City Council Special Meeting 08-25-14

8/11/2019 City Council Special Meeting 08-25-14

1/5

*AMENDED AGENDACARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL

Special MeetingMonday, August 25, 2014 8:00 a.m.

Council Chambers, City HallEast side of Monte Verde Street

Between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

1. ROLL CALL MAYOR BURNETT

Mayor BurnettMayor Pro Tem BeachCouncil Members: Dallas, Talmage, Theis

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/APPEARANCESIf you would like to speak on an agenda item listed here, please wait until theMayor opens the item for public comment. While not required, please state yourname for the record and limit your remarks to three (3) minutes.

3. CLOSED SESSIONPursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California,the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:

*Item 3.A: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATEDLITIGATIONSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) ofGovernment Code Section 54956.9: 2 Case

4. SPECIAL MEETING ITEM (S)

*Item 4.A: Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City ofCarmel-By-The-Sea authorizing staff and Legal Counsel to takesuch steps necessary and appropriate to carry out the directions setforth regarding the incident on March 3, 2014 House Explosion andRelated Events.


2/5

Receive an update on the Investigation of the March 2014 HouseExplosion and Direct staff to draft letter for Mayors Signature.

Recommendation : Adopt Resolution and direct staff to draft letter forMayors signature.

5. ADJOURNMENT


3/5

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons withdisabili ties. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired(T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regardingany item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall, on the east side of Monte Verde Street, between Oceanand Seventh Avenues, during normal business hours.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

I, Lori Frontella , Interim City Clerk, for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, underpenalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing notice wasposted at the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall bulletin board, posted at the Harrison Memorial

Library on Ocean and Lincoln Avenues and the Carmel Post Office on August 21, 2014.

Dated this 21 st , day of August 2014 at the hour of 1:00 p.m.

____________________________________Lori Frontella, MMCInterim City Clerk

SB343 NOTICEIn accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of SB343 any public writing distributed bythe City Clerk's Office to at least a majority of the City Council Members regarding any item onthis regular meeting agenda will be available on the back table at the entrance of the CouncilChamber at the time of the City Council meeting and at the counter of City Hall located onMonte Verde between Ocean and Seventh Avenues, in Carmel -by-the -Sea, California duringnormal business hours.


4/5

Cityof Carmel by the Sea

Ms. Denise Tyrrell

Interim Dire ctorSafety and Enforcement DivisionCalifornia Public Utilities Commission505 Van Ness A venueSan Francisco, CA 94102

POST OFFICE BOX CCCARMEL - -THE- S EA, CA 9392 1

831) 620 -2000

August 25, 2014

Re: Formal Request for Oil- City of Carmel-by-the-Sea PG&E Explosion March 3, 2014

Dear Ms. Tyrrell:

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Carmel) formally requests that the California Public UtilitiesCommission's (Commission or CPUC) Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) complete its

investigation and report into the Carmel gas explosion that occurred on March 3, 2014. Carmel furtherrequests that after the completion of the formal staff report, that the Commission promulgate an OrderInstituting Investigation (Oil). Under Rule 5.1' the natu re of the matter s to be investigated in the onwould focus, among other things, on whether Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) violated anyapplicable provision or provisions of the Pipeline Safety Act, California Public Utilities Code,Commission general orders or decisions, or other rules or requirements pertaining to gas safety practices,recordkeeping and integrity management for its gas distribution service and facilities. t is Car mel ' sbelief, based o n the evidence reviewed thus far, that PG&E violated Public Utilit ies Code Section 451 andmultiple pr ovisions of the Pipeline Safety Act in part due to the absence of records, erroneous records andin pmticular the fact that PG&E didn 't have as-built records when conducing a pipe replacement projectin Carmel. The City is further concerned about other practices ofPG&E that may also have contributedto the explosion.

t is highl y troubling, almost four years after the Line 132 PG&E explosion in San Bruno, that Carmeland its residents witnessed the spectacle ofPG&E's actions directly causing a hou se explosion. Under itsfranchise and police power s, City officials in Carmel have a so lemn duty to protect the health and welfareof City residents, businesses and visitors. This explosion could easily have killed and serio usly injuredpeople and whether PG&E vio lated the law should not be ignored. It is clear from the preliminaryinvestigations that PG&E, among other public safety defic iencie s still doe sn ' t know what is in the groundin Carmel and elsew here. PG&E has shown that it cannot manage its as-built record s or prop er ly identifygas pipeline s in the ground. Ground truthing should have been a minimum standard safety practiceafter the records debacle of the past four years. Th e Commission ha s already acknowledged that PG&Ehas serious issues with its recordkeeping in relation to the PG&E explosion in Carmel: A big concern isPG&E 's mappin g iss ue . t is PG&E 's responsibility and duty to know what they have in the ground and

where it' s located. 2

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has carefully review ed the Expo nent report and has concluded that thereport has an overly narrow focus and fails to investigate the range of issu es required to adequatelyaddress public safety. We have repeatedly requested that PG&E remedy the se deficiencies but it has beenunable or unwilling to do so. Despite the deficiencies in the Exponent report, certa in le sso ns can be

1 Rules ofPractice and Procedure, Rule 5 .12 http ://www.sfgate.com/news 'article /PG-amp-E-Carmel-home -exp losion-blam ed-on -bad-5316064.php


5/5

learned. The Exponent report determined that the root cause of the explosion was: Inadequateverification of system status and configuration when performing work on a live Iine. 3 It appears from theExponent report and PG E's public state ments that PG E has violated the Jaw and CPUC regulations,including the failure to operate a safe system un d er Public Utilities Code Section 451.

Given the deficiencies in PG E 's investigation and the public safety implications , we have concludedthat an 011 is the only fair, objective , public and forthright way to review and detetmine whether PG E'sgas safety operations and recordkeeping practices fo r its entire gas transmission syste m are un safe and inviolation of the law. The fact that PG E as of this date has refused to join in asking for a formal Oil isall the more reason to conduct it.

Despite as surances to the contrary , there is no way for Carme l to ensure that PG E will take therecommended actions s ugge sted by Ex ponent as well as other remedial actions unless the re is aninvestigation and a remedial order of he Commission. The Expo nen t recommended actions include: 1)develop pr o cedures to require positive verification of the expecte d system status and configuration whenworking on a pipe; 2 develop procedures to require further investigation of the system configurationwhen estimating a job for which as-b uilts are not available; 3) review the cunent process for receiving,approving, and storing job folders; and 4) develop a process for more detailed pre-job briefmg. 4 TheCo m mi ssion shou ld independently verify that these and perhaps other actions are necessary to ensure asafe and reliable gas system.

The Commission has the respon sibility under Publi c Utilities Code Section 76 to conect and preventunsafe utility practices. To that effect, we ask that SED complete a staff report and request theCommission to commence a formal in vest igation into whether PG E ' s recordkeeping and other practicesrepresent deficient actions and deci sion making about its gas serv ice . The Commission should investi ga teand decide whether PG E 's practices , including its recordkeeping pertaining to gas distribution lin es,have violated good and accepted engineering standard s and practices , and thu s whether PG E violatedSection 45 1 of the Public Utilities Code or other law s and regu lations.

r;; __on Burnett

MayorCity of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Cc: Michael R Peevey ; President, Ca lifornia Public Ut iliti es CommissionMichel Peter Florio; Commissioner, California Public Utilities Comm issionCa therin e J.K. Sandova l; Commissioner , Ca lifornia Public Util iti es Co mmi ssionCarla J. Peterman ; Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commiss ionM ichael Pick er ; Commiss ion er, Ca li fornia Pub lic Utilities Commiss ionVicto ria Beach, Mayor Pro TernSteve Dallas , City Coun cil MemberCarrie Thei s, Cit y Council MemberKen Talmage , City Counc il Memb erDonald G . Freeman, City AttorneySteven Meyers, Spec ial Couns elBritt Strottman, Specia l Counse l2318209.1

3 Expo nent Carme l Gas Incident , April20 14 ; page 664 d.

2

Documents

City Council Special Meeting 08-25-14