5. Developments Since Submission

On January 19, 2001, the District and PG&E were asked to respond to the following questions:

1. Since submission on May 26, 1995, have there been any material facts (i.e., construction activities, changes in use of the property, changes in status of parties) that should be before the Commission as it prepares to issue its decision?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, can the additional facts be received through stipulation or otherwise?

3. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, are there material issues as to the facts that require one or more additional hearing days?

4. Since submission on May 26, 1995, have there been any changes in law, tariffs, or other governing authority, that may affect the outcome of this proceeding?

5. Since submission on May 26, 1995, have there been any decisions by courts, agencies or other entities (other than the decision in City of Livermore v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company [citation omitted]) that should be before the Commission as it prepares to issue its decision?

6. Have there been any developments, or are any developments contemplated, in the parties' efforts to settle this case?

In their responses, both parties agreed that there were no material issues of fact that require additional hearing. They also agreed that there were no developments in law, other than the Livermore case, that they believe should be brought to the attention of the Commission.

While the parties have not stipulated to additional facts, the sworn declarations they submitted as to changes at Bishop Tract since 1995 do not differ appreciably.

At the time of hearing, Bishop Tract had five principal landowners, identified as follows: A&M Farms, 832 acres; A.G. Spanos (north property), 340 acres; Hall property, 674 acres; Granucci property, 690 acres; and A. G. Spanos (south property), 579 acres. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7.)

According to PG&E, county records show that the Spanos Family Partnership and the Spanos Corporation have acquired the 690-acre Granucci property, bringing total Spanos ownership to about 1,600 acres. Other smaller parcels also have changed hands. PG&E states that the City of Stockton in 1999 received a tentative map of a proposed Spanos Park West development for 682 residential lots and locations for schools, parks and a marina. PG&E states that plans for a golf course and equestrian center on the A&M Farms acreage have not gone forward, but that A. G. Spanos Construction has submitted plans to the San Joaquin Planning Commission for a recreational facility that would include an 18-hole golf course.

The District submitted declarations by its witnesses stating that development to date within Bishop Tract is for the most part in the formative stage, and that primary use of the properties continues to be farming. It acknowledges that 340 acres of Spanos property have been developed into a public golf course and other parts of the property are in the rough grading stage for residential and commercial development. The recently acquired Granucci property continues to be used for agricultural purposes, with no current plans for development. The District states that this slow pace of development supports its contention that the levee improvements were undertaken to protect against the calamity and expense of flood, rather than for private benefit of the landowners.

PG&E states that it has made a non-material change to Tariff Rule 16G2, which provided that when relocation of a PG&E service was "for the convenience of the applicant or customer, such relocation will be performed by PG&E at the expense of the applicant or customer." Rule 16 was modified effective July 1, 1998. The provisions regarding relocations for applicant convenience formerly located at 16G2 have been renumbered at 16F2, and now provide that relocation of PG&E service facilities can be done by PG&E, or by the applicant with PG&E approval, but always at the applicant's expense. (While the tariff rule is now 16F2, we will continue to refer to it in this decision as 16G2, which was the effective rule at all relevant times in this matter.)

The parties agree that there have been no further efforts to settle this case since 1995.