ABSTRACT: Mayor Jason Burnett initiated a meeting which was held with PUC Commissioner Sandoval and staff member Stephen St. Clair on 28 June 2012 in Monterey. The NOTICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, filed 3 July 2012, and MOTION TO WITHDRAW NOTICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, withdrawn 10 July 2012, are embedded. The substance of the Ex Parte Communication is as follows: “During the meeting Mayor Burnett discussed the need for water for the Monterey Peninsula; explained why he thought it made sense to pursue multiple projects (a portfolio approach so as to not place all of "our" eggs in one basket); asked what the process is for petitioning the PUC to move the funding of the Groundwater Replenishment Project and Aquifer Storage and Recovery off of the Proposition 218 property tax bill and onto Cal-Am's bill. Commissioner Sandoval said her staff would look into how this has worked in other jurisdictions. Mayor Burnett noted his desire that "we" avoid a legal fight (and associated cost and delay) over the county ordinance banning the private ownership of the desalination facility, and further noted the possibility of public ownership of the desalination facility itself with private ownership of surrounding infrastructure (pumps, pipes, etc.).” And the substance of the Withdrawal Notice of Ex Parte Communication is as follows: "The Notice of Ex Parte Communication was inadvertently filed
herein on July 3, 2012."
Related Article:
Peninsula mayors consider staff, budget for new JPA water;
Burnett cozies up to PUC.
2 comments:
How could Mayor Jason Burnett be this stupid? You mean to tell me he did not know the most basic of rules? What is this cat doing?
Once upon a time, an elderly couple lived in a Henry Hill designed residence on North San Antonio Avenue. To make their inverted floor plan residence fully accessible to them, they petitioned the city for an elevator to reach the main living areas of the residence on the second floor. At the planning commission hearing, on the advice of the city attorney, planning commissioners voted on a variance and a use permit. A majority of commissioners voted to approve the variance, but a 2/3 vote was not achieved on the use permit. Hence, the elevator was denied. The couple hired a land-use attorney and sued the city in superior court. After oral arguments, the judge ruled in favor of the couple and against the city ruling that the variance was only required for approval of an elevator, not a use permit because the use was not changed, it remained a residence.
City attorney: Don Freeman. The couple: the Golubs and their attorney: Antonio Rossmann. Carmel city attorney wrong then and wrong now with ex parte communication and he remains the city attorney for the city of carmel!
Post a Comment