BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

FILED
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 01/19/18
04:59 PM

In the Matter of the Application of California- A.12-04-019

American Water Company (U 210 W) for (Filed April 23, 2012)
Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All
Present and Future Costs in Rates.

RESPONSE OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

TO CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S
REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

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

Date: January 19, 2018

 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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)