Monday, June 11, 2012

Sales Tax Increase, Hotel Fee: ANALYSIS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS

ABSTRACT:  On Tuesday, 12 June 2012, the City Council will consider whether to place a referendum on the November ballot that would increase the sales tax rate from 7.25 percent to 8.25 percent.  Pertinent sections of the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Proposed Budget are reproduced, including KEY ISSUES AFFECTING THE BUDGET, Revenue Stagnation, BUSINESS DATA and FINANCIAL POLICIES.  ANALYSIS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS are presented.

KEY ISSUES AFFECTING THE BUDGET
Developing and maintaining a balanced budget involves a number of trade-offs but often includes a handful of key issues. Three key issues affecting the City’s budget are 1) revenue stagnation, 2) the cost of providing retirement benefits, and 3) ambulance service.

Revenue Stagnation
One key issue for the past three budget cycles was flat or declining revenue. This issue is highlighted in the financial forecast discussed above and described in detail in the March 20, 2012 Five-Year Financial Forecast. The revenue from the City’s three primary revenue sources (property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax) is projected to increase $580,000 from the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget.  However, use of reserves (primarily for one-time capital expenditures), loss of State intergovernmental revenue, and lower interest earnings offset the gains in the primary revenues. As a result, total sources are proposed to be lower in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 than the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 levels.

BUSINESS DATA
Three Largest Revenue Sources:
Revenue Source
(Dollars in Millions)

FY05-06
Actual

FY06-07
Actual

FY07-08
Actual

FY08-09
Actual

FY09-10
Actual

FY10-11
Actual
Property Tax

$3.346

$3.726

$3.867

$4.066

$4.189

$4.158
Transient Occupancy Tax

$3.879

$4.209

$4.395

$3.787

$3.830

$3.879
Sales Tax
$2.169
$2.143
$2.340
$2.181
$1.620
$1.806

FINANCIAL POLICIES
The City recognizes that its primary revenue sources are locally generated, especially TOT and sales tax revenue, and for the most part this revenue is largely generated by non-residents. Efforts to ensure continued reliability in these revenue sources need to be maintained and with additional efforts to develop and diversify other revenue sources as applicable. The City actively practices monitoring, auditing and collecting all locally generated taxes.

SOURCE: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
April 24, 2012

ANALYSIS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS

  • If the City Council votes to place a referendum on the November ballot and if it is approved by a simple majority of voters, a sales tax increase from 7.25% to 8.25% would represent an increase of 13.8%
  • The sales tax – the third largest revenue source after property tax and transient occupancy tax – is already down by 22.8% from three years ago, FY 07-08.
  • With an increase in the sales tax, overall sales could decline, small businesses that are barely holding on now may be forced to close their doors, and importantly, revenue projections will probably not double sales tax income from $1.806 to $4 million per year, as Mayor Jason Burnett told Mary Schley (The Carmel Pine Cone), based on past results of revenue estimates by other government entities.
  • New revenues arguably may be needed, but the best way to increase revenues is to create a favorable business climate to attract business owners with the goal of 100% business occupancy in the downtown commercial district.  With full business occupancy, overall sales will increase and the City will see a healthy growth in city revenues as a result.
  • Question:  Does it make economic and fiscal sense to increase the tax rate of the tax which generates significantly less than the first and second revenue sources and is the only revenue source which has been flat or declined since FY 2005/06?
  • Given that “The City recognizes that its primary revenue sources are locally generated, especially TOT and sales tax revenue, and for the most part this revenue is largely generated by non-residents,” is it fair to place the entire tax increase burden on visitors and tourists in the form of a sales tax increase and a hotel fee? 

Saturday, June 09, 2012

Four Noteworthy 12 June 2012 Special City Council Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Four Noteworthy 12 June 2012 Special City Council Meeting Agenda Items, namely a Resolution declaring the City’s intent to establish the Lodging Hospitality Improvement District, Consideration of approving the Sales Tax Referendum, a Resolution adopting the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Budget and a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Maintenance of Effort requirements related to Proposition 172 funding, are presented.  The SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING PACKET is embedded.


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Special Meeting
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues




II. Roll Call

V. Orders of Council

A. Consideration of a Resolution declaring the City’s intent to establish the Lodging Hospitality Improvement District.

B. Consideration of approving the Sales Tax Referendum.

C. Consideration of a Resolution adopting the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Budget.

D. Consideration of a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Maintenance of Effort requirements related to Proposition 172 funding.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING PACKET, 12 June 2012

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO BAN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS FROM RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

ABSTRACT:  Information pertinent to the City Council’s 5 June 2012 unanimous decision to approve an Ordinance amending the Carmel Municipal Code to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags from retail establishments within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is presented.   The City’s Information packet, including EXHIBIT “A” CMC 8.74 Single-Use Plastic Carryout Bags Draft Ordinance, is embedded, and links to Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances and Elements of a Successful Single-Use Bag Ordinance are provided.  Green Cities California Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags, March 2010 is embedded; Executive Summary, Overview of Findings, is reproduced. SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION MEMORANDUM, dated April 27, 2012, regarding ban of plastic bags at restaurants and other “food facilities” is embedded. The Supreme Court of California's Opinion, SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, Defendant and Appellant and SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION Complaint against COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, dated October 17, 2011, are embedded.  Finally, THE GARBAGE PATCH IN THE OCEANS: THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS by Marzia Sesini, August 2011, is embedded; the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is reproduced.
City Council Staff Report & Ordinance
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO BAN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS FROM RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA OR, IN THE ALTERNATE-DEFER ACTION AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY


Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances, Californians Against Waste



On September 13, 2011, the County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of a single-use bag ordinance. It bans single-use plastic bags and places a 10 cent minimum price requirement on single-use paper bags throughout unincorporated county areas. It is effective March 20, 2012.

The Monterey City Council unanimously passed an ordinance on December 6, 2011. The ordinance bans plastic bags and places an initial 10 cent minimum price requirement on paper bags for the first year (25 cents after).


Green Cities California
March 2010


Executive Summary

Overview of Findings

 Single-Use Plastic Bags: Nearly 20 billion single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic grocery bags are used annually in California; most end up in landfills or as litter. Of the four types of bags considered, plastic bags had the greatest impact on litter.

 Single-Use Paper Bags: Kraft paper bags are recycled at a significantly higher rate than single-use plastic bags. Still, over its lifetime, a single-use paper bag has significantly larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and results in greater atmospheric acidification, water consumption, and ozone production than plastic bags.

 Single-Use Biodegradable Bags: Although biodegradable bags are thought to be an eco-friendly alternative to HDPE plastic bags, they have greater environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG emissions and water consumption than conventional plastic bags. In addition, biodegradable bags may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore, when littered, they will have a similar impact on aesthetics and marine life as HDPE plastic bags.

 Reusable Bags: Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lower environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. Some of the reviewed LCAs indicate that use of the non-woven plastic reusable bag results in particularly large environmental benefits.

 Effects of Policy Options on Single-Use Bags: In other regions of the world, fees and bans on bags have resulted in dramatic drops in consumption. For instance, the Irish plastic bag tax immediately resulted in a greater than 90% reduction in use. Due to California law AB2449, no fee program on plastic bags can be introduced. However, bans on single-use plastic bags, as well as fees on other single-use bags, may be implemented to minimize use.

FROM: Stephen L. Joseph, Counsel
TO: California cities and counties
RE: Restaurant bags
DATE: April 27, 2012

SUMMARY

The California Retail Food Code preempts any local regulation or ban of plastic bags at restaurants and other “food facilities.” Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (“STPB”) will sue every city or county that adopts an ordinance that bans, restricts, limits, or requires a charge for plastic bags at any restaurant or “food facility.”

The City and County of San Francisco and the City of Carpinteria have adopted ordinances banning plastic bags at restaurants. STPB has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Carpinteria to invalidate their restaurant bag bans.

All other cities and counties that have banned plastic bags have exempted restaurants, including Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Marin County, Santa Clara County, the City of Dana Point, the City of Laguna Beach, the City of Long Beach, the City of Ojai, the City of San Jose, and the City of Santa Monica. Santa Cruz County and the City of Manhattan Beach initially banned plastic bags at restaurants, but they have amended their ordinances and now exempt restaurants.

NOTE:  Proposed Carmel-by-the-Sea Ordinance: Restaurants: There have been lawsuits filed over the adoption of plastic bag bans in other California communities. One of the arguments has been that plastic bags are safer to carry hot carryout food from restaurants. For this reason, Monterey and other communities have exempted restaurants from their proposed ordinances. Staff is also proposing to exempt restaurants at this time.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, Defendant and Appellant.

SUMMARY:

The Court considered two questions, namely (1) What are the standing requirements for a corporate entity to challenge a determination on the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR)? (2) Was the city of Manhattan Beach required to prepare an EIR on the effects of an ordinance banning the use of plastic bags by local businesses?  The court ruled that the Plaintiff, a coalition of plastic bag manufactures and distributors, had standing.  And “On the merits, the courts below ruled that the city had to prepare an EIR before implementing a ban on plastic bags. We disagree. Substantial evidence and common sense support the citys determination that its ordinance would have no significant environmental effect. Therefore, a negative declaration was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).1 Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment.”


The Manhattan Beach City council voted in July 2008 to ban plastic bags. The CA Supreme Court overturned a legal challenge to the ordinance in July 2011

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant.
October 17, 2011 

UPDATE:
Santa Cruz County  (Ban on plastic bags, 10 cent price requirement on paper bags in year 1, 25 cents thereafter - Mitigated Negative Declaration): This lawsuit does not discuss CEQA requirements and pertains to the ordinance's banning of plastic bags provided by restaurants. In February 2012, the County agreed to exempt restaurants as part of the settlement terms to prevent implementation delay. Restaurants may be reconsidered for future inclusion.

THE GARBAGE PATCH IN THE OCEANS: THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS
Marzia Sesini
Advisors: Louise Rosen, Professor Nickolas J. Themelis, Professor Marco J. Castaldi
Columbia University
Master of Science in Sustainability Management
Earth Institute
Columbia University
August 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A study was conducted to assess the size and impact of a Garbage Patch in the Oceans. The findings from the study were compiled from a combination of mathematical and physical models estimates and data from expeditions (Table 1).

The primary findings are:
There are potentially five Garbage Patches scattered globally, located in the North and South Pacific Ocean; North and South Atlantic Ocean; and Indian Ocean.
The total amount of plastic garbage estimated is 36,000 ton, unequally dispersed. The data results in 9,064 ton of garbage plastic in the North Atlantic and 20,240 ton in North Pacific.
The model estimation results in 2,590 ton of marine plastic debris in the South Atlantic Ocean, 2,860 ton in the South Pacific Ocean, and 2,185 ton in the Indian Ocean, which are in alignment with the data.

This total quantity of plastic debris in the earth’s oceans amounts to approximately 0.125% of all plastic produces in the US in 2009. However the ecological impacts of the Garbage Patch range from over a million of sea-birds and one hundred of thousand marine mammals killed by ingestions of plastics or entanglement, to economic impacts estimated between US$1000million and US$ 3000 million in beach cleanups (excluding volunteering efforts), tourism losses, and damages to fishing and aquaculture industries.

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Proceeding A1204019 In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates

ABSTRACT:  In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, a compilation of relevant documents, including Prehearing Conference Statements, Motions, Rulings, Protests and Application, with links to documents is presented.  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 is embedded.

Date Filed: April 23, 2012
Status: Active

Commissioner Assigned: Michael R. Peevey on May 11, 2012
ALJ Assigned: Gary Weatherford on May 11, 2012
Filer Requested Category: Ratesetting
Preliminary Category: Ratesetting
Commission Designated Category:
Filed By:
California-American Water Company


Filing Date: July 11, 2012
OPENING BRIEF OF THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY  REGARDING WATER RIGHTS FOR A GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT

DECLARATION OF ROBERT B. HOLDEN IN SUPPORT OF MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY’S OPENING BRIEF REGARDING GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT WATER RIGHTS

Filing Date: July 11, 2012
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY OPENING BRIEF ON LEGAL ISSUES FOR EARLY RESOLUTION

Filing Date: July 11, 2012
OPENING BRIEF OF MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Filing Date: July 11, 2012
OPENING BRIEF OF THE DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES ON PREEMPTION AND WATER RIGHTS ISSUES

Filing Date: July 11, 2012
OPENING BRIEF ON SELECTED LEGAL ISSUES OF SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION

Filing Date: July 11, 2012
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S OPENING BRIEF ON LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION

Filing Date: July 11, 2012
OPENING BRIEF ON VARIOUS LEGAL ISSUES BY CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC WATER

Filing Date: July 11, 2012
OPENING BRIEF OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY ON LEGAL ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Filing Date: July 10, 2012
OPENING BRIEF OF LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY REGARDING GROUNDWATER RIGHTS AND PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

Filing Date: July 10, 2012
OPENING BRIEF ON VARIOUS LEGAL ISSUES OF MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU

Filing Date: July 6, 2012
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION TO MODIFY AND CLARIFY ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING

Filing Date: July 3, 2012
RULE 1.4(a)(4) MOTION OF SURFRIDER FOUNDATION FOR PARTY STATUS

Filing Date: June 29, 2012
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING CONCERNING WORKSHOP AGENDA AND OTHER MATTERS

Filing Date: June 28, 2012

Filing Date: June 22, 2012

Filing Date: June 15, 2012
Filing Date: June 14, 2012

Filing Date: June 4, 2012
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Filing Date: June 4, 2012

Filing Date: June 4, 2012
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Filing Date: June 4, 2012
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF THE DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES

Filing Date: June 4, 2012

Filing Date: June 4, 2012

Filing Date: June 4, 2012
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Filing Date: June 4, 2012
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Filing Date: June 4, 2012

Filing Date: June 1, 2012
Administrative Law Judge's Ruling. Motions for party status are granted. The Marina Coast Water District's 4/30/2012 motion to dismiss Application 12-04-019 is denied. Opening briefs on two legal issues, limited to 25 pages, shall be due by 7/11/2012, and reply briefs, limited to 15 pages, due by 7/25/2012.

Filing Date: June 1, 2012

Filing Date: June 1, 2012

Filing Date: May 31, 2012
STATEMENT BY WATER PLUS

Filing Date: May 25, 2012

Filing Date: May 25, 2012

Filing Date: May 25, 2012

Filing Date: May 25, 2012

Filing Date: May 25, 2012
Gantt Chart Timeline
Cost Analysis

Filing Date: May 24, 2012
PROTEST OF LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTYTO THE  APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U 210 W) FOR APPROVAL  OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION TO RECOVER ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE COSTS IN RATES

Filing Date: May 24, 2012

Filing Date: May 23, 2012

Filing Date: May 22, 2012

Filing Date: May 18, 2012

Filing Date: May 18, 2012

Filing Date: May 14, 2012

Filing Date: May 14, 2012

Filing Date: May 11, 2012

Filing Date: May 11, 2012

Filing Date: May 10, 2012

Filing Date: May 08, 2012

Filing Date: April 30, 2012

Filing Date: April 30, 2012

Filing Date: April 30, 2012

Filing Date: April 23, 2012
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

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Carmel Art Association Presents SOLO SHOWS PEGGY OLSEN “CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPES REVISITED” & WILL BULLAS “THE RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL PUN” AND GROUP SHOW NEW MEMBER SHOW FEATURING BECOM, BULLAS, DOWNS, GAFILL, KREITMAN & PERKINS

Carmel Art Association

"Since 1927, this historic Carmel gallery has been a showcase for the works of some of California's most renowned artists. Continuing that proud tradition today, the CAA features paintings and sculpture by over 120 of the area's most noted professional artists living on the Central Coast."

Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.

W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge

For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.


Thursday, June 7, 2012 – Tuesday, July 3, 2012

SOLO SHOW PEGGY OLSEN “CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPES REVISITED” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):

Painter Peggy Olsen exhibition features some familiar themes with all new work created with a fresh approach and new technique.  View Peggy Olsen’s artist page and three painting images including “Poppy Fields,” “Vineyard of the West” and “Hillside Melody.”  Also view Gallery Showcase: Peggy Olsen May 6 – June 1, 2010 featuring eighteen painting images including Fabulous Foothills, Hills to Thrill, Hillside Melody, Infinite Vista, Hills to Knock Your Socks Off, Tumble Down Hills, Pastel Pastures, Perfectly Pastel, Bright Vista, Hillside Jubilee, Hills for Gazing, Vivacious Vista, Cracker Jack Hills, Hillside Serenade, Hillside Concerto, Hillside Rhapsody, Foothills With Flair and Oasis Celebration.

SOLO SHOW WILL BULLAS “THE RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL PUN” (Center Room):

Artist Will Bullas displays his “unique sense of humor and masterful handling of imagery as visual puns and more.” View twenty-two painting images of Will Bullas “The Return of the Prodigal Pun” June 7 – July 3, 2012 including “The Prodigal Son,” “An American in Paris,” “Dewey, Cheetum & Howe,” “Two Buck Beers,” “Honk Like an Egyptian,” “Sheep in a Bottle,” “The Lion’s Den,” “O Oysters Come and Walk With Us,” “Bite Me,” “Wino,” “Three Sheeps to the Wind,” “Tequila Mockingbird,” "Anjali Mudra," “Duck Blind,” “Fromage et Tois,” “Winehenge,” “Jackson Pollock,” “See No Weevil,” “Sockeye,” “Pidgin English,” “The Bar Owl” and “Bar Hopping.”  View more images from Will Bullas Studio. 

GROUP SHOW NEW MEMBER SHOW (Entry Room):

Artworks by new artist members, including Jeffrey Becom, Mike Bullas, Anne Downs, Erin Lee Gafill, Barbara Kreitman and Howard Perkins are featured. 

100 Story Project - Jeffrey Becom: A World of Color

Erin Gafill, Big Sur Painter

Opening Reception - Saturday, June 9, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.

ADDENDUM:

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Set Hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance amending section 12.16.010 of the Monterey County Code to establish Scenic Road as a one-way highway

ABSTRACT:   Monterey County Staff has recommended that the Board of Supervisors “introduce, waive the reading, and set June 26, 2012 at 10:30 a.m., as the date and time to consider adoption of an ordinance amending section 12.16.010 of the Monterey County Code to establish Scenic Road as a one-way highway from the Carmel-By-the-Sea City limit, located 360 feet west of the intersection with Martin Way, to the intersection with Carmelo Street in the unincorporated area of the County of Monterey and repealing a paragraph of section 12.16.010 that designated a portion of Scenic Road as a one-way highway only on July 4 annually” (File #: ORD 12-015). The Ordinance, Location Map, Proposed One-Way Map and Legislation Details (With Text) are embedded.
Ordinance
Location Map
Proposed One-Way Map
Legislation Details (With Text) 


ADDENDUM:
Videos - Board of Supervisors

Saturday, June 02, 2012

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING: Grants motions for party status, denies a motion to dismiss, requests briefing on select legal issues, and proposes a two-day workshop for July 2012

ABSTRACT:  Gary Weatherford, Administrative Law Judge, issued a ruling yesterday on June 1, 2012. The Summary states: "This ruling grants motions for party status, denies a motion to dismiss, requests briefing on select legal issues, and proposes a two-day workshop for July 2012."  IT IS RULED section is reproduced, the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING is embedded (Monterey Peninsula Water Management District was later included for party status) and a link to a related news article is provided.

IT IS RULED that:

1. The following motions for party status made in 2012 are granted:  Marina Coast Water District (April 30); Coalition of Peninsula Businesses (May 8); County of Monterey (May 10); Monterey County Water Resources Agency (May 10); Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (May 14); Water Plus (May 14); City of Pacific Grove (May 18); Citizens for Public Water (May 18); Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (May 25); Salinas Valley Water Coalition (May 25); and Sierra Club (June 1).

2. The Marina Coast Water District’s April 30, 2012, motion to dismiss Application 12-04-019 is denied.  

3. Opening Briefs on the two legal issues posed on pages 3 and 4 of this ruling shall be limited to 25 pages (exclusive of attachments, if any) and be due by July 11, 2012, and Reply Briefs shall be limited to 15 pages (exclusive of attachments, if any) and be due by July 25, 2012. 

4. Parties need to be prepared at the June 6, 2012 prehearing conference to discuss the workshop proposal, the possible dates of July 19-20 and 26-27 for a workshop and other calendaring issues.

5. This ruling shall also be served upon the Service List in  Application 04-09-019.

Dated June 1, 2012, at San Francisco, California.


                                                                        /s/ GARY WEATHERFORD
Gary Weatherford
Administrative Law Judge


RELATED NEWS ARTICLES: Judge: Proceed with Cal Am new watersupply project application, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 06/01/2012

 RE:
6/6/12
10:00 a.m.
ALJ Weatherford
Comr Peevey
A.12-04-019 (PHC) - 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,
Commission Courtroom, San Francisco

At least a dozen parties now part of project review, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 06/06/2012