You are on page 1of 3

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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.12-04-019

(Filed April 23, 2012)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the A

FILED

01/19/18

04:59 PM

RESPONSE OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT TO CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

Date: January 19, 2018

MARK FOGELMAN RUTH STONER MUZZIN FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 834-3800 Facsimile: (415) 834-1044 Email: mfogelman@friedmanspring.com Email: rmuzzin@friedmanspring.com

Attorneys for Marina Coast Water District

Pursuant to Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure 11.1 and 13.9, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) provides its response in opposition to the January 9, 2018 request of California-American Water Company (“Cal-Am”) that the Commission take official notice of a January 2, 2018 letter from Salinas Mayor Joe Gunter, addressed to Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority President, and Pacific Grove Mayor, Bill Kampe. For the reasons stated in the January 17, 2018 response of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the January 19, 2018 response of the City of Marina, i.e., Cal-Am provides no support for its contention that Mayor Gunter’s letter constitutes an official act properly subject to judicial notice under Rule 13.9 and Evidence Code section 452, and the statements in the letter constitute hearsay, MCWD agrees that official notice is not proper. However, even if the Commission were to take judicial notice of the existence of Mayor Gunter’s letter and his opinions as expressed therein, it would be improper to receive his letter for the truth of any matters asserted. Judicial notice is “a substitute for proof,” as the Supreme Court has held. (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.) But judicial notice of acts or public records generally may not extend to the truth of matters stated therein, “since in many instances what is being noticed, and thereby established, is no more than the existence of such acts and not, without supporting evidence, what might factually be associated with or flow therefrom.” (Id. at 1063–1064, emphasis added; see also StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.) No materials, official or otherwise – including reports which the letter states were recently provided to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors – of which the Commission might also take notice were provided to substantiate the facts and opinions asserted in the letter. Therefore, it would be contrary to the Commission’s Rules and the Evidence Code to receive Mayor Gunter’s letter for the truth of any matters stated therein, even if the Commission were to take official notice of the letter, which it should not do. To the extent the letter indicates the existence of disputed facts regarding the potential for expansion of the Pure Water Monterey project, those disputed facts would appear to be within the focused scope of topics proposed to be heard during the course of further hearings that have

1

been requested for April, 2018, as set forth in the January 9, 2018 motion of the Planning and

Conservation League and other parties, if that motion is granted

DATED: January 19, 2018

Respectfully submitted, FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP

By:

_/s/ Mark Fogelman Mark Fogelman Ruth Stoner Muzzin Attorneys for MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

2