Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S RULING

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S RULING document is embedded.  NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Commissioner Catherine J.K. Sandoval will hold the following all-party meeting:

Noon to 5:00 p.m.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Hyatt Regency Monterey Hotel
1 Old Golf Course Road
Monterey, CA 93940

Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling 03-26-15

Filing Date 3-26-15
ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S RULING

DECISION, HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL, Judge of the Superior Court: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff/Petitioner, Decision vs. 2014-15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, Defendant/Respondent, Case No.: M131242

ABSTRACT:  On March 24, 2015, HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL, Judge of the Superior Court, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, issued her Decision regarding City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff/Petitioner, Decision vs.2014-15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, Defendant/Respondent, Case No.: M131242. 

Order:

The Grand Jury must provide an in camera showing of cause. This showing must be filed with the court under seal. The court recognizes the Grand Jury has a strong interest in maintaining the secrecy of the nature of its investigation. "One of the hallmarks of the grand jury is that its deliberations are shrouded in secrecy." Packer v. Superior Court (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 152, 17; City of Woodlake, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304.

Protective Order:

After the in camera review, should the court order the production of documents, the parties shall prepare and sign a Protective Order ensuring that the records are returned to the City at the close of the investigation and any copies should be destroyed. In ordering a Protective Order, the court does not impugn the integrity of the jurors. Protective orders are routinely given in the context of confidential or private materials.
The Decision document is embedded.

Judge Villarreal Decision (m131242) 03-24-15

Decision
HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL, Judge of the Superior Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff/Petitioner, Decision vs. 2014-15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, Defendant/Respondent
Case No.: M131242.
March 24, 2015

AGENDA, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND CLOSED SESSION, March 31, 2015

ABSTRACT: On March 31, 2015, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council is scheduled to conduct a SPECIAL MEETING, Item 1: RECEIPT OF PROVISIONAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND TRANSMITTAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION and CLOSED SESSION, Item 1: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION and Item 2: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL –LITIGATION ANTICIPATED beginning at 4:00 P.M., Council Chambers, City Hall, East side of Monte Verde Street Between Ocean and Seventh Avenues. The AGENDA PACKET document is embedded.

Special Meeting Agenda & Capital Improvements Plan 2015-18 03-31-15

AGENDA

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND CLOSED SESSION
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Three Year Provisional Capital Improvements Plan
July 1, 2015- June 30, 2018

FY 2015-2018 Projects

Project Name & Total Expenditures & Fiscal Years

PROJECT NAME	TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($)	FISCAL YEARS
Street and Road Projects	2,447,000	'15/'16 & ‘16/'17 &  '17/'18
Forest Theater Renovation	2,000,000	'15/'16
Parking Management Solution	200,000	'15/'16
Carpenter Street Drainage and Paving	170,000	'15/'16
Sunset Center Projects	143,750	'15/'16 &  '16/'17 & '17/'18
Sidewalk Repair	100,000	15/'16 & '16/'17 & '17/'18
ADA Facilities Survey and Transition Plan	100,000	'15/'16
Dunes Habitat Restoration	80,250	'15/'16 thru '19/’20
Mission Trail Mountain View Entrance	80,000	15/’16
Vista Lobos Community Room Roof	70,000	'15/'16
MTNP Invasive Tree Management	50,000	'15/'16
Beach Fire Baskets/Rings	50,000	'15/'16
Safety Improvements	50,000	'15/'16
Water Conservation Projects	45,000	'15/'16
Rio Road Reconstruction	700,000	'16/'17
Larson Field/Rio Park Trail	565,000	'16/'17 & '17/'18
Eighth Avenue Pathway	50,000	'16/'17
4th Avenue Irrigation Meter	20,000	‘16/’17
Guadalupe to 5th Storm Drain	350,000	'17/'18
Shoreline Assessment and Implementation	50,000	‘17/’18

NOTE: 20 Projects, $7,321,000 Total Expenditures, FY '15/'16 & FY‘16/'17 & FY '17/'18

Intended Decision, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers' Association, a California corporation, Ronald J. Pasquinelli, Thomas J. Rowley Jr. and Richards J. Heuer, III, Petitioners/Plaintiffs v. Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Respondents/Defendants, Case No. M123512, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ABSTRACT:  RE: Intended Decision, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers' Association, a California corporation, Ronald J. Pasquinelli, Thomas J. Rowley Jr. and Richards J. Heuer, III, Petitioners/Plaintiffs v. Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Respondents/Defendants, Case No. M123512, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Dated: March 17, 2015. Discussion included The District May Only Refuse to Place a Referendum on the Ballot if the Petition Violates Technical Requirements; it Lacks Authority to do so on Substantive Grounds, The Referendum Petition Violated the Elections Code, The Water Supply Charge is Authorized by the Enabling Law and The Water Supply Charge Does not Violate the California Constitution. Disposition Petitioners' requested relief is denied. Respondents' counsel is to prepare an appropriate order consistent with this ruling, present it to opposing counsel for approval as to form, and return it to this court for signature. The MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S Press Release states, in part, The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) announced today at it has prevailed on all issues in Monterey Superior Court Case No. M123512 The Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers’ Association et al. v Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District et al. Judge Efren N. Iglesia found in favor of the Water Management District, the defendant in the matter, and issued his Intended Decision on March 17, 2015.

“Judge Iglesia’s decision is a significant victory for the Water Management District,” said David J. Stoldt, General Manager of MPWMD. “While we respect the mission of the Taxpayers’ Association, this win is recognition of the District’s important legislative mandate and our overall mission to manage the water resources of the Monterey Peninsula.

The lawsuit claimed that the Water Management District violated the California Constitution and the District’s own Enabling Law by adopting ordinance 152 which instituted a water supply charge aimed at creating a new supply of drinking water for the Monterey Peninsula. Additionally, the MPTA claimed the District exceeded its powers by refusing to place the MPTA referendum – which sought to repeal the Ordinance – on the ballot. The Decision rules completely in favor of the District on each of these claims.

Intended Decision MPTA v MPWMD (M123512) 03-17-15

Intended Decision, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers' Association, a California corporation, Ronald J. Pasquinelli, Thomas J. Rowley Jr. and Richards J. Heuer, III, Petitioners/Plaintiffs v. Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Respondents/Defendants, Case No. M123512, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Dated: March 17, 2015.

REFERENCES:
Press Release, March 19, 2015
JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION LAWSUIT
District Prevails on All Issues Brought Forth By MPTA
Monterey, Calif., March 19, 2015

Monterey PeninsulaWater Management District Statement Regarding Lawsuit Filed By MontereyPeninsula Taxpayers Association

Judge upholds Peninsula water district charge
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 03/19/15

PETITION FOR REVIEW: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Real Party In Interest. The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No. 13-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012, The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner

ABSTRACT:  RE: California Supreme Court Case S208838, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY), the California Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion as early as June 2015 on the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?  PETITION FOR REVIEW (Dated: February 22, 2013), Appendix Volume 1, Appendix Volume 2 and Appendix Volume 3 documents are embedded. ARGUMENTS include Petitioner Possesses Express Legislative Authority to Levy Taxes and Fees and to Collect User Fees through Utility Bills Issued by Cal-Am, The Commission Has No Jurisdiction Over Petitioner and Public Utilities Code Section 451 Does Not Vest the Commission With Jurisdiction to Review and Reject Charges Imposed By Government Entities and Collected Through a Utility Bill.   CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant this Petition for Review. Alternatively, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant review and transfer to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings.

Petition for Review (x149365)

PETITION FOR REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Petitioner, v. California Public Utilities Commission, Respondent, California-American Water Company, Real Party in Interest
The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No.B-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012 The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner
Dated: February 22, 2013

Appendix VOL 1 of 3 (X149366)

APPPENDIX VOLUME 1 0F 3

Appendix VOL 2 of 3 (X149367).pdf

 APPPENDIX VOLUME 2 0F 3

Appendix VOL 3 of 3 (X149368).pdf

APPPENDIX VOLUME 3 0F 3

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, REGULAR MEETING, AGENDA & MINUTES March 25, 2015

Governance Committee for the Mpwsp Agenda Packet 03-25-15

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
March 25, 2015

PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case NoM131242, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ABSTRACT:  Don G. Freeman, City Attorney, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, submitted PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF in CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case No. M131242, to SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY on March 17, 2015. Reply Brief includes Penal Code 925a Does Not Permit the Disclosure Of Constitutionally Protected Personnel Records, Enforcing The Subpoena Would Deny Due Process, Enforcing the Subpoena Would Deny Privacy Rights, Woodlake is Confined to Police Records and A Protective Order Would Be Required if the Court Orders Disclosure of Personnel Files. Conclusion The core issue remains one of privacy. These personnel records are confidential. Special attention is demanded whenever confidential records are being divulged. See White v. Davis, (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 757, 774, 120 Cal. Rptr. 94, 105. The PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF document is embedded.

Petitioner's Reply Brief (m131242)

PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Petitioner, v. 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent.
Case No. M131242
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

FOREST THEATER RENOVATION: SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOREST THEATER RENOVATION, ADDENDUM NO. 1 & ADDENDUM NO. 2 AND FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 1 & FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 2

ABSTRACT: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA

Project: Forest Theater Renovation

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

Notice is hereby given that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will receive sealed bids at City Hall, located on the east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues until 10:00 A.M. on Monday, March 30, 2015, at which time bids will be opened for the Forest Theater Renovation project. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the attention of the City Clerk.

This work consists primarily of renovating of an existing facility including; demolition of various components; mitigation of hazardous building materials; site grading; new asphalt access road; new concrete and asphalt pedestrian walkways - incorporating ramps, landings, stairs, handrails, etc.; structural improvements; new light I sound towers; new electrical lighting; restrooms remodeling; masonry; painting; etc.
The Construction Allocation for this project is $1,200,000. No bid will be considered for award unless the Bidder at the time of bid opening, is licensed with a valid Class "A" or "B" Contractor's License issued by the State of California.
All bids must be submitted only on forms furnished by the City. Bid plans and specifications for this project may be obtained as follows:

1. As of 8 AM Monday, March 2, 2015:

a.https://www.dropbox.com/sh/21sipn1ii3m721p/AACHLpglscvAL6QcyRmpeYbHa?dl=O

2. Approximate availability as of March 4, 2015:

a. Central Coast Builders Association

i. Salinas Office: 20 Quail Run Cir Ste A, Salinas, CA 93907, Phone 831.758 .1624, Fax 831.758.6203.

admin@ccbabuilds.com

ii. Monterey Office: 100 12th St #2861 , Marina, CA 93933, Phone 831.883.3933

b. Builder's Exchange of Santa Clara County

i. 400 Reed St., in Santa Clara, CA, info@bxscco.com, 408.727.4000

c. Bay Area Builders Exchange

i. San Leandro Location: 3055 Alvarado Street, San Leandro, CA 94577, Phone: (510) 483-8880,

Fax: (510) 352-1509, E-Mail: info@bayareabx.com

ii. Concord Location: 2440 Stanwell Dr. Suite B, Concord CA, 94520, Tel.: 925-685-8630,

Fax. 925-685-3424

d. Central California Builders Exchange

i. 1244 North Mariposa Street, Fresno, CA 93703, (559) 237-1831

A non-mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 10:00 AM, on Wednesday, March 11, 2015, in the community room at Vista Lobos Park, located on Torres Street, east side of street, between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Prospective Bidders are encouraged to attend since City Staff will be present to answer any questions regarding the plans and specifications; and following there will be an inspection tour of the job site.
The Contractor shall have the right to substitute securities for any monies withheld by the City to insure performance under the contract pursuant to Government Code Section 4590. All questions regarding plans and specifications should be directed to Andy Vanderford, Project Manager, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Public Works Department, 831-620-2078, Avandeford@ci.carmel.ca.us . Bidders shall use the suppl ied Bid Question Form as found within the specifications. Bidders shall not contact the Architect.

The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids and waive any irregularities.
Each bid shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted therefore, submitted on the proposal forms furnished.
Bids shall be in accordance with the prevailing hourly rate of per diem wages for this locality and project as determined by the State of California Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1771, which prevailing hourly rate of wages is made a part of this Notice to Bidders by reference as though fully set forth herein.
If the project requires the employment of workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade , once awarded, the contractor of subcontractors must apply to the Joint Apprenticeship Council unless already covered by local apprentice standards (California Labor Code Section 1777.5).
The Contractor shall submit with the proposal on the forms supplied, a list of the names and addresses of each subcontractor and the portions of the work, which each subcontractor will do. If no such list is submitted, it will be assumed that the contractor will do all the work herein specified.
BID DEPOSIT. Bidders must submit a Bid Deposit in the amount of TEN PERCENT (10%) of the Total Net Bid Amount (or, in bids with Add Alternates , the highest possible combination of the Base Bid plus Add Alternates) with their Bid Proposal. Such Bid Deposit shall be in the form of a certified or cashier's check, an irrevocable letter of credit or a certificate of deposit payable to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, or a bidder's bond executed by a corporate surety, admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in California, payable and acceptable to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea . Such Deposit shall be retained by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as a guarantee that the Bidder, if awarded all or part of the Contract, will within 10 working days from the date the Notice of Award is mailed to the Bidder, execute and return a Contract furnished by the City. No Bid Deposits will be returned to Bidders until either a Contract has been executed for all items awarded, or all bids have been rejected. Bid bonds will not be returned, except upon bidder's written request.
Within ten (10) working days after award of the bid, Contractor must provide a Performance Bond to insure performance under the contract pursuant to Government Code Section 4590, and a Material and Labor Bond.
The successful bidder and his sub-contractors must obtain a City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Business License. Proof of valid Workers' Compensation Insurance and General Liability and Property Insurance, with limits as specified under the Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance Section of this document, shall be submitted to the City.  The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, its elected officials, agents, officers, and employees shall be specifically named, by written endorsement to the Certificate of Insurance, as additionally insured's for this project under such insurance policy and Contractor shall provide the certification of such insurance for the term of this contract. The amount of such insurance shall be as follows: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in aggregate. The Certificate of  Insurance shall guarantee that the issuing company shall provide to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea no less than ten (10) days prior written notice of any cancellation of the Public Liability and Property Damage Policy. All required documents, licenses and permits to include proof of all applicable insurance coverages as required by the State of California or by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall be placed on file with the City Clerk before work shall commence and no later than ten (10) working days after award of the bid.

Dated: 2/25/15
Lee Price, City Clerk
The SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOREST THEATER RENOVATION, ADDENDUM NO. 1 & ADDENDUM NO. 2 and FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 1 & FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 2 documents are embedded.

Forest Theater - Bid Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOREST THEATER RENOVATION
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
March 2015
NOTES: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
Project: Forest Theater Renovation
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
Notice is hereby given that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will receive sealed bids at City Hall, located on the east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues until 10:00 A.M. on Monday, March 30, 2015, at which time bids will be opened for the Forest Theater Renovation project. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the attention of the City Clerk.
This work consists primarily of renovating of an existing facility including; demolition of various components; mitigation of hazardous building materials; site grading; new asphalt access road; new concrete and asphalt pedestrian walkways - incorporating ramps, landings, stairs, handrails, etc.; structural improvements; new light / sound towers; new electrical lighting; restrooms remodeling; masonry; painting; etc.

Addendum No. 1 & No. 2.pdf

ADDENDUM NO. 1 (pages 1-6) & ADDENDUM NO. 2 (pages 7-23)
Forest Theater Renovation

Forest Theater - Bid Set - Volume 1 & Volume 2.pdf

RENOVATION OF FOREST THEATER
FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 1 (pages 1-23) & FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 2 (pages 24-51)

RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case NoM131242, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ABSTRACT:  Attorneys for Respondent 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, CHARLES J. McKEE, County Counsel and LESLIE J. GIRARD, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Monterey, submitted RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM in CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case No. M131242, to SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY.  Arguments include RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, ROLE OF THE CIVIL GRAND JURY, THE GRAND WRY IS ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS, GRAND JURY SECRECY REQUIREMENTS PROTECT THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS, PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS TO THE GRAND JURY WILL NOT RESULT IN DISCLOSURE TO OTHER THIRD PARTIES and A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS NOT NECESSARY. CONCLUSION The plain language and legislative history of Section 925a compels a conclusion that the Grand Jury is entitled to the Records because it has initiated an investigation into matters affecting the City and the Records are relevant to that investigation. In addition, the confidentiality and secrecy obligations imposed on the Grand Jury will maintain the confidentiality and privacy interests of the employees such that any right to privacy will not be infringed. The petition should be denied and, because the end of the Grand Jury's term is approaching, the City should be ordered to comply with the Subpoena forthwith.  And significantly, “The State Interest In Allowing A Grand Jury To Fulfill Its Watchdog Function Outweighs The Privacy Interests Of The Employees In Their Personnel Records Due To The Confidentiality And Secrecy Obligations Of the Jury.” The RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM document is embedded.

Respondent's Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum

RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Petitioner, v. 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent.
Case No. M131242
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent, Case No. M131242: NEW PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HEARING DATE, TIME & LOCATION

NEW PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HEARING DATE, TIME & LOCATION:

Petition Hearing, Wednesday, March 18, 2015 @ 11:00 A.M., Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor, 240 Church St., Salinas, CA.

Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal, Assistant Supervising Judge, Civil Division

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CO., PLAINTIFF, VS. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT et al. DEFENDANT, Case Number CGC-13-528312: Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow’s PHASE ONE TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION & ORDER REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014 ORDER

ABSTRACT:  On March 13, 2015, Curtis E. A. Karnow, Judge of The Superior Court, issued PHASE ONE TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION and ORDER REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014 ORDER, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CO., PLAINTIFF, VS. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT et al. DEFENDANT, Case Number CGC-13-528312.  Regarding PHASE ONE TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION: Conclusion  The Reimbursement Agreement, Settlement Agreement, Project Management Agreement, and WPA are void. The Credit-Line Agreement is not void. This resolves both crosscomplaints. Cal-Am's second cause of action should is pending and plans for its resolution will be the subject of the next case management conference, as will the impact of my reconsideration under the reconsideration order I issued today.

Regarding ORDER REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014 ORDER:
I issued this date my Phase I tentative decision and proposed statement of decision. There, the ruling on the conflict between the statute of limitations provided by the validation statutes and the statute of limitations provided by Government Code § I 092(b) conflicts with my prior ruling, and implicit analysis, on that same issue in my February 25, 2014 Order at 14-15. Accordingly, the parties are notified that I will on my own motion1 reconsider that February 25, 2014 analysis, with the potential effect of changing my ruling granting Marina's motion for summary adjudication of Cal-Am's first cause of action to, instead, denying that motion.
The PHASE ONE TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION ORDER document and the ORDER REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014 ORDER document are embedded. And ORDER DENYING MOTION OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CROSSCOMPLAINT  OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EACH 7 CAUSE OF ACTION IN ITS CROSSCOMPLAINT; AND GRANTING MOTION OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN CAL-AM'S COMPLAINT document is embedded.

Phase One Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision Cgc-13-528312

Filing Date: March 13, 2015
PHASE ONE TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION

Order Regarding Reconsideration of February 25, 2014 Order Cgc-13-528312

Filing Date March 13, 2015
ORDER REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014 ORDER

Order Denying Motion of Mcwd Cgc-13-528312

Filing Date February 25, 2014

ORDER DENYING MOTION OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CROSSCOMPLAINT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EACH 7 CAUSE OF ACTION IN ITS CROSSCOMPLAINT; AND GRANTING MOTION OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN CAL-AM'S COMPLAINT

REFERENCE: 

Judge: Marina Coast Water District on hook for millions in failed desal project

By Jason Hoppin, County Herald

Posted: 03/13/15