning. Those customers who cannot attend a hearing may submit written comments to the CPUC at the address listed below. All such correspondence to the CPUC should reference PG&E's 2014 GRC application (A.12-11-009). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION If you have questions regarding the GRC application or for more details, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDD/TTY(speech-hearing impaired), call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles Ilanne al 1-800-660-6789 - -9 lpl 11 It 191-800-893-9555 If you would like a copy of the application and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2014 General Rate Case Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120 You can also view PG&E's GRC application and exhibits online at www.pge.com. A copy of PG&E's 2014 GRC application and exhibits is also available for review at the,CPUC, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-noon. A copy of the application (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.aov/Duc. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature, to represent the interests of utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with safe and reliable service levels. DRA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. Evidentiary Hearings In addition to public participation hearings, the CPUC will also schedule Evidentiary Hearings (EHs) for the GRC application in 2013 where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross examination before the ALJ. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during EHs. Members of the public may attend, but are not allowed to participate in the hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts, on the application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from the ALJ's draft decision. Public Advisor's Office 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1-415-703-5282 or 1- 505 Van Ness Avenue 866-836-7825 (toll free) Room 2103 Email to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov San Francisco, CA 94102 If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the number of the application (A.12-11-009) to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned ALJ and the CPUC's Energy Division Staff.