Governance Committee for the MPWSP Cancellation Notice 11-14-13
.pdf
CANCELLATION NOTICE
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT November 14, 2013
Friday, November 08, 2013
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING FORTH QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
ABSTRACT: Re: 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, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING FORTH QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS document is embedded. IT IS RULED that:
1. In order to ensure that the hearings are as efficient as possible, California American Water Company shall file and serve the following information as compliance filings no later than November 19, 2013:
a. Describe the customer service area that will be served by the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) and the rationale for this service area for this Project.
b. Provide actual monthly customer usage and production data from 2007 through 2012 for the customer service area to be served by the proposed project. The data shall include calculations of peak hourly demand and maximum monthly demand.
c. Provide the calculation of and reconcile and justify the difference in demand calculation for the MPWSP with its projection of demand in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the Monterey District, dated September 7, 2012.
d. Provide itemized cost estimates for capital and operation and maintenance expenses for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project as currently proposed. Categorize the expenses into three aspects of the Project: desalination, aquifer storage and recovery, and “Cal-Am Only” Facilities. Each category shall list each component and its associated number of units, unit cost, and total cost. The desalination category shall be separated into the three desalination plant options: 6.4 million gallons per day (mgd), 6.9 mgd, and 9.6 mgd.
e. Provide a table showing the anticipated financing approach for each proposed plant size, the impact of financing on the cost per acre-foot of each proposed plant size and financing approach, the associated rate base, revenue requirements, and anticipated bill impacts. Cal-Am shall also provide a net present value comparison of the various financing approaches, assuming that the time frame is the life of the plant and using cost of funds as the discount rate.
2. Parties who wish to file and serve an objection to the official notice of Cal-Am’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for its Monterey District, dated September 7, 2012 shall do so no later than November 15, 2013.
3. Witnesses shall be available to respond to the questions outlined above at the evidentiary hearings scheduled for December 2 and 3, 2013 on the proposed Settlement Agreements
4. I anticipate that responding to my questions can be done in one day. However, because my questions may engender questions from other parties, I have provided for an additional day of hearing time. These hearings are narrow and will only address the proposed Settlement Agreements, pursuant to Rule 12.3.
5. Parties have an obligation to understand and comply with the Commission’s laws, rules, and procedures. Ex parte contacts are subject to several restrictions in proceedings that are categorized as ratesetting, as is this matter. Pub. Util. Code § 1701.2 and Rules 8.1, 8.2, 8.3(c) and 8.4 address the ex parte requirements in ratesetting matters. Parties must comply with these requirements. Prospective violations of the ex parte rules may be considered a violation of Rule 1 and may lead to sanctions.
6. To the extent that parties use the updated service list in this proceeding to confer by e-mail, decision-makers at the Commission (defined in Rules 8.1(b) and 8.2) must be removed from the email address list. The Public Advisor can assist parties with questions in this matter.
Note: Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division – Monterey County District document is embedded.
1. In order to ensure that the hearings are as efficient as possible, California American Water Company shall file and serve the following information as compliance filings no later than November 19, 2013:
a. Describe the customer service area that will be served by the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) and the rationale for this service area for this Project.
b. Provide actual monthly customer usage and production data from 2007 through 2012 for the customer service area to be served by the proposed project. The data shall include calculations of peak hourly demand and maximum monthly demand.
c. Provide the calculation of and reconcile and justify the difference in demand calculation for the MPWSP with its projection of demand in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the Monterey District, dated September 7, 2012.
d. Provide itemized cost estimates for capital and operation and maintenance expenses for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project as currently proposed. Categorize the expenses into three aspects of the Project: desalination, aquifer storage and recovery, and “Cal-Am Only” Facilities. Each category shall list each component and its associated number of units, unit cost, and total cost. The desalination category shall be separated into the three desalination plant options: 6.4 million gallons per day (mgd), 6.9 mgd, and 9.6 mgd.
e. Provide a table showing the anticipated financing approach for each proposed plant size, the impact of financing on the cost per acre-foot of each proposed plant size and financing approach, the associated rate base, revenue requirements, and anticipated bill impacts. Cal-Am shall also provide a net present value comparison of the various financing approaches, assuming that the time frame is the life of the plant and using cost of funds as the discount rate.
2. Parties who wish to file and serve an objection to the official notice of Cal-Am’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for its Monterey District, dated September 7, 2012 shall do so no later than November 15, 2013.
3. Witnesses shall be available to respond to the questions outlined above at the evidentiary hearings scheduled for December 2 and 3, 2013 on the proposed Settlement Agreements
4. I anticipate that responding to my questions can be done in one day. However, because my questions may engender questions from other parties, I have provided for an additional day of hearing time. These hearings are narrow and will only address the proposed Settlement Agreements, pursuant to Rule 12.3.
5. Parties have an obligation to understand and comply with the Commission’s laws, rules, and procedures. Ex parte contacts are subject to several restrictions in proceedings that are categorized as ratesetting, as is this matter. Pub. Util. Code § 1701.2 and Rules 8.1, 8.2, 8.3(c) and 8.4 address the ex parte requirements in ratesetting matters. Parties must comply with these requirements. Prospective violations of the ex parte rules may be considered a violation of Rule 1 and may lead to sanctions.
6. To the extent that parties use the updated service list in this proceeding to confer by e-mail, decision-makers at the Commission (defined in Rules 8.1(b) and 8.2) must be removed from the email address list. The Public Advisor can assist parties with questions in this matter.
Note: Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division – Monterey County District document is embedded.
ALJ'S RULING SETTING FORTH QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE
HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.pdf
Filing Date 11-04-13
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING FORTH QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING FORTH QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
2010 UWMP Monterey District Final.pdf
Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division – Monterey County District
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Carmel Art Association Presents SUSAN GIACOMETTI SOLO SHOW ‘HAWAII REMEMBERED,’ GERALD MARTIN & MELISSA LOFTON TWO-PERSON SHOW ‘PEOPLE’ AND ALICE GELLER-ROBERTSON & PAMELA TAKIGAWA GALLERY SHOWCASE
Carmel Art Association Mission Statement:
The Association exists to provide its members with a permanent art gallery, to advance knowledge of, and interest in the arts, and to create a spirit of cooperation and fellowship among artists and the community.
The Association exists to provide its members with a permanent art gallery, to advance knowledge of, and interest in the arts, and to create a spirit of cooperation and fellowship among artists and the community.
A Proud Heritage:
The legendary Carmel Art Association was formed on August 8, 1927 by a small group of artists who gathered at “Gray Gables,” the modest home/studio of Josephine Culbertson and Ida Johnson at the corner of Seventh and Lincoln in Carmel-by-the-Sea. These nineteen “pioneers”—who grew up in the 19th century and individually found their respective paths to Carmel from all corners of the world—each desired a greater sense of community, a spirit of collaboration, and a place to show their work. Before the meeting concluded, they had established an association with a mission “to advance art and cooperation among artists, secure a permanent exhibition space, and promote greater fellowship between artists and the public.”
W/s
Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily
Open to the Public at No Charge
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily
Open to the Public at No Charge
Thursday, November 7 – Tuesday, December 3, 2013
SOLO SHOW SUSAN GIACOMETTI: “HAWAII REMEMBERED”
Susan Giacometti
exhibits prints and paintings recalling the disappearing customs, culture,
clothing, food and landscape of the Hawaiian Islands, the artist’s former
residence for eighteen years. View one
mixed media image, “The Cannery Row Series – The Row.”
TWO-PERSON SHOW: GERALD MARTIN & MELISSA LOFTON “ PEOPLE”
Gerard Martin and Melissa Lofton
present
individual approaches to color, composition and human life through explorations
of the figure.
View nineteen oil painting images created by Gerard
Martin including “Back Stretch,” “Dynamic Harvest,” “Harvest In Green,” “Old
World,” “Down Time,” “Tidal Walk,” “Bathers,” “Carmel Afternoon,” “Long
Shadows,” “Folding Boxes,” “High Humidity,” “Yellow Light,” “Stretches,” “Rest
Time,” “Old Brushes,” “Long Shadows And Vineyard,” “Tamagni Farm,” “Backs
Bending” and “3 Boats.”
Alice
Geller-Robertson exhibits painting and
prints o light-hearted animal portraits.
View fifteen painting images including “Fly By,” “Time is Passing,” “Masquerade,”
“Waiting,” “Pork Pride,” “Dreaming,” “Ridgeback,” “Flight,” “Squirrelly,”
“Pensive,” “Best Friend,” “Walk on the Beach,” “Ball Dog,” “Happy” and “Blue
Jay.”
Pamela Takigawa
exhibits monotypes and mixed media of birds and skyscapes. View twenty painting images, including “Sky Over the Valley,” “Sunset,” “Back Bay,” “Squall,” “Studio View,” “Sycamore Solitude,” “Cottonwoods,” “White-breasted Nuthatch,” “Chestnut-backed Chickadee,” “Titmouse,” “Junco,” “Abiquiu,” “Carmel Valley,” “Descent,” “Middle Canyon,” “North Wind,” “Evening,” “The Acorn,” “Miller Falls” and “Brace Me.”
ADDENDUM:
Carmel Art Association on facebookFriday, November 01, 2013
COMMENTARY LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE: The City’s Scapegoat
In “Burnett explains what went wrong with city’s PRA policy,’ By JASON BURNETT, Mayor, Carmel-by-the-Sea (The Carmel Pine Cone, November 1, 2013, 27A & 23A), Mayor Jason Burnett explained, as follows:
ON OCT. 10, the Carmel City Council reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure consistent with the law and the rights of our employees,” so it was disappointing to learn that a mere five days later the city’s outside law firm withheld information from The Carmel Pine Cone that should have been made public. I am sorry that this has happened and we are taking corrective action. That law firm will no longer do Public Records Act business for Carmel and we have taken other steps to ensure the policy direction of the City Council is properly implemented.
In mid-September the city received a request from the Carmel Pine Cone for certain recent emails. All emails that might have been responsive were forwarded to our outside law firm. We had the expectation they would redact (black out) any information we are not permitted to share (such as home addresses, medical information, social security numbers and the like) or that would do other serious harm to the public process. The law firm was to provide an explanation for any redacted information, and the remaining information was to be made public as soon as possible.
That was the last I thought about the issue until we received an email from Paul Miller early last week saying they had not received the information they had expected. We immediately reached out to City Attorney Don Freeman since the interpretation of the Public Records Act is a legal matter and Freeman is charged with managing and advising on all legal matters for the city. Unfortunately he was on travel so we could not meet before The Carmel Pine Cone went to press last week.
In summary, after editor Paul Miller filed a lawsuit against the City on October 8, 2013 for denial of Community Planning & Building Director Rob Mullane’s resume, the City Council met in closed session two days later on October 10, 2013 and settled the case to Paul Miller’s satisfaction and reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure consistent with the law and the rights of our employees.” Five days later, on October 15, 2013, Paul Miller received a letter from the City’s legal firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore stating that a public records act request for emails between Carmel Residents Association President Barbara Livingston, City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Mayor Jason Burnett was denied. Attorney Heather R. Coffman stated the people who wrote and received the emails had a “privacy right” that outweighed the public’s right to see them. “Please note that personal identifying information contained in response to the PRA requests has been redacted in order to protect the privacy interests at issue. For example, correspondence of members of the public detailing their concerns as citizens have been redacted because the public interest in disclosure of this correspondence is clearly outweighed by the interest in nondisclosure to avoid a chilling effect on the public.” Coffman cited “several legal decisions” to support the redactions of approximately 75 emails dated between early July and the end of September.
Mayor Jason Burnett makes the assertion that the City is “taking corrective action.” “That law firm will no longer do Public Records Act business for Carmel and we have taken other steps to ensure the policy direction of the City Council is properly implemented.” However, the act of terminating Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s contract for public records act requests, essentially blaming the City’s own choice of legal firm to fulfill public records act requests over numerous months, is not wholly credible because every letter received from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore in response to a public records act request submitted to the City included the paragraph “This firm represents the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City) and provides the following responses to your requests for information pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA). These responses are sent on the authority of the City Clerk, Heidi Burch;” with a copy to Administrative Services Director Susan Paul or City Administrator Jason Stilwell.
In conclusion, City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Administrative Services Director Susan Paul were sent copies of every City’s response letter to entities making public record act requests by attorney Heather R. Coffman, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, and could have intervened and made certain that “the city’s policy and practice that the Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure consistent with the law and the rights of our employees” was being implemented. Ergo, either City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Administrator Susan Paul are incompetent city employees or City Administrator Jason Stilwell and/or Administrative Services Director Susan Paul advised attorney Heather R. Coffman to construe broadly against public disclosure.
ON OCT. 10, the Carmel City Council reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure consistent with the law and the rights of our employees,” so it was disappointing to learn that a mere five days later the city’s outside law firm withheld information from The Carmel Pine Cone that should have been made public. I am sorry that this has happened and we are taking corrective action. That law firm will no longer do Public Records Act business for Carmel and we have taken other steps to ensure the policy direction of the City Council is properly implemented.
In mid-September the city received a request from the Carmel Pine Cone for certain recent emails. All emails that might have been responsive were forwarded to our outside law firm. We had the expectation they would redact (black out) any information we are not permitted to share (such as home addresses, medical information, social security numbers and the like) or that would do other serious harm to the public process. The law firm was to provide an explanation for any redacted information, and the remaining information was to be made public as soon as possible.
That was the last I thought about the issue until we received an email from Paul Miller early last week saying they had not received the information they had expected. We immediately reached out to City Attorney Don Freeman since the interpretation of the Public Records Act is a legal matter and Freeman is charged with managing and advising on all legal matters for the city. Unfortunately he was on travel so we could not meet before The Carmel Pine Cone went to press last week.
In summary, after editor Paul Miller filed a lawsuit against the City on October 8, 2013 for denial of Community Planning & Building Director Rob Mullane’s resume, the City Council met in closed session two days later on October 10, 2013 and settled the case to Paul Miller’s satisfaction and reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure consistent with the law and the rights of our employees.” Five days later, on October 15, 2013, Paul Miller received a letter from the City’s legal firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore stating that a public records act request for emails between Carmel Residents Association President Barbara Livingston, City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Mayor Jason Burnett was denied. Attorney Heather R. Coffman stated the people who wrote and received the emails had a “privacy right” that outweighed the public’s right to see them. “Please note that personal identifying information contained in response to the PRA requests has been redacted in order to protect the privacy interests at issue. For example, correspondence of members of the public detailing their concerns as citizens have been redacted because the public interest in disclosure of this correspondence is clearly outweighed by the interest in nondisclosure to avoid a chilling effect on the public.” Coffman cited “several legal decisions” to support the redactions of approximately 75 emails dated between early July and the end of September.
Mayor Jason Burnett makes the assertion that the City is “taking corrective action.” “That law firm will no longer do Public Records Act business for Carmel and we have taken other steps to ensure the policy direction of the City Council is properly implemented.” However, the act of terminating Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s contract for public records act requests, essentially blaming the City’s own choice of legal firm to fulfill public records act requests over numerous months, is not wholly credible because every letter received from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore in response to a public records act request submitted to the City included the paragraph “This firm represents the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City) and provides the following responses to your requests for information pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA). These responses are sent on the authority of the City Clerk, Heidi Burch;” with a copy to Administrative Services Director Susan Paul or City Administrator Jason Stilwell.
In conclusion, City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Administrative Services Director Susan Paul were sent copies of every City’s response letter to entities making public record act requests by attorney Heather R. Coffman, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, and could have intervened and made certain that “the city’s policy and practice that the Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure consistent with the law and the rights of our employees” was being implemented. Ergo, either City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Administrator Susan Paul are incompetent city employees or City Administrator Jason Stilwell and/or Administrative Services Director Susan Paul advised attorney Heather R. Coffman to construe broadly against public disclosure.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES November 4, 2013
TAC MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
11-04-13.pdf
AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
November 4, 2013
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
November 4, 2013
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
November 4, 2013
TAC MPRWA MINUTES 11-04-13.pdf
DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
November 4, 2013
Six Noteworthy 5 November 2013 City Council Agenda Items
ABSTRACT: Six Noteworthy 5 November 2013 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session, Announcements from City Administrator, Receive Public Records and Media Request Log, Receive 1st Quarter Financial Report, Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Design Study Application (DS 13-33) for the replacement of an existing wood shingle roof with composition shingles on a residence located on Dolores Street 4 parcels southeast of 1Oth Avenue, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (The application is being appealed by the property owner, David Goldenson) and Consideration of a Resolution adopting the City Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2017 Information Technology Strategic Plan, are presented. Supporting materials are embedded.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKETRegular Meeting
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
4:30 p.m., Open Session
II. Roll Call
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code Section§ 54957.6 (a).
Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell to give direction regarding terms and conditions of employment for all represented and unrepresented employees.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8
Property strategy negotiations regarding the Lease of Flanders Mansion (APN 010-061- 005)
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code§ 54956.9(a)
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea vs. County of Monterey, Superior Court of the State of California Case No. M125153
D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957 (b) 1.
Title: City Attorney
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
1. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District presentation
2. Summary Report from Monday's Workshop
3. Agenda Forecast
4. Conde Nast readers choice award
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
F. Receive Public Records and Media Request Log.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Design Study Application (DS 13-33) for the replacement of an existing wood shingle roof with composition shingles on a residence located on Dolores Street 4 parcels southeast of 10th Avenue, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application is being appealed by the property owner, David Goldenson.
E. Consideration of a Resolution adopting the City Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2017 Information Technology Strategic Plan.
Resolution Adopting the City Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2017 Information Technology Strategic Plan 11-2013.pdf
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKETRegular Meeting
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
4:30 p.m., Open Session
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
Pursuant to Government Code Section§ 54957.6 (a).
Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell to give direction regarding terms and conditions of employment for all represented and unrepresented employees.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8
Property strategy negotiations regarding the Lease of Flanders Mansion (APN 010-061- 005)
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code§ 54956.9(a)
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea vs. County of Monterey, Superior Court of the State of California Case No. M125153
D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957 (b) 1.
Title: City Attorney
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
1. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District presentation
2. Summary Report from Monday's Workshop
3. Agenda Forecast
4. Conde Nast readers choice award
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
F. Receive Public Records and Media Request Log.
Public Records and Media Request Log 11-2013.pdf
VIII. Orders of Council
A. Receive 1st Quarter Financial Report.
A. Receive 1st Quarter Financial Report.
City Qrtrly Report Q1 2013-14.pdf
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to Deny
Goldenson11-2013.pdf
Resolution Adopting the City Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2017 Information Technology Strategic Plan 11-2013.pdf
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL: Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop November 4, 2013
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Tour, Closed Session and
Public Workshop
Monday, November 4, 2013-4:00 p.m.,
with workshop to follow at 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Tour, Closed Session and
Public Workshop
Monday, November 4, 2013-4:00 p.m.,
with workshop to follow at 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop
Monday, November 4, 2013
Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop
Monday, November 4, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)