Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 19, 1984 (74)a 4r; CITY 00ACIL MEETING. iF ,SEPTETER t9i 7984:: h �r owM PENDING CRAL In response to an earlier inquiry by the Council, the fol low- AiIaAENM IN WE ing information was presented regarding pending oral U.S. OOLRf OF arguments in the U. E. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. APP�M13. NINTH CIRCUIT '"In NCPA LOCAL O: ITITE Gentlemen: Subject: Pending oral argument in the U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Some of your cities, at least, have been receiving notices from the Court that oral argument in two rmtters will occur on October 2, 1984. A copy of it recent order relatirig to them. and the hearing notice, is enclosed. The first case, 7854, is the result of a FFA9C decision in Docket IU2-71 in favor of SMD in a proceeding brought by it to obtain transmission capacity on PG&E's line from the northwest. The FERC. decision is reported at 23 F FC par 61.042 (April S. 1983), and the order denying rehearing is reported at 24 FEW par 61,305 (Sept. 22., 1983). The second case, 7933, is the result of a FERC decision in Docket EL82-3 rejecting the City of Oakland's application that the Port of Oakland be treated as a wholesalf customer. The original decision is reported at 24 FERC par 61.010 (duly 18, 1983) and rehearing was denied at 25 FEW par 61,105 (October 20, 1983). NCPA and its "PCA E city" manbe r s were allowed to int-ervene in the Orikland case, on the ground "that any determina-tion that the PWE sale to the Port of Oakland is a sale for resale could affect the rate urxier which the NCPA moibers purchase." On that basis we have received notice of it, and since SbW is on the same calendar. we will receive notice of it, too. NCPA and its mmbers have been neutral. and will not participate in the appeals. I will be glad to furnish copies of any of the above citied doeusients if you desire. Sincerely, s /Ata r t in McDonough Attorney" ��n IMANT 1 NUI JA SVT"% NOStItIt TO NCPA LEGAL COMMITTEE Gentlemen: Subject: Pending oral argument in the U.S Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Some of your cities, at least, have been receiving notices from the Court that oral argument in two matters will occur on October 2, 1984. A copy of a recent order relating to them, and the hearing notice, is enclosed. The first case, 7854, is the result of a FERC decision in Docket EL82-21 in favor of SMUG in a proceeding brought by it to obtain transmission capacity on PG&E's line from the northwest. The FERC decision is reported at 23 FERC par 61,042 (April 8, 1983), and the order denying rehearing is reported at 24 FERC par 61,305 (Sept. 22, 1983). The second case, 7933, is the result of a FERC decision in Docket EL82-3 rejecting the City of Oakland's application that the Port of Oakland be treated as a wholesale customer. The original decision is reported at 24 FERC par 61,010 (July 8, 1983) and rehearing was denied at 25 FERC par 61,105 (October 20, 1983). NCPA and its "PG&E city" members were allowed to inter- vene in the Oakland case, on the ground "that any determination that the PG&E sale to the Port of Oakland is a sale for resale could affect the rate under which the NCPA members purchase." SEP 13W4 MCDONOUGH. HOLLAND & ALLEN "A"N YCOONOIJON 01111WIS 0 01 Cute A ►"Cf[St10NAl CG"POAATION AII"01 NOIIANO ANNacoNNllt ATTORNEYSCANTON/AAA lTN[NN OfnIC[ � Mua I ALUN Omit? A 000W404 ' ` ' 1006- ARM E[NFi�N ON/Vt. Sunt ft0 Y 601,1111141110 Wit JOUPN1 0001111, JA 001"T W $41"a1 J1fIATA JCNtS SSS CAPITOL MAA., SUIT[ 9S0 COSTA 049$$A. CAUVO"TNA 080RO WILLIAM O.IOIU"AN. JA KTSV S ItIUSAII SACRAMENTO. CALIfn"NIA �St)I4 I 4 '�'I Stt SCOL DAVIOJ W01719WOOD SUyN l 6C"0060 11101• A N (4"006 SASOAA D OIISIAT 916 444 Jp00I wAtMINOTON. D C OFFICt NAITM N ANS1N DAt1n N COI1 ( A `!'1 ` 1 �. I L `. EJtrS [Tl iTN[t!. NW RIC"AMIN NICWXS JOHN V TAVLORr SuITi III$ � � E.1` W ALO C POW JAM, N1t11T 4VAAWt � _ t( WASNINoTON.O C so OO• AICNMO" ON ft AJNN t 01 DtUSTO _ t '. r ',OJ7` 131 0610 AICNAAD 1 SAANDT CAAG A rOMMlu .. MAV I umve00t 11NA1TDIt 0 IVS11tf a AICNAAD SNCWN Dew" JOHN J IITNM tx NOW A I10001 September 12, 1984 0 CIN1a -LD JArl/ • "CONN[It JA DOM* PDSI RS TAND SUSAN It 10VN0 DAVID 1 Ma •AoumtC tN Dist-cl a C.Otvr. A ONI• 0ALCt YtDONDUON T tltf.NT NAwntNs MILAN I MIN VIIIOIAMA A CAkttt 04001 NAVIN )AA11131 Lit? JAAT93 S O"Nt O 06CNA1t tAOTMN AIIC1 A NOODVANo NAN11tf? A ST1IM1A VICNAIt I AODAATT MTAICIA D ttltnTT IMANT 1 NUI JA SVT"% NOStItIt TO NCPA LEGAL COMMITTEE Gentlemen: Subject: Pending oral argument in the U.S Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Some of your cities, at least, have been receiving notices from the Court that oral argument in two matters will occur on October 2, 1984. A copy of a recent order relating to them, and the hearing notice, is enclosed. The first case, 7854, is the result of a FERC decision in Docket EL82-21 in favor of SMUG in a proceeding brought by it to obtain transmission capacity on PG&E's line from the northwest. The FERC decision is reported at 23 FERC par 61,042 (April 8, 1983), and the order denying rehearing is reported at 24 FERC par 61,305 (Sept. 22, 1983). The second case, 7933, is the result of a FERC decision in Docket EL82-3 rejecting the City of Oakland's application that the Port of Oakland be treated as a wholesale customer. The original decision is reported at 24 FERC par 61,010 (July 8, 1983) and rehearing was denied at 25 FERC par 61,105 (October 20, 1983). NCPA and its "PG&E city" members were allowed to inter- vene in the Oakland case, on the ground "that any determination that the PG&E sale to the Port of Oakland is a sale for resale could affect the rate under which the NCPA members purchase." SEP 13W4 50 `-J NCPA LEGAL COMMITTEE -2- September 12, 1984 On that basis we have received notice of it, and since SMUD is on the same calendar, we will receive notice of it, too. NCPA and its members have been neutral, and will not participate in the appeals. 1 will be clad to furnish copies of any of the above cited documents if you desire. Sincerely yours, Martin McDonough Attorney MMcD:pa enc. cc: Robert E. Grimshsw M UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 11 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC'COMPANY. at &I) Petitioners ) va. ) :*EDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ) Respo=:dent ) CITY OF OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA. etc. ) Petitioner ) vs. ) FEDEXAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) Respondent ) PACIFIC GAS -,ND ELECTRIC COMPANY. at &I) Intervenors FILED AUG 27 1984 PHILLIP B. V41NBEhhY CLERK. U.S CGURT Of APMAIS 83-7854 FERC / EL 82-21-000 83-7933 FERC / EL 82-3-000; EL 82-3-001 Respondent's motion to schedule these cases for separate argument calendars is DENIED. Respondent's motion to reschedule these cases is GRANTED. both appeals will be argue6 on October 2. 1984. in San Francisco. By Direction of the Court PHILLIP E. WINbERRY Clerk of Court By Miriam Mueller Deputy Clerk SEP 13 V94 • OFFICE OF THE CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NEARING NOTICE DATE: AUG 2 3 1*4 R E C E 1 v co AUG G 4 Igo. TiftMCov.=MARGait NO. b Title: 83-7854 Pacific Gas s Electric Co., et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commiasion 63-7933 City of Gakl&nd, etc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Coamission assigned for hearing: Date: Tuesday, October 2. 1984 Time; 1:30 p.m. LOCatiOn: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 7th b Mission Streets, San Francisco, California UNITED STA IS COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 7th & Mission Streets, P.O. Sox 547 San Francisco, CA 94101 NQTICE OF CASES _SET FOR HEARING Your case has been set for hearing as indicated -r" the attached calendar. Please take special note of the time and .place of hearing. In order that the court may make proper arrangements for oral argument it is essential that you immediately complete the attached acknowledge- ment receipt and return it to the clerk's office address provided. In preparing for oral argument the parties should be guided by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Appellate PrccitAure. The following information is provided to ensure the effectiveness of the hearing process: Possibility of Mootness or settlement - If your case has become moot or a settlement s imminent, roan Gately advise this office in writing. Notification of Related Cases - If you are aware of other cases pending n this court which are related to and which should be calendared .with the case(s) checked on the attached calendar, please notify this office. Admission for Oral Argument - Any attorney who will be presenting oral argument must have bse_n admitted to the bar of this court. If you have not been admitted, please check the appropriate box on the acknowledgement receipt and return it with a self-addressed franked envelope. This office will provide you with the forms necessary for admission by mail. While admission in open court on the day of hearing is discouraged, you may elect such an admission procedure. Candidates for admission in open court must appear in the clerk's office with a sponsor who has already been admitted to the bar of the circuit and who can orally move the admission before the calendar is called. ' Submission Without Oral Argument - A party who feels that oral argument would—not�be-o assistance to the court may present a written motion asking the court to subunit the case for decision without oral argument. Such a motion must be served on all parties. The court may, on its own motion, determine that oral argument would not be of assistance. In such cases, all parties will be advised by separate notice pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Local Rules of the Ninth Circuit. Ayp!!aring for Argument - If oral argument is to be presented, please req s ei intheCourt of Appeals clerk's office at the hearing location 30 minutes before the time of hearing. The deputy clerk assigned to your case(s) will direct you to the appropriate courtroom. All parties for all cases must be in their respective courtrooms at the time the session is convened. Hearing Order of Cases - Cases are generally heard in the order in which they appear on the calendar. On the other hand, a panel may elect to poll the calendar prior to the commencement of argument and to rearrange the order of cases based on the projected length of argu- ment. Nevertheless, parties in the first case should be prepared to begin argument immediately after court is convened in the event that the entire calendar is not polled. Limitation on Argument Time - Argument time in cases on the calendar which are identified with an asterisk (•) is limited to 15 minutes per side. In all other cases oral argument time is limited to 30 minutes per side. The limitations may be modified by the panel at the time of hearing. Subject of Oral Argument - At the time of hearing the judges of the panel will have studied the record and the briefs and will be familiar with the facts and issues of the case. Argument should be devoted to clarifying issues as needed and to responding to questions raised by the judges of the panel. Presenting Additional Citations - Additional citations of relevant ec s ons ren ere s nce the filing of the party's last brief may be submitted not later than one week prior to the hearing. Such citations should be on letter -size paper, showing proof of service on all counsel and parties not represented by counsel. An original and three copies must be submitted to the court. Under no circum- stances may arguments be included with additonal citations. On the day of hearing the panel may authorize the filing of additional citations of very recent decisions. Such citations must be sub- mitted on "gum sheets" provided by the clerk's office. Identity of Panel Members - Not earli^r than the week before the court wee n w c your case will be heard, the names of judges hearing the currently calendared cases will be announced. The names will be posted on the public bulletin board of the clerk's office of your local U.S. district court. You may also determine the names of the judges by submitting with the attached acknowledgement form, a self-addressed postage paid envelope and a card listing the case number, date and time of hearing. We will write the names of the Judges hearing your case on this card and will mail it to you at the same time that the official calendars are mailed to the district court clerk's offices for posting. Continuances - After a case has been calendared continuances are not granted except for a showing of extraordinarily good cause. If oral argument is essential but you find it impossible to be present, you must immediately after receipt of this hearing notice submit a formal motion and supporting affidavit for continuance. Presentation of the motion does not ensure that the continuance will be granted. The court will not consider a motion for continuance after the identity Of the panel of judges has been divulged. CA9-029 (4/9/80) OFFICE OF THE CLERK UNITED STATES COURT -F APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ATTENTION: Calendar Clerk DATE: I acknowlaige receipt of notice of assignment showing my case: No. Title: assigned for hearing: Date: Time: Location: Counsel to Argue: Name Address: Phone: Party(s) Represented: NOTE: In the event that argument is to be presented "in pro per" please place party's name, address and telepho:.e number in the space provided for counsel. ADMISSION STATUS (TO BE COMIZMD by ATTOIIMEYS OILY) [ ) I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. [ ) I certify that I am generally qualified for admission to practice before the bar of the Ninth Circuit and that I will immediately apply for admission. Date: Signature: SSN: XCTURN NO^ZICL TO: Office of the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, P.O. Box 547, San Francisco, CA 94101 -%a_n74/1 (1/4/60) CC3 CI'T'Y COUNCM I4MING SEPrEMBIIt 19, 1984 PT IININC, City Manager Glaves gave the following report of the _GMISSICN Planning Carmission meeting of September 10, 1981. ITTIS OF The Planning Cormission - I NI'I I' I . Reco7:-&m- ded that the Batch Final Environment Impact Report be certified its adequatc environmental documentation. This report covers the 100 acre Bwtt_-h parcel bounded by Lodi Park West Subdivision on the north: Lower Sacramento Road on the east and the Woodbridge Irrigation District Cana•1• on the south and west. and the 20 acre Mills property at the northeast corner of Lower Sacramento Road and West Lodi Avenue. 2. Recmmended that the Batch parcel be prezoned to P D (26). Planned Development Distract No. 26 with the single-family portion conforming to the City's R-3, Single -Family Residential District and the multiple family portions conforming to the City's R -CA. Garden Apartment Residential restrictions with a limitation of 15 units per acre. r The Batch development 325 single-family lots, 2 multiple -family parce s cantaining 246 units and a 14 acre basinl.park site. An elementary school may be substituted for one of the multiple family sites. 3. Recarmend that the Mills parcel be prezoned U -H', Unclassified holding until a development plan can be approved by the Planning Canmission and City Council VARIOUS IMIS On motion of Council Nimber Reid. liinchman second, items 1.2, SET FCR PLBLIC and 3 heretofore set forth were set for public hearing on HEARINC'S Wednesday. October 3. 1984 at 7:30 p.m. - �. V .A ; �Y'.. � j• �" s