CITY COUNCIL: AGENDA & MINUTES March 2011

AMENDED AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us

Broadcast date
Sunday, March 6, 2011
8:00 a.m., MCAET Channel 26

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Hearing assistance units are available to the public for meetings
held in the Council Chambers

The City Council welcomes your interest and participation. If you want to speak on an agenda item during its review, you may do so when the Mayor opens the item for public comment. Persons are not required to give their names but it is helpful in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Please keep remarks to a maximum of three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded on tape.

I. Call to Order

II. Roll Call
Council Member Jason Burnett will be participating via telephone (831-238-0009) from the following location: Doubletree by Hilton-Akron/Fairlawn,
3150 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44333

III. Pledge of Allegiance

IV. Extraordinary Business

A. None

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

B. Announcements from City Council members (Council members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or report on his or her activities).

C. Announcements from City Administrator.
1. Receive Quarterly Marketing Update from Jeff Burghardt.

2. Receive SCC report.

3. Presentation from AMBAG on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

4. Receive update on the ASBS project.

VI. Public Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting.

Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City
Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable
to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the City Clerk. If you need assistance, please advise Heidi Burch as to which item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.

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.

A. Ratify the minutes for the regular meeting of February 1, 2011.

B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of February 2011.

C. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant of $5,000 from the Col.
Dorothea Terry Layne Charitable Gift Fund for the beautification and
maintenance of Carmel Beach.

D. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the destruction of certain records in accordance with §34090 et seq. of the Government Code.

E. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula
Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue
between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662.

VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

A. Consideration of the following two appeals filed by Old Mill Properties,
LLC.:
1) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit,
multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SE of Seventh
Avenue on San Carlos Street.
2) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit,
multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SW of Seventh
Avenue on Mission Street.

IX. Ordinances

A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to
allow for the keeping of chicken hens on properties in the R-1 District
in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (First reading)

X. Resolutions

A. Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Fiscal Year
2010-11 General Fund budget.

B. Receive Subcommittee report on time and resources required for grant
submission and then consideration of a Resolution approving the submission of an application for grant funds in an amount not to exceed
$150,000 from the California Department of Transportation’s (CalTrans)
Community-Based Transportation Planning grant program.

XI. Orders of Council

A. Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy.

B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding a recycling grant in an amount up to $8,300 to the Hilton Bialek Habitat project.

C. Scheduling Future City Council meetings – Please Bring Your Calendar

XII. Adjournment

The next meeting of the City Council will be:
Special City Council Budget Workshop – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Council Chambers

Regular Council Meeting – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Council Chambers

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall, on the east side of Monte Verde Street, between Ocean and 7th Avenues, during normal business hours.

MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 1, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, was held on the above date at the stated hour of 4:35 p.m. Mayor McCloud called the meeting to order.

II. ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Council Members Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, Mayor McCloud
(Council Member Burnett participated in the meeting via phone conference from Akron, Ohio)

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager
Paul Tomasi, Sergeant-at-Arms

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Members of the audience joined the Mayor and Council Members in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mayor McCloud announced that Item VII-A (the two Old Mill appeals) and Item XI-A (Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy) would be continued.

IV. EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

A. None.

V. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION, FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

There was no Closed Session.

B. Announcements from City Council members.

Mayor McCloud announced that a benefit premiere screening of “Carmel-by-the-Sea” (formerly called “Carmel The Movie”) will take place at the Sunset Center Theater on Saturday, March 19.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Receive Quarterly Marketing Update from Jeff Burghardt.

Jeff Burghardt gave the report.

2. Receive SCC report.

Jim Price, chairman of the SCC Board, introduced several board members and new managing director Christine Sandin, who gave an overall business plan presentation. She was followed by Jeff Burghardt, who gave a presentation on the emerging group and wedding business at Sunset Center.

3. Presentation from AMBAG on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Charlie Buck, Special Projects Associate, gave the presentation.

4. Receive update on the ASBS project.

Bob Jaques gave the report.

VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:30 p.m.

Niels Reimers spoke about the Carmel Inn for Seniors.

Rosalie Bryant-Trambly asked if Agenda Item X-B (Cal Trans grant) could be moved to an earlier portion of the meeting.

Nina Beety, Marilyn Garrett, Glen Chase, Debby Lenz, Edna Williams, Lynn
Weiman, Dante Rondo, and Larry Parrish spoke in opposition to the installation of PG&E SmartMeters. There also were two unidentified speakers who addressed this issue.

Kristi Downing invited the public to the Carmel Residents’ Association Citizen of the Year Award reception on March 27 at the Carmel Woman’s Club. Greg D’Ambrosio is this year’s award recipient.

Mark Bayne, Save Our Neighborhoods Coalition, and Edna Williams spoke about the Villas de Carmelo (Carmel Convalescent Hospital) project.

Constance Dudley Laub, a Lincoln Avenue resident, spoke about neighborhood/tenant problems she has encountered and about SmartMeters.

Dick Stiles, speaking as a board member of the Carmel Residents Association, spoke about selection of a City Administrator and an Interim Administrator.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:07 p.m.

VII. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Ratify the minutes for the regular meeting of February 1, 2011.

B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of February 2011.

C. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant of $5,000 from the Col. Dorothea Terry Layne Charitable Gift Fund for the beautification and maintenance of Carmel Beach.

D. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the destruction of certain records in accordance with §34090 et seq. of the Government Code.

E. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662.

Council Member SHARP moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-E, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consideration of the following two appeals filed by Old Mill Properties, LLC.:

1) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit,
multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SE of Seventh
Avenue on San Carlos Street.

2) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit,
multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SW of Seventh Avenue on Mission Street.

This item was continued to the April 5, 2011 meeting.

X. RESOLUTIONS

A. Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 General Fund budget.

This item was moved up to accommodate the schedule of City Treasurer Dewey Evans.

City Treasurer Dewey Evans presented the staff report.

By Council consensus, this item was deferred to allow staff to answer some questions and clarify issues raised by Council.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 6:35 p.m.

Monte Miller and Greg D’Ambrosio spoke to the issue.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:37 p.m.

IX. ORDINANCES

A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of chicken hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (First reading)

Planning Services Manager Sean Conroy presented the staff report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 6:49 p.m.

Anna Yeatman, Barbara Livingston and Carla Ramsay spoke to the issue.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:56 p.m.

Council Member SHARP moved to approve the first reading of the Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of chicken hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, with the following three amendments: cages will not be visible from public streets; slaughtering of chickens will not be permitted within City limits; and the keeping of chickens shall not create a public nuisance, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD*
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

*Mayor McCloud requested it to be reflected in the record that her “No” vote was based on permitting chickens in front yards.

X. RESOLUTIONS

A. Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 General Fund budget.

This item was heard earlier in the meeting.

B. Receive Subcommittee report on time and resources required for grant submission and then consideration of a Resolution approving the submission of an application for grant funds in an amount not to exceed $150,000 from the California Department of Transportation’s (CalTrans) Community-Based Transportation Planning grant program. Planning Services Manager Sean Conroy presented the staff report.

Council Member Burnett continued the presentation.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 7:14 p.m.

Jay Marden, Principal of River School, Alexandra Fallon, Stacey Maheen, Alan Lehman, Nicole Stevens, Greg D’Ambrosio, Paul Hart, Monta Potter, Chief Executive Officer of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce, and an unidentified parent spoke to the issue.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 7:30 p.m.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve a Resolution approving the submission of an application for grant funds in an amount not to exceed $150,000 from the California Department of Transportation’s (CalTrans) Community-Based Transportation Planning grant program, with understanding that if the staff work load gets too high, Council will re-examine its work plan priorities, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL

A. Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy.

This item was continued to the April 5, 2011 meeting.

B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding a recycling grant in an amount up to $8,300 to the Hilton Bialek Habitat project.

Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch presented the staff report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 8:05 p.m.

Greg D’Ambrosio spoke to the issue.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 8:12 p.m.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to award a recycling grant in an amount up to $8,300 to the Hilton Bialek Habitat project, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

C. Scheduling Future City Council meetings – Please Bring Your Calendar

XII. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McCloud declared the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, ATTEST:

_____________________________ _____________________________
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk MAYOR SUE McCLOUD

CITY COUNCIL: Check Register March 2011

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Check Register
March 2011
Check No.--Check Date--Vendor Name--Amount--Exp Amt--Description
122031 3/8/2011 9-1-1 FOR KIDS $ 23.03 01 72055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 23.03

121983 3/2/2011 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 64017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
121983 3/2/2011 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 69017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
121983 3/2/2011 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 72017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
121983 3/2/2011 AFLAC $ 35.00 01 74017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
121983 3/2/2011 AFLAC $ 5.00 01 76017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
121983 3/2/2011 AFLAC $ 25.00 01 84017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122150 3/29/2011 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 64017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122150 3/29/2011 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 69017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122150 3/29/2011 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 72017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122150 3/29/2011 AFLAC $ 35.00 01 74017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122150 3/29/2011 AFLAC $ 5.00 01 76017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122150 3/29/2011 AFLAC $ 25.00 01 84017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
Vendor Total -----> $ 190.00

121984 3/2/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 60.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
121984 3/2/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 40.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
121984 3/2/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 44.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
121984 3/2/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 55.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122061 3/15/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 60.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122061 3/15/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 40.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122061 3/15/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 50.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122107 3/22/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 50.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122107 3/22/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 65.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122107 3/22/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 44.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122107 3/22/2011 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 80.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 588.00

122151 3/29/2011 AIR EXCHANGE, INC. $ 2 25.00 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 225.00

122062 3/15/2011 ALHAMBRA $ 40.15 01 64053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 40.15
122108 3/22/2011 ANDON LAUNDRY SERVICE $ 2 25.75 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 225.75

122032 3/8/2011 APPRIVER $ 2 ,127.60 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,127.60

122063 3/15/2011 AURUM CONS. ENG MTRY BAY $ 3 32.50 01 89432 PD/YTH CTR GENERATOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 32.50

121985 3/2/2011 BAYSTAR EXPRESS/MARNI $ 6 75.48 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 6 75.48

122033 3/8/2011 BERLINER,KIDDER & TISH $ 1 0,620.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 0,620.00

122034 3/8/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $ 38.04 01 72603 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 38.04

121986 3/2/2011 BRINTON'S $ 18.50 01 78057 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
121986 3/2/2011 BRINTON'S $ 6.81 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
121986 3/2/2011 BRINTON'S $ 45.28 01 78054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT
121986 3/2/2011 BRINTON'S $ 13.62 01 76047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
122152 3/29/2011 BRINTON'S $ 92.51 01 76054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT
122152 3/29/2011 BRINTON'S $ 17.51 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122152 3/29/2011 BRINTON'S $ 17.30 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122152 3/29/2011 BRINTON'S $ 17.51 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122152 3/29/2011 BRINTON'S $ 8.97 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122152 3/29/2011 BRINTON'S $ (0.39) 01 78054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT
122152 3/29/2011 BRINTON'S $ 18.75 01 78054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 56.37

122035 3/8/2011 BROADWAY LOCKSMITH $ 1 20.98 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122035 3/8/2011 BROADWAY LOCKSMITH $ 1 ,030.23 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,151.21

122153 3/29/2011 BROWNSTEIN/HYATT/FARBER/SCHRECK $ 6 ,849.60 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122153 3/29/2011 BROWNSTEIN/HYATT/FARBER/SCHRECK $ 1 ,479.30 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122153 3/29/2011 BROWNSTEIN/HYATT/FARBER/SCHRECK $ 8 05.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 9 ,133.90

122109 3/22/2011 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 3 ,058.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
122109 3/22/2011 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 1 ,724.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
122109 3/22/2011 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 3 ,400.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
122109 3/22/2011 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 3 15.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
122109 3/22/2011 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 3 ,224.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
122109 3/22/2011 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 5 30.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 2,251.00

122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 4 24.07 01 64026 UTILITIES
122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 4 77.51 60 81026 UTILITIES
122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 2 ,843.16 01 70026 UTILITIES
122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 1 47.94 01 72026 UTILITIES
122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 1 ,418.32 01 76026 UTILITIES
122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 1 02.69 01 74026 UTILITIES
122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 1 76.67 01 84026 UTILITIES
122110 3/22/2011 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 74.78 60 81026 UTILITIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 ,665.14

122154 3/29/2011 MICHAEL B. CALHOUN $ 20.79 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ 20.79

121987 3/2/2011 CALTRONICS BUSINESS SYSTMES INC $ 40.34 01 69053 0001 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122111 3/22/2011 CALTRONICS BUSINESS SYSTMES INC $ 32.30 01 69053 0001 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 72.64

121988 3/2/2011 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 1 24.95 01 69040 ADVERTISING
121988 3/2/2011 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 89.55 01 69040 ADVERTISING
122036 3/8/2011 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 60.00 01 64040 ADVERTISING
122036 3/8/2011 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 60.00 01 64040 ADVERTISING
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 34.50

122112 3/22/2011 CARMEL RGN'L FIRE AMBULNC $ 5 0,000.00 01 72202 REGIONAL AMBULANCE SUBSIDY
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 0,000.00

122037 3/8/2011 CARMEL CHAMBER COMMERCE $ 8 ,000.00 01 85301 ECON REVITALIZATON PROGRAMS
Vendor Total -----> $ 8 ,000.00

121989 3/2/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
121989 3/2/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
121989 3/2/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 67.38 01 69051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 50.00 01 69051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 50.00 01 69051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 00.00 01 69051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122064 3/15/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 94.44 01 69051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122113 3/22/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
122113 3/22/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
122113 3/22/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 75.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
122113 3/22/2011 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1 50.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,186.82

122065 3/15/2011 CARMEL TOWING & GARAGE $ 22.45 01 76046 FUEL
122065 3/15/2011 CARMEL TOWING & GARAGE $ 45.00 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122065 3/15/2011 CARMEL TOWING & GARAGE $ 24.13 01 76046 FUEL
Vendor Total -----> $ 91.58

122066 3/15/2011 CASNER EXTERMINATING INC. $ 1 ,800.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,800.00

122038 3/8/2011 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICE CORP $ 3 ,710.02 01 88578 CATERPILLAR LOADER
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 ,710.02

122067 3/15/2011 CDW-G GOVERNMENT INC. $ 4 15.67 01 65043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122114 3/22/2011 CDW-G GOVERNMENT INC. $ 1 69.24 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 84.91

122068 3/15/2011 CEMEX $ 1 54.15 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 54.15

122115 3/22/2011 CERTIFION CORP $ 25.50 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 25.50

122039 3/8/2011 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 5 ,354.21 01 72011 OVERTIME
122039 3/8/2011 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 1 3,500.00 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122069 3/15/2011 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 3 ,307.51 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122116 3/22/2011 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 9 12.04 01 72011 OVERTIME
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 3,073.76

122117 3/22/2011 CITY OF GONZALES $ 30.00 01 64030 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ 30.00

122155 3/29/2011 CLIFFTECH $ 6 13.11 01 72603 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 6 13.11

122040 3/8/2011 CNH CAPITOL $ 2 ,387.10 01 76041 RENT/LEASE EQUIPMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,387.10

122041 3/8/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 3 78.00 01 84017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122041 3/8/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 5 90.00 01 72017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122041 3/8/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 13.60 01 70017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122041 3/8/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 2 ,293.05 01 74017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122041 3/8/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 6 72.40 01 76017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122041 3/8/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 90.40 01 69017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122041 3/8/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 44.00 01 64017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122070 3/15/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 90.00 01 74017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122070 3/15/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 00.00 01 84017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122070 3/15/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 44.00 01 76017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122070 3/15/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 95.00 01 60017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 40.70 01 60017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 29.10 01 64017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 19.40 01 65017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 19.40 01 67017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 48.50 01 69017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 19.40 01 70017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 26.10 01 72017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 84.30 01 74017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 77.60 01 76017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 19.40 01 78017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 97.00 01 84017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 7 91.20 01 76017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 3 16.00 01 74017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 44.00 01 69017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122118 3/22/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 70.00 01 60017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122156 3/29/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 2 59.97 01 70017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122156 3/29/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 7 41.60 01 76017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
122156 3/29/2011 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 1 85.00 01 72017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
Vendor Total -----> $ 8 ,099.12

122119 3/22/2011 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE $ 40.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 40.00

121990 3/2/2011 COMCAST $ 14.31 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122071 3/15/2011 COMCAST $ 3.18 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122157 3/29/2011 COMCAST $ 14.31 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122157 3/29/2011 COMCAST $ 1 22.67 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 54.47

121991 3/2/2011 SEAN CONROY $ 16.23 01 64030 0213 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ 16.23

121992 3/2/2011 CONTE'S GENERATOR SERVICE $ 2 32.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 32.00

121993 3/2/2011 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS $ 1 10.15 01 76057 0002 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 10.15

121994 3/2/2011 COPIES BY-THE-SEA $ 1 18.79 01 69039 0001 PRINTING
122042 3/8/2011 COPIES BY-THE-SEA $ 1 20.57 01 64039 PRINTING
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 39.36

122120 3/22/2011 COPWARE INC. $ 5 89.49 01 74034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIOINS
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 89.49

121995 3/2/2011 CORBIN WILLITS SYSTEM $ 7 20.79 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 7 20.79

122072 3/15/2011 CSAC EXCESS INS AUTHORITY $ 8 ,178.00 01 67425 0002 LIABILITY INS & RISK MGT
122072 3/15/2011 CSAC EXCESS INS AUTHORITY $ 2 ,164.60 01 67425 0002 LIABILITY INS & RISK MGT
122158 3/29/2011 CSAC EXCESS INS AUTHORITY $ 5 22.00 01 67425 0002 LIABILITY INS & RISK MGT
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 0,864.60

122073 3/15/2011 CSI HUMAN RESOURCES GROUP LLC $ 2 ,775.00 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122073 3/15/2011 CSI HUMAN RESOURCES GROUP LLC $ 1 ,200.00 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 ,975.00

122074 3/15/2011 CYPRESS COAST FORD L/M $ 2 95.50 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122074 3/15/2011 CYPRESS COAST FORD L/M $ 7 35.62 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,031.12

121996 3/2/2011 DADIW ASSOCIATES $ 5 ,000.00 01 64053 0011 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122159 3/29/2011 DADIW ASSOCIATES $ 5 ,000.00 01 64053 0011 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 0,000.00

122043 3/8/2011 DARRELL RINERSON $ 1 00.00 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 00.00

122075 3/15/2011 DAVE'S REPAIR SERVICE $ 80.00 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122160 3/29/2011 DAVE'S REPAIR SERVICE $ 80.00 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 60.00

122161 3/29/2011 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE $ 20.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 20.00

122121 3/22/2011 DIGITAL PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP $ 1 50.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 50.00

122076 3/15/2011 DROUGHT RESISTANT NURSERY $ 1 82.75 01 78045 0001 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122076 3/15/2011 DROUGHT RESISTANT NURSERY $ 26.88 01 78045 0002 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 09.63

122122 3/22/2011 RYAN RANCH PRINTERS $ 58.46 01 74039 PRINTING
Vendor Total -----> $ 58.46

122162 3/29/2011 ED SANTACRUZ JANITORIAL SERVICE $ 1 ,800.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,800.00

122044 3/8/2011 ELECTRICAL DIST. COMPANY $ 6 38.23 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122044 3/8/2011 ELECTRICAL DIST. COMPANY $ 68.79 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122044 3/8/2011 ELECTRICAL DIST. COMPANY $ 1 94.80 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 9 01.82

122077 3/15/2011 ELLIOTT DIAMOND INC $ 1 69.00 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 69.00

121997 3/2/2011 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT $ 2 53.29 01 84022 UNEMPLOYMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 53.29

121998 3/2/2011 DDEVANS CONSULTING $ 2 00.00 01 67023 PART-TIME ASSISTANCE
122078 3/15/2011 DDEVANS CONSULTING $ 2 ,000.00 01 67023 PART-TIME ASSISTANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,200.00

122123 3/22/2011 EVIDENT $ 3 14.00 01 74054 EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 14.00

121999 3/2/2011 FEDEX $ 22.71 01 64038 POSTAGE
121999 3/2/2011 FEDEX $ 34.12 01 74038 POSTAGE
Vendor Total -----> $ 56.83

122000 3/2/2011 FIRST ALARM-MONTEREY CO. $ 1 86.84 01 64053 0007 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122124 3/22/2011 FIRST ALARM-MONTEREY CO. $ 2 26.50 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 4 13.34

122079 3/15/2011 GATES TREE SERVICE, INC. $ 1 ,227.00 01 78050 0002 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,227.00

122001 3/2/2011 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 3 36.07 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122080 3/15/2011 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 2 41.55 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122125 3/22/2011 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 1 59.91 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 7 37.53

122126 3/22/2011 GRANICUS, INC. $ 5 21.90 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 21.90

122002 3/2/2011 GREEN RUBBER KENNEDY AG $ 1 62.40 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 62.40

122081 3/15/2011 GREEN VALLEY LANDSCAPE INC. $ 1 ,216.39 01 78053 0005 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,216.39

122003 3/2/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 3 00.00 01 78053 0003 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122003 3/2/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 3 25.00 01 78053 0004 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122003 3/2/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 4 15.00 01 78053 0006 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122003 3/2/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 7 50.00 01 78053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122163 3/29/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 3 00.00 01 78050 0003 OUTSIDE LABOR
122163 3/29/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 3 25.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
122163 3/29/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 4 15.00 01 78050 0006 OUTSIDE LABOR
122163 3/29/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 7 50.00 01 78050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122163 3/29/2011 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 34.22 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 ,614.22

122127 3/22/2011 GUY CUCCIA DRAPERIES $ 2 88.00 01 72095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 88.00

122164 3/29/2011 HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC. $ 1 30.66 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 30.66

122045 3/8/2011 HILTON BIALEK BIO SCI PRJ $ 8 ,300.00 50 24050 0805 RECYCLING GRANTS-WASTE MGT
Vendor Total -----> $ 8 ,300.00

122046 3/8/2011 HOME DEPOT/GECF $ 3 19.56 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122046 3/8/2011 HOME DEPOT/GECF $ 2 31.80 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122046 3/8/2011 HOME DEPOT/GECF $ (319.56) 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122046 3/8/2011 HOME DEPOT/GECF $ (231.80) 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122082 3/15/2011 HOME DEPOT/GECF $ 87.76 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122082 3/15/2011 HOME DEPOT/GECF $ 2 31.80 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 19.56

122004 3/2/2011 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 31.66 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122047 3/8/2011 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 4 36.71 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122165 3/29/2011 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 30.17 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122165 3/29/2011 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 3 78.08 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 8 76.62

122005 3/2/2011 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 6 ,200.00 01 78050 0002 OUTSIDE LABOR
122128 3/22/2011 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 1 ,000.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 7 ,200.00

122166 3/29/2011 J.E.I. $ 4 75.00 01 74049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 4 75.00

122048 3/8/2011 ROBERT S. JAQUES $ 6 ,675.00 01 76055 STORM WATER RUNOFF PROG EXP
Vendor Total -----> $ 6 ,675.00

122006 3/2/2011 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 3 25.00 01 78050 0002 OUTSIDE LABOR
122006 3/2/2011 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 4 00.00 01 78050 0003 OUTSIDE LABOR
122006 3/2/2011 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 6 07.50 01 78050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122083 3/15/2011 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 5 40.00 01 78050 0002 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,872.50

122084 3/15/2011 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO, INC $ 79.97 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 79.97

122129 3/22/2011 KENNEDY, ARCHER & HARRAY $ 3 ,198.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122167 3/29/2011 KENNEDY, ARCHER & HARRAY $ 8 ,801.50 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122167 3/29/2011 KENNEDY, ARCHER & HARRAY $ 3 ,039.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 5,038.50

122085 3/15/2011 KNAPP HARDWARE, INC. $ 35.86 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122085 3/15/2011 KNAPP HARDWARE, INC. $ 1.09 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122085 3/15/2011 KNAPP HARDWARE, INC. $ 53.11 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 90.06

122130 3/22/2011 KUSTOM KOMMUNICATION $ 2 58.56 01 74037 RADIO EXPENSE
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 58.56

122131 3/22/2011 LEXIPOL LLC $ 2 ,000.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,000.00

122132 3/22/2011 RACHELLE D. LIGHTFOOT $ 20.00 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 20.00

122049 3/8/2011 LIU OF NA $ 2 05.92 01 65016 RETIREMENT
122049 3/8/2011 LIU OF NA $ 8 23.68 01 69016 RETIREMENT
122049 3/8/2011 LIU OF NA $ 2 05.92 01 70016 RETIREMENT
122049 3/8/2011 LIU OF NA $ 1 ,647.36 01 76016 RETIREMENT
122049 3/8/2011 LIU OF NA $ 2 05.92 01 78016 RETIREMENT
122049 3/8/2011 LIU OF NA $ 1 ,841.80 01 21285 LIUNA SUPPL EE RETIREMENT
122049 3/8/2011 LIU OF NA $ 1 ,160.28 01 84016 RETIREMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 6 ,090.88

122050 3/8/2011 L.N. CURTIS & SONS $ 33.09 01 72602 FIRE EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 33.09

122007 3/2/2011 M.J.MURPHY $ 1 19.08 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 19.08

122086 3/15/2011 MARTECH INC $ 2 85.00 01 65051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122086 3/15/2011 MARTECH INC $ 95.00 01 65051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 80.00

122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 28.80 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 28.80 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 26.33 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 26.87 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 9.36 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 9.36 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 8.56 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 8.73 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 73.04 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 73.04 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 66.78 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
122087 3/15/2011 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 68.14 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
Vendor Total -----> $ 4 27.81

122051 3/8/2011 MONTEREY FIRE EXT. CO. $ 3 42.03 01 72049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122088 3/15/2011 MONTEREY FIRE EXT. CO. $ 78.00 01 64049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122133 3/22/2011 MONTEREY FIRE EXT. CO. $ 78.00 01 72049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122133 3/22/2011 MONTEREY FIRE EXT. CO. $ 7 14.79 01 72049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,212.82

122168 3/29/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY HERALD $ 1 ,092.64 01 89584 0001 FY 09-10 STREET & RD PROJECTS
122168 3/29/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY HERALD $ 1 ,116.12 01 89584 0001 FY 09-10 STREET & RD PROJECTS
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,208.76

122052 3/8/2011 MONTEREY CNTY ANIMAL SERV $ 9 60.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 9 60.00

122089 3/15/2011 MONTEREY TIRE SERVICE $ 4 58.89 01 76048 TIRES/TUBES
Vendor Total -----> $ 4 58.89

122169 3/29/2011 COUNTY OF MTRY SHERIFF-CORONER $ 3 21.03 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 21.03

122170 3/29/2011 MTY COUNTY TELECOMM $ 1 50.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 50.00

122171 3/29/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY $ 1 ,250.00 50 24050 0533 SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATION
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,250.00

122008 3/2/2011 MONTEREY CO MAYOR'S ASSOC $ 1 ,100.00 01 60033 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,100.00

122134 3/22/2011 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 1 48.75 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
122134 3/22/2011 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 5 62.81 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
122134 3/22/2011 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 85.00 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
122134 3/22/2011 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 85.00 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
122134 3/22/2011 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 85.00 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
122134 3/22/2011 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 2 33.75 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
122134 3/22/2011 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 4 03.75 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,604.06

122009 3/2/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 18.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
122009 3/2/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 18.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
122009 3/2/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 18.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
122090 3/15/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 21.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
122135 3/22/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 21.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
122135 3/22/2011 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 18.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 14.00

122053 3/8/2011 NANCY'S MID VLY FLORIST $ 87.68 01 60207 COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY
Vendor Total -----> $ 87.68

122010 3/2/2011 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP. $ 1 50.00 01 62053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122091 3/15/2011 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP. $ 1 ,934.00 01 62051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122091 3/15/2011 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP. $ 4 ,142.50 01 62051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122091 3/15/2011 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP. $ 4 ,104.00 01 62051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122091 3/15/2011 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP. $ 8 10.00 01 62051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 1,140.50

122011 3/2/2011 NEW IMAGE LANDSCAPE CO. $ 2 ,937.50 01 78053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122136 3/22/2011 NEW IMAGE LANDSCAPE CO. $ 2 ,937.50 01 78053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 ,875.00

122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 90.27 01 72036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ (14.76) 01 64036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 58.53 01 65036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 1 17.94 01 69036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 58.50 01 70036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 4 54.47 01 74036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 1 22.05 01 76036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 29.25 01 78036 TELEPHONE
122054 3/8/2011 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 29.25 01 82036 TELEPHONE
Vendor Total -----> $ 9 45.50

122012 3/2/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 16.06 01 69043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122012 3/2/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 83.79 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122012 3/2/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 80.00 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122012 3/2/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 6.06 01 82043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122055 3/8/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 4 15.03 01 74043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122092 3/15/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 12.14 01 70044 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
122092 3/15/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 88.09 01 69043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122137 3/22/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 27.11 01 69042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
122137 3/22/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 6 43.22 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122137 3/22/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 51.45 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122137 3/22/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 45.47 01 74043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122137 3/22/2011 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 10.41 01 74043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,478.83

122093 3/15/2011 ORCHARD SUPPLY $ 1 84.74 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 84.74

122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 5 58.87 01 64026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 51.95 01 70026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 8 29.05 01 72026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 2 ,992.57 01 74026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 1 ,320.26 01 76026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 1 79.21 01 78026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 4 75.36 01 82026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 2 47.79 01 81026 UTILITIES
122056 3/8/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 1 ,882.54 01 84026 UTILITIES
122094 3/15/2011 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 1 61.47 01 76026 UTILITIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 8 ,699.07

122138 3/22/2011 PACIFIC INTERLCK PAVNGSTN $ 3 ,418.86 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 ,418.86

122013 3/2/2011 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPLY $ 58.84 01 69042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 58.84

122095 3/15/2011 PAULY DESIGNS $ 9 68.75 50 24050 2410 HILL/132N4/010159014000
Vendor Total -----> $ 9 68.75

122014 3/2/2011 PENINSULA COMMUNICATIONS $ 7 53.39 01 72037 RADIO EXPENSE
122139 3/22/2011 PENINSULA COMMUNICATIONS $ 2 70.72 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122139 3/22/2011 PENINSULA COMMUNICATIONS $ 46.74 01 74031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,070.85

122057 3/8/2011 PENINSULA MESSENGER SERVICE $ 4 ,983.00 01 64204 MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT
Vendor Total -----> $ 4 ,983.00

122140 3/22/2011 PENINSUL HYDRONICS INC. $ 1 34.18 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 34.18

122172 3/29/2011 PETTY CASH $ 8.65 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122172 3/29/2011 PETTY CASH $ 12.99 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122172 3/29/2011 PETTY CASH $ 0.78 01 74038 POSTAGE
122172 3/29/2011 PETTY CASH $ 21.22 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 43.64

122015 3/2/2011 PETTY CASH - RECREATION $ 43.55 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 43.55

122141 3/22/2011 PITNEY BOWES $ 6 70.11 01 88818 POSTAGE METER
Vendor Total -----> $ 6 70.11

122142 3/22/2011 PROFESSIONAL PROP MAINT $ 7 ,259.23 01 70053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 7 ,259.23

122096 3/15/2011 PSTS, INC. $ 5 00.00 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 00.00

122016 3/2/2011 PUBLIC STORAGE INC $ 3 53.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122173 3/29/2011 PUBLIC STORAGE INC $ 3 53.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 7 06.00

122143 3/22/2011 R&S ERECTION OF MONTEREY BAY $ 3 50.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 50.00

122144 3/22/2011 RANCHO CAR WASH $ 53.84 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 53.84

122145 3/22/2011 RANA CREEK HABITAT RESTOR $ 4 70.89 01 78045 0001 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 4 70.89

122097 3/15/2011 RAPID PRINTERS OF MTY. $ 1 ,667.05 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,667.05

122098 3/15/2011 RICHARD PETTY ELECTRIC $ 2 55.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 55.00

122099 3/15/2011 JAN ROEHL $ 4 ,368.75 01 64051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 4 ,368.75

122017 3/2/2011 ROTO-ROOTER $ 95.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
122146 3/22/2011 ROTO-ROOTER $ 1 30.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 25.00

122174 3/29/2011 SAME DAY SHRED $ 30.00 01 67051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 30.00

122100 3/15/2011 SANTA LUCIA ENGINEERING $ 3 ,198.91 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 3 ,198.91

122175 3/29/2011 SANDPIPER FRAMING COMPANY $ 1 47.22 01 64095 OPERATIONAL SERVICE/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 47.22

122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 7 00.98 01 64036 TELEPHONE
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 6 41.91 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 5 30.96 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 2 03.87 01 69036 TELEPHONE
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 3 39.66 01 72036 TELEPHONE
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 5 88.32 01 74036 TELEPHONE
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 1 36.96 01 76036 TELEPHONE
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 15.94 01 82036 TELEPHONE
122018 3/2/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 15.94 60 81036 TELEPHONE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 7 46.01 01 64036 TELEPHONE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 6 41.91 01 65043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 5 30.96 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 2 13.43 01 69036 TELEPHONE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 3 52.32 01 72036 TELEPHONE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 5 31.30 01 74036 TELEPHONE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 1 33.64 01 76036 TELEPHONE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 15.28 01 82036 TELEPHONE
122058 3/8/2011 AT&T/MCI $ 15.28 60 81036 TELEPHONE
Vendor Total -----> $ 6 ,354.67

122019 3/2/2011 KENT SEAVEY $ 1 ,000.00 50 24050 DUNBAR/115 20/010158011
122059 3/8/2011 KENT SEAVEY $ 5 00.00 50 24050 1298 SZABADOS/134N17/010175008000
122147 3/22/2011 KENT SEAVEY $ 5 00.00 50 24050 1300 SZABADOS/134N17/010175008000
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,000.00

122101 3/15/2011 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. $ 1 18.57 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 18.57

122176 3/29/2011 SIGNWORKS INC $ 1 70.00 01 78050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 70.00

122020 3/2/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 82.04 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 58.19 01 76047 0001 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 87.50 01 76047 0001 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 11.36 01 76047 0001 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 2 07.97 01 76047 0001 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 0.39 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 82.04 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 0.39 01 76047 0001 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
122102 3/15/2011 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ (0.39) 01 76047 0001 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 29.49

122177 3/29/2011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA $ 2 ,800.67 01 89595 0003 * Account Description Not Found *
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,800.67

122021 3/2/2011 STERICYCLE $ 70.50 01 67051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122103 3/15/2011 STERICYCLE $ 50.00 01 67051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 20.50

122022 3/2/2011 SUPERIOR PRESS $ 1 89.44 01 67043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 89.44

122023 3/2/2011 TEREX UTILITIES WEST $ 1 2,509.15 01 76049 0003 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 2,509.15

122060 3/8/2011 THE LIGHTHOUSE $ 21.81 01 72047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
Vendor Total -----> $ 21.81

122024 3/2/2011 T-MOBILE $ 1 53.25 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122178 3/29/2011 T-MOBILE $ 1 31.81 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 85.06

122025 3/2/2011 TOPE'S TREE SERVICE $ 4 75.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
122104 3/15/2011 TOPE'S TREE SERVICE $ 3 00.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
122179 3/29/2011 TOPE'S TREE SERVICE $ 4 ,500.00 01 78050 0002 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 ,275.00

122026 3/2/2011 TOTAL FILTRTN SPECIALISTS, INC. $ 1 ,658.61 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,658.61

122027 3/2/2011 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT $ 1 ,805.00 01 67424 W/C SELF-FUNDED RUN-OUT CLAIMS
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 ,805.00

122105 3/15/2011 TRITON CONSTRUCTION $ 2 ,462.50 01 89432 PD/YTH CTR GENERATOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 2 ,462.50

122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 1 26.93 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 16.51 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 2 71.80 01 67034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 23.47 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 76.65 01 60207 COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 9 39.23 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 49.15 01 76046 FUEL
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 67.86 01 72054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 37.49 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 1 08.74 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 65.63 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 63.87 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 1 26.95 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 30.20 01 78095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 91.50 01 72054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 38.42 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 7 89.78 01 69034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 5 00.00 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 18.88 01 60095 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES/SERVICES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 1 58.12 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 42.53 01 72095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 13.39 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 1 00.00 01 69033 0002 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 28.00 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 30.05 01 67428 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 44.76 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ 60.74 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (126.93) 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (16.51) 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (271.80) 01 67034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (23.47) 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (76.65) 01 60207 COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (939.23) 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (49.15) 01 76046 FUEL
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (67.86) 01 72054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (37.49) 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (108.74) 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (65.63) 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (63.87) 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (126.95) 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (30.20) 01 78095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (91.50) 01 72054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (38.42) 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (789.78) 01 69034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (500.00) 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (18.88) 01 60095 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES/SERVICES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (158.12) 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (42.53) 01 72095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (13.39) 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (100.00) 01 69033 0002 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (28.00) 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (30.05) 01 67428 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (44.76) 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122028 3/2/2011 US BANK $ (60.74) 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 1 26.93 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 1 50.57 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ (1,388.72) 01 72054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 2 71.80 01 67034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 49.15 01 76046 FUEL
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 23.47 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 76.65 01 60207 COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 9 39.23 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 42.53 01 72095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 1 08.74 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 30.20 01 78095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 65.63 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 63.87 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 1 26.95 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 1 59.36 01 72054 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 7 89.78 01 69034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 60.74 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 18.88 01 60095 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES/SERVICES
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 1 58.12 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 4.90 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 1 00.00 01 69033 0002 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 28.00 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 30.05 01 67428 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION
122030 3/3/2011 US BANK $ 5 00.00 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 35.11 01 76046 FUEL
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 44.43 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 28.24 01 67428 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 4 26.66 01 72095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 39.92 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 1 20.00 01 72047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 30.15 01 74038 POSTAGE
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 1 26.95 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 33.07 01 78095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 28.78 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 90.00 01 64030 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 49.99 01 72037 RADIO EXPENSE
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 82.81 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 60.53 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 1 18.66 01 76046 FUEL
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 4 91.91 01 64030 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 1 ,441.89 50 24050 0477 DONATIONS - FIRE DEPT.
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 5.41 01 74039 PRINTING
122180 3/29/2011 US BANK $ 9 78.21 01 74036 TELEPHONE
Vendor Total -----> $ 6 ,769.55

122029 3/2/2011 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN EQUIP $ 73.73 01 76047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
122181 3/29/2011 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN EQUIP $ 65.20 01 76057 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
122181 3/29/2011 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN EQUIP $ 2.00 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 40.93

122148 3/22/2011 VAPOR CLEANERS INC $ 23.75 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 23.75

122106 3/15/2011 VASILOVICH RESIDENTIAL PLNG & DESIGN $ 5 31.25 50 24050 2410 HILL/132N4/010159014000
Vendor Total -----> $ 5 31.25

122149 3/22/2011 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 45.01 01 69053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122149 3/22/2011 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 3.70 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122149 3/22/2011 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 38.01 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122149 3/22/2011 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 22.34 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
122149 3/22/2011 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 54.06 01 64036 TELEPHONE
122149 3/22/2011 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 34.87 01 60036 TELEPHONE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1 97.99

122182 3/29/2011 JEFFERY D. WATKINS $ 20.40 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 20.40

200 Checks Grand Total -> $ 350,060.37

CITY COUNCIL: Budget Report February 2011

Budget Report February 2011
Budget Report February 2011

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Accepting Grant of $5,000 from Colonel Dorethea Terry Layne Fund for Beautirication & Maintenance of Carmel Beach

Meeting Date: March 1, 2011
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant of $5,000 from the Colonel Dorothea Terry Layne Fund for the beautification and maintenance of Carmel Beach.

Description: The City received a $5,000 grant from Colonel Dorothea Terry Layne through the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. The purpose of the grant is to support and expand existing programs for the beautification and maintenance of Carmel Beach.

The City previously has received five grants from Colonel Dorothea Terry Layne through her charitable funds, most recently a $1,000 grant in April 2010. All of these grants were designated for the beautification and maintenance of Carmel Beach. The monies will be held in deposit account 50-24050-0633 until it is used for Carmel Beach expenditures.

Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $5,000

Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution accepting the grant of $5,000 from the Colonel Dorothea Terry Layne Fund and direct staff to use the monies for beautification and maintenance of Carmel Beach.

Important Considerations: City Policy C91-01 states that the City Council has the final responsibility for the distribution and allocation of all grant appropriations.

Decision Record: Resolution 2010-30 dated April 6, 2010, accepting a $1,000 grant; Resolution 2008-81 dated December 2, 2008, accepting a $2,500 grant; Resolution 2008-1 dated January 8, 2008, accepting a $2,000 grant; Resolution 2007-14 dated March 13, 2007, accepting a $2,000 grant; and Resolution 2007-56 dated September 11, 2007, accepting a $3,000 grant from the Col. Dorothea Terry Layne Fund.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF $5,000 FROM THE COLONEL DOROTHEA TERRY LAYNE FUND FOR BEAUTIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CARMEL BEACH

WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea received a grant of $5,000 from Colonel Dorothea Terry Layne Fund through the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund; and

WHEREAS, the grant is to be used to support and expand existing programs for the beautification and maintenance of Carmel Beach.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Accept with gratitude the grant of $5,000 from Colonel Dorothea Terry Layne through the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund for deposit to Account 50-24050-0633.

2. Authorize staff to use the monies to support and expand existing programs for the beautification and maintenance of Carmel Beach.

3. Direct the Mayor to send a letter of thanks to Colonel Dorothea Terry Layne for her ongoing and generous support.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 1st day of March 2011, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Destruction of Certain Records

Meeting Date: March 1, 2011
Prepared by: Heidi Burch, City Clerk

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the destruction of certain records in accordance with §34090 et seq. of the Government Code.

Description: The City has adopted the City Clerks’ Association of California Local Government Records Retention Guidelines as its records management program. Departments have identified records that are eligible for destruction and are listed in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: Between $450 - $500

Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution and authorize staff to proceed with the destruction of records.

Important Considerations: Destruction of the records will free up needed document storage space and will aid in streamlining research for documents. The City Attorney has reviewed the list of documents and has authorized their destruction.

Decision Record: The Council has previously approved Resolutions No. 2000-31, 2006-17, 2007-66, 2008-77, 2009-12, and 2010-39 authorizing destruction of documents.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH §34090 et seq. OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE

WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an ongoing program for the destruction of records in accordance with §34090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, the Government Code states that unless otherwise provided by law, records that are two years old may be destroyed upon consent of the legislative body; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain documents are no longer of value to the organization of the City; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been budgeted for this program in Fiscal Year 2010/2011.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Authorize, in accordance with §34090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and with the permission of the City Attorney, the destruction of those records described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA THIS 1st day of March, 2011 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED:

_______________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

Records to Be Destroyed
Name Date
Abalone Club 1990-2007
Admin. Dept Contracts 1988-94
Alcoholic Beverage sales 1977-2003
Alliance on Aging 2001-2002
Ambulance 1997-2001
American Legion Noise 2002
American Red Cross storage 2000
Animal Services contract 2000
Appeal-Cypress Inn 1999
Appeal-Dallas Trust 2000-2001
Appeals-Design Review Board 2002-2003
Appeals (Planning Dept) 1987-2002
Art stores/galleries 1993-2005
Asset Management Plan 1982-2000
AT&T Donation letters 1999-2004
Golman Ball Water Credit letters 2000
Banners 1996
Beach Bluff bids 2000
Beach Management Plan 1975-1985
Beach Master Plan 1976-2003
Beach Parking 1987
Beach Washdown contract 1999
Benches 1987-1995
Bingham Estate 1974
Big Sur Coast 1979-1986
Big Sur Marathon letters 2001-2004
Bike Routes-San Antonio 1982-1997
Bikeways Plan 1997-1999
Block 45 Development 1992
Budget Cuts/Redistricting 2001-2004
Budget Comments 2004
Budget Information 2004
Building Heights 1981
Building Codes 1980-1999
Cal-Am water allocations 1976-2005
Carmel Area LUP 1981-82, 1986
Carmel River Clearing Project 1997
Coastal Commission LUP 2002-2003
Calif. State Divided Highways 1978-1979
Camino del Norte Intersection bid 2000-2001
Carillon Bell Tower 1981
Carmel Area Wastewater 2002
Carmel Arts Festival 1995-2003
Carmel Beach Bluff bid 2003
Carmel Beach Stairway grant 2001
Carmel Business Association 1986-2004
22
Carmel Celebrates Community 1996-2003
Carmel Disposal Service 1997
Carmel Fine Arts 5k/Walk 1996-1999
Carmel Foundation Rezoning 1998
Carmel Foundation Insurance 1984-2004
Carmel Garden Club 1996-2004
Carmel Gate Closure 1985
Carmel Garden Club 1996-2007
Carmel Heritage 1988-2004
Carmel Preservation Foundation 1995-1996
CPLF 1991-2007
Carmel Plaza 2001
Carmel River Lagoon 1982
Carmel River Beach-Sphere of I 1983-1987
Carmel Unified School District 1979-2003
South Carmel Annexation 1973
Carmel Sanitary District 1934-1993
Carmel Taxi 1993
Carmel Valley Master Plan 1980-1986
Carmel Woods Annexation 1982
Carmel Youth Center insurance 1999-2000
Carpenter Street improvements 1991-1997
Carport (PD) replacement 2000
Certificates of Residency 1998-2000
Chimney's condo 1980-1985
City Attorney 1982-91
City Clerk 1977-1984
City Hall Wiring bids 2002
Clock shops 2004-2005
Code Enforcement 1984-1996
Clothing stores 1999
Coastal Overlay District 1998
Coalition to Stop the Spray 2008
Coates Study-Future Forest 2007

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Awarding Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for Street Improvement Project on Junipero Av. between Ocean Av. & 8th Av.

CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 1, 2011

TO: The Honorable Mayor McCloud & Council Members

FROM: Heidi Burch, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Agenda Item VII-E – Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662.

The material for:

Item VII-E – Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662 will be provided under separate cover.

Thank you,

Heidi Burch
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Appeals of Planning Commission's Decisions to Deny Two Two-Unit, Milti-Family Residential Projects

Meeting Date: 1 March 2011
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of the following two appeals filed by Old Mill Properties, LLC.:
1. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SE of Seventh Avenue on San Carlos.
2. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SW of Seventh Avenue on Mission Street.

Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the two multi-family projects in the RC District.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeals.

Important Considerations: During the hearings several concerns were raised by the Commission about the projects. However, the primary point of debate centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of the lots for both projects.

Decision Record: On 12 January 2011 both projects received a split 2-2 vote and were denied due to a lack of a motion for approval.

Attachments:
• Attachment “A” Appellant Letters
• Attachment “B” Data Tables
• Attachment “C” Planning Commission Hearing Summary
• Attachment “D” Police Parking Evaluation
• Attachment “E” General Plan Policies
• Attachment “F” Commercial Design Guidelines
• Attachment “G” Correspondence

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 1 MARCH 2011
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING TWO APPEALS FILED BY OLD MILL PROPERTIES, LLC.:
1. AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A TWO-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR A SITE LOCATED 3 SE OF SEVENTH AVENUE ON SAN CARLOS.
2. AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A TWO-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR A SITE LOCATED 3 SW OF SEVENTH AVENUE ON MISSION STREET.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to develop two adjacent lots, each with a multi-family (twounit) residence. Both properties are located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. One of the lots is located on San Carlos Street three southeast of Seventh Avenue and the other lot is located on Mission Street three southwest of Seventh Avenue. Both lots were previously developed with residences that have since been condemned and demolished.

The applicant is appealing the denial of both projects by the Planning Commission. This staff report addresses both projects but notes that the Council will need to make two separate motions to address the projects individually.

DR 10-24 San Carlos Street Project: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,200 square foot Spanish style structure. The project includes a 2,371 square feet main residence, a 412 square foot apartment and a 417 square foot garage. The apartment is located on the lower level and has a separate entry as well as a kitchen and full bathroom. The project includes three parking spaces as required by code (see attachment “B” for more information).

The structure is clad with stucco siding, a clay tile roof and includes unclad wood windows. The front elevation presents an entry element, a balcony and single wood garage door. The garage door is located 22.5 feet from the street and is recessed behind the front carport. No variances are being proposed.

DR 10-25 Mission Street Project: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,600 square foot structure. The project includes a 2,756 square foot main residence with a 410 square foot apartment. The apartment is located on the lower level and has a separate entry as well as a kitchen and full bathroom. The project includes three parking spaces as required by code (see attachment “B” for more information).

The proposed structure consists of a low pitched gable and hip roof design with wood rafter tails. The entire residence is clad with a stone veneer and includes wood doors and windows and a slate roof. The front façade presents an entry element and a two-car garage and carport to the street. No variances are being proposed.

Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed these projects at four separate hearings (see attachment “C” for a hearing summary). Due to a conflict of interest, one commissioner was required to step down during the review process. On 12 January 2011 both projects received a split 2-2 vote and were denied due to a lack of a motion for approval.

Since there was no majority vote to approve or deny the projcts, there are no formal Planning Commission findings that accompany these appeals. During the hearings several concerns were raised by the Commission including mass and scale, architectural design, landscaping and safety (see attachment “C”). However, the primary point of debate centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of the lots for both projects.

BASIS FOR APPEAL
The property owner is appealing the project denials for the following reasons (see attachment “A” for more information):

• The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Code and Commercial Design Guidelines.

• The determination that parking should be at the rear of the property is unfounded and cannot be tied to the Zoning Code or Design Guidelines.

• Parking in the back is an impractical notion that is too costly and would result in a financially disastrous project.

EVALUATION
This section of the staff report discusses the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Design Guidelines that should be used by the City Council in its deliberation.

General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for this site is Commercial/Residential. Page 1-15 of the General Plan states:

“this area is intended to provide for a mix of residential dwellings and a limited range of office and service uses in scale with the character of the community. Less intense commercial uses and visitor accommodations are allowed in this area. Mixed-use developments of commercial and multi-family residential uses at a maximum density of thirty-three (33) units per acre are allowed. This area is also appropriate for public service uses.”

The General Plan envisions residential, limited commercial, public services and mixeduse developments for this area. The traditional character of the RC district is quite eclectic and contains single-family residence, multi-family projects, mixed use projects, commercial projects and public services. The proposed use is consistent with the intent
of the General Plan and the traditional character of the District.
There are several goals, objectives and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan that provide guidance on project design, which are summarized in Attachment “E”.

Objective 01-11 was the focus of much of the Commission’s debate and encourages pedestrian-oriented commercial and multi-family districts that are integrated into the residential character of the community. The Commission was split on whether the proposed designs with two garage doors facing the street, rather than locating the parking at the rear of the site, were inconsistent with this objective.

Staff notes that there are challenges to placing parking at the rear of these sites, particularly for the San Carlos project. Both sites are narrow, steeply sloped, and include large significant trees that constrain the potential location of parking. Placing the parking at the rear would require sloped driveways. Sloped driveways often require tall retaining walls and expose more of the mass of a structure to the street, as well as presenting safety concerns due to the limited lines-of-sight when approaching the street. These challenges should be taken into consideration as well as the concerns raised by the Commission that
placing the parking near the front of the site is not pedestrian friendly.

Zoning Regulations
The Zoning Designation for both properties is Residential and Limited Commercial (RC). CMC Section 17.14.010.C states that the purpose of the RC District is:

“to provide an appropriate location for permanent and transient residential uses, service and office uses, and limited retail uses that do not adversely impact the residential neighborhood. This district is intended to provide a transition and buffer between the more intense activities in the CC and SC districts and the less intense activities in the R-1 and R-4 districts.”

CMC Section 17.14 establishes the range of permitted and conditional uses that are
allowed in this district. Multi-family residential projects with a density between 0-22
acres are considered a permitted use by the Zoning Ordinance. CMC Section 17.68.030
defines a multi-family dwelling as:
“a building or group of buildings on a single building site that contains two or
more dwellings, each with its own facilities for parking, living, sleeping, cooking
and eating. This classification includes condominiums, townhouses, and
apartments.”
The Zoning Code also encourages a mix of unit sizes to provide a wide range of housing
opportunities. Staff concludes that both projects are consistent with the intent and the
requirements of the RC District.
Design Guidelines: CMC Section 17.14.100 states that the “Basic standard of review in
the commercial district is whether the project constitutes an improvement over existing
conditions – not whether the project just meets minimum standards.” CMC 17.14.110
indicates that the Commercial Design Guidelines have been adopted to assist in the
design review process and that “Proposed projects need not strictly comply with every
Guideline to be approved but deviations should be minor and reasonably related to good
design principles and site conditions.”
Attachment “F” includes a list of some of the relevant Commercial Design Guidelines
that the Council should consider. In summary, the Guidelines encourage buildings to
provide visual interest, complement the rhythms established by other buildings in the
immediate vicinity and encourage building materials and colors to respect the traditions
already established in the commercial district. Staff provides a brief response for each of
the projects below.
San Carlos Street Project: The project provides visual interest and is consistent with the
heights of other buildings between Seventh and Eighth Avenues on San Carlo Street.
The structure is larger than the neighboring building to the south, however, the
neighboring building is undersized compared to the other buildings in the vicinity.
With regards to materials, the applicant is proposing an off-white stucco siding, clay tile
roofing and wood windows. Spanish style architecture with the proposed materials is
traditionally used in the commercial district. The proposed color also respects the
traditions and context of the commercial district.

Mission Street Project: For the project on Mission Street the applicant is proposing stone
siding, a slate roof and wood windows. The proposed materials are natural and are
consistently used throughout Carmel’s commercial and residential districts. The
applicant is proposing to apply a stone veneer to the entire structure as opposed to being
used on only the street façade.
Safety: The Carmel Police Department reviewed the plans and conducted a site visit in
order to evaluate the safety of the proposed parking designs (see attachment “D”). The
Police Department determined that there were no undue traffic and safety problems
arising from the construction of either driveway as set forth in the plans.
Summary: The City Council should discuss the following questions:
• Are the projects consistent with the General Plan?
• Do the projects comply with the Zoning Requirements for the RC District?
• Are the projects consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council make the following two motions:
1) Grant the appeal for DR 10-24 (San Carlos Street) and direct staff to prepare
findings and conditions for approval.
2) Grant the appeal for DR 10-25 (Mission Street) and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval.24

CITY COUNCIL: Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to Allow for teh Keeping of Chickens Hens on Properties in the R-1 District

Meeting Date: 1 March 2011
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of chicken hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (First reading)

Description: The proposed ordinance would allow the keeping of up to two chicken hens per property in the R-1 District, under certain conditions.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance (1st reading).

Important Considerations: The City’s Municipal Code currently does not allow for the keeping of chickens. On 5 October 2010, the City Council heard a request to allow the keeping of chicken hens and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for review.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the attached ordinance on 26 January 2011.

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 1 MARCH 2011
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKEN HENS ON PROPERTIES IN THE R-1 DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (FIRST READING)

BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 6 establishes the City’s regulations regarding animals. Section 6.08.120, originally adopted in 1969, states the following:

“It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl whatsoever within the corporate limits of the City.”

On 5 October 2010 the City Council heard a request from a Carmel citizen to amend the municipal code to allow for the keeping of chickens. The Council agreed that the City should allow the keeping of chickens under certain conditions and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the attached ordinance on 26 January 2011.

EVALUATION
The proposed ordinance establishes a limit of two chicken hens per property in the R-1 District only. The ordinance establishes nine requirements for the keeping of chickens.

These are identified below followed by a brief response from staff.

a) No roosters are permitted.

Response: Not allowing roosters will limit the noise impacts that might otherwise occur.

b) All chicken hens must be kept and secured within an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material as to prevent the escape of any hens. The enclosure shall be maintained in good repair and no chicken hen shall be allowed to run at large on public or private property. Chicken hens may be permitted outside of an enclosure on the applicant’s property only when attended.

Response: This condition addresses the concern that chickens could escape from private property onto neighboring properties or city parks and open space. This condition will also limit the potential for incidents with other wild animals such as raccoons.

c) No enclosure shall exceed 20 square feet in size and five (5) feet in height above grade.

Response: This requirement limits the size of hen enclosures to mitigate potential visual impacts on neighboring properties.

d) The enclosure shall comply with all applicable R-1 standards as defined in CMC Section 17.10 and no commercial uses are permitted.

Response: Some of the R-1 standards that would be applicable include setbacks and site coverage. R-1 setback standards would require an enclosure be at least three feet from any side and rear property line and 15 feet from the front property line on most sites. The Planning Commission discussed limiting structures to rear yards only, however, ultimately did not make that a requirement of the ordinance primarily because there may be lot and building configurations in the City that would preclude placement in a rear yard.

e) A Track 1 Design Study application shall be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building for approval of the location and design of the enclosure prior to installation. Upon receipt of an application, the City shall cause that a notice be provided by mail and by hand delivery to all properties within 100 feet of the site indicating that an application has been filed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission may be required if a concern is filed in writing within 10 business days of the date the notice is delivered.

Response: A Track 1 application would be required to ensure that an applicant complies with the rules of the ordinance, to review the design and placement of the chicken hen enclosure, and to allow the City to track the properties that have been approved to keep chicken hens. The Planning Commission added the noticing requirement to ensure that neighboring property owners were made aware of a proposal to keep chickens.

f) Animal excretion shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to become offensive to any neighboring property; and

g) Outdoor slaughtering of birds shall not be permitted.

Response: These requirements will help ensure that the keeping of chickens does not create negative impacts on neighboring properties.

h) Failure to comply with any of these requirements may result in the revocation of the permit to keep chicken hens.

Response: This requirement gives the city the ability to revoke the permit to keep chicken hens in the event that a property owner is unable to comply with the requirements of the ordinance.

i) This ordinance shall expire on 30 June 2013 unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. No more than 15 permits shall be issued within that time.

Response: The Planning Commission recommended a sunset date on the ordinance and the establishment of a maximum number of permits that could be issued before that time. The purpose is to allow the City to reevaluate the ordinance within approximately two years and determine whether it should be extended, revised or withdrawn.

SUMMARY
In summary the Council should answer the following questions:

1) Are the proposed requirements appropriate or should they be modified?
2) Are there other requirements that should be included?

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance (1st Reading).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2011-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKEN HENS ON PROPERTIES IN THE R-1 DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (1ST READING)

WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides
itself in its community character; and

WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to protect the village character through clear policies and regulations; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the keeping of a limited
number of chicken hens on properties in the R-1 District will not be detrimental to community character; and

WHEREAS, on 26 January 2011 the Planning Commission recommended that the
Council amend the Municipal Code to allow the keeping of chicken hens; and

WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby resolve to:

Amend Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of chicken hens on properties in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District as described in Exhibit “A”.

Severability. If any part of this ordinance, even as small as a word or phrase, is found to be unenforceable such finding shall not affect the enforceability of any other part.

Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after final adoption by the City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this ___ day of ________, 2011 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

Exhibit “A”
(Changes Shown in Strikeout and Underline)
6.08.120 Keeping of Swine and Barnyard Fowl.
It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl, with the exception of chicken hens, whatsoever within the corporate limits of the City. (Ord. 201 C.S. § 1, 1969; Code 1975 § 632.3).

6.08.180 Keeping of Hens
A maximum of two (2) chicken hens may be permitted per building site in the R-1 District only. All requests to keep chicken hens shall comply with the following requirements:

a) No roosters are permitted; and

b) All chicken hens must be kept and secured within an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material as to prevent the escape of any hens. The enclosure shall be maintained in good repair and no chicken hen shall be allowed to run at large on public or private property. Chicken hens may be permitted outside of an enclosure on the applicant’s property only when attended; and

c) No enclosure shall exceed 20 square feet in size and five (5) feet in height above grade; and

d) The enclosure shall comply with all applicable R-1 standards as defined in CMC Section 17.10 and no commercial uses are permitted; and

e) A Track 1 Design Study application shall be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building for approval of the location and design of the enclosure prior to installation. Upon receipt of an application, the City shall cause that a notice be provided by mail and by hand delivery to all properties within 100 feet of the site indicating that an application has been filed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission may be required if a concern is filed in writing within 10 business days of the date the notice is delivered; and

f) Animal excretion shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to become offensive to any neighboring property; and

g) Outdoor slaughtering of chicken hens shall not be permitted; and

h) Failure to comply with any of these requirements may result in the revocation of the permit; and

i) This ordinance shall expire on 30 June 2013 unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. No more than 15 permits shall be issued within that time.

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Adopting Revisions to Fiscal Year 2010-11 General Fund Budget

CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 1, 2011

TO: The Honorable Mayor McCloud & Council Members

FROM: Heidi Burch, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Agenda Item X-A – Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 General Fund budget

The material for:

Item X-A – Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 General Fund budget will be provided under separate cover.

Thank you,

Heidi Burch
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution of Grant Funds Application from California Department of Trnasportation's (CalTrans) Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant Program

Meeting Date: March 1, 2011
Prepared by: Council Member Jason Burnett

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Receive Subcommittee report on time and resources required for grant submission and then consideration of a Resolution approving the submission of an application for grant funds in an amount not to exceed $150,000 from the California Department of Transportation’s (CalTrans) Community-Based Transportation Planning grant program.

Description: Carmel-by-the-Sea is a walkable, pedestrian-friendly town with gaps in the network of trails in and around town and limited public transit connections to destinations within and outside the city limits. The Community-Based Transportation Planning grant will be used to study relevant issues, consult with experts and citizens, identify missing links, and plan and promote a more connected town where visitors as well as residents could forego cars and still easily access every attraction within the town, connect safely to local and regional hiking or biking trails, and use an expanded transit system to reach nearby attractions and transportation hubs.

Overall Cost: $165,000 (maximum).
City funds: A 10% match is required: up to 2.5% in in-kind services and 7.5% in cash ($11,250 maximum).
Grant funds: $150,000 (maximum).

Important Considerations: Because the proposed project will better link Carmel-area schools, parks, neighborhoods, and other attractions and improve the walkability and connectivity of the town, it will impact positively on the health and well-being of residents and visitors, seniors and children; enable Carmel-by-the-Sea to be marketed as an active, healthful destination; tap the growing market for active travel and events; elongate visitor hotel stays; prepare the town for connections to future light rail and train routes; attract visitors from more transit-oriented countries; reduce vehicular miles traveled and greenhouse gases; and increase visitor-generated revenue. A contract writer will prepare
the grant submission, Planning staff will provide support for the tasks on page 2 and manage the contract.

Staff Recommendation: Provide direction on the submission of an application.

Decision Record: At the February 1, 2011 meeting, Council voted 3-2 to approve moving ahead with the grant application, in concept, but to determine whether it would be possible to complete the application by the March 31 deadline or one year later.

Reviewed by:

____________________________________ __________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

Community-based Transportation Planning Grant
Summary
Purpose of the grant: The purpose of the proposed planning project is to conduct a highly participatory planning effort to identify missing links in pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit routes within Carmel-by-the-Sea and to neighboring communities, nearby destinations, and present and future transit hubs, and develop a plan for prioritizing and completing the identified gaps.

Benefits of the planning effort: The proposed project will identify missing transportation links and plan for safe, convenient, coherent connections to trails and bike paths within and around Carmel-by-the-Sea and to nearby destinations and future public transit. It is a forward-thinking project to plan a more walkable and sustainable community.

Expected benefits are many. They include (1) an enhanced ability of residents and visitors to move around Carmel-by-the-Sea safely and to reach nearby destinations (Palo Corona trails, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Point Lobos, Carmel Valley, the airport, etc.) without a car; (2)
increased safety of youth traveling to local schools, parks, etc., by foot and bicycle; (3) increased activity and improved health of residents and visitors; (4) traffic calming, decreases in vehicle use, and reductions in greenhouse gases; and (5) enhanced visitor-generated revenue for the City with the ability to market Carmel-by-the-Sea as an active destination for pedestrians/hikers and bicyclists and encourage visitors to lengthen their stay in Carmel-by-the-Sea, using the town as a hub to access nearby attractions.

Stakeholders and Partners: Project stakeholders include many current and potential users of
Carmel area’s trails, bikeways, and transportation routes: residents; commuters in the City’s
service industry; inland day-visitors from the upper Monterey Peninsula, Salinas, central valley,
south county, and San Jose area; school children; seniors; active families with children; families
and youth on low-budget vacations, including those camping in Big Sur and drawn to the region’s
nature areas; recreational travel and sports event industries; European, Asian, and domestic
tourists who are seeking an active destination and prefer to travel without renting cars; and local
businesses who serve these other parties.
A number of local agencies and groups working on similar issues have expressed their support for
the project and some of these may be willing to assist with funds, staff support, and in-kind
donations. They include the Big Sur Land Trust, TAMC, Carmel Area Wastewater District, CAL
FIRE, Monterey-Salinas Transit, Carmel Chamber of Commerce, and Carmel River School.
Letters of support and commitments will be sought upon approval of the resolution by the
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council.
How the planning project is envisioned: To reduce burdens on staff, the Local Government
Commission (LGC), a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization despite its name, would serve as a subrecipient.
LGC’s mission is creating more livable, walkable, sustainable communities. It has a
long history of experience in working with cities and counties to facilitate public planning
processes, and would handle most of the day-to-day tasks necessary to successfully complete the
proposed project. Over the past decade, LGC has worked with municipalities and local agencies
on over 30 similar projects funded by CalTrans. LGC also has close working relationships with
other experts who may be needed for the successful conduct of the project, including urban
designers, multi-modal transportation planners, experts in walkable communities, bicycle and
pedestrian planners, traffic engineers, etc. Please see attached description of and references for
LGC.
1
56
The specific tasks for the proposed project are being developed, but would generally include:
􀂃 The formation of an advisory group of 8 to 12 people to guide the project. This group
would include representation from the key stakeholders – residents, the City, the business
community, trail groups, bike clubs, county agencies, interested nonprofits such as the Big
Sur Land Trust, etc.
􀂃 Visits to Carmel area by the design team convened by LGC to talk to staff and key
stakeholders, study the issues, and gather information in order to prepare base maps, data,
etc., useful for the planning process.
􀂃 Focus group meetings with key stakeholder groups such as City/County/CalTrans staff,
schools, businesses, bike/trail/pedestrian advocates, transit agencies, public health,
emergency responders, youth, senior citizens, etc.
􀂃 A multi-day charrette organized and facilitated by LGC which would include focus groups;
public involvement in small group walkability and rideability audits; an opening
community meeting which would identify the gaps, present the public with ideas and
examples from comparable communities, and involve the public in brainstorming key
issues and solutions; a workshop where participants would work on aerial maps; an open
work space with opportunities for one-on-one interaction among stakeholders, the public,
and the experts; and a closing ceremony to enable the public to provide additional feedback
and ideas in response to the design concepts presented by the design team.
􀂃 A final report which would present a plan for filling in missing transportation linkages, and
include a summary of the background issues, recommendations, maps, site plan sketches,
photos, etc. The report could be adopted by the City and/or County as a plan, or be
incorporated into land use and/or transportation planning documents and capital
improvement plans. It would also outline sources and strategies for obtaining grant
support for the implementation of the plan and completion of identified gaps.
Work completed to date and yet to come: Substantial planning has taken place and a meeting
of potential partners was convened on February 8th. Preliminary discussions have taken place
with LGC and they are willing to contribute to the grant application in the form of the Scope of
Work, schedule, and budget. The writing of the grant application has begun. The City’s grant
writer has spent 27 hours to date in meetings, conference calls, and drafting the application, and
anticipates 10 to 15 additional hours will be required to coordinate and complete the full
application.
2
57
3
Issues for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Is there general agreement that this is a project worth doing and that the focus should be
as follows? “We would like to leverage our existing competitive advantage of being
already a very inviting place for walkers and hikers to make Carmel-by-the-Sea a worldclass
destination for active visitors and residents.”
2. Assuming we are partnering with LGC to be a sub-recipient of the grant and primary
coordinator of a post-grant process, is there strong policy direction to include other
official and unofficial partners?
3. The project area is generally described as Carmel-by-the-Sea and linkages to destinations
within a walking, hiking and biking distance from Carmel-by-the-Sea (roughly a five
mile radius). Is this appropriate?
4. Is there general agreement on the grant amount to be requested ($150,000 plus the City’s
match of $15,000)? The grant funds would be used to cover the time and expenses of
LGC, other experts, and staff.
Attachments: City Council Resolution
58
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150,000 FROM
THE COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
GRANT PROGRAM
_____________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has created the
Community-Based Transportation Grant Program to promote a balanced, comprehensive multimodal
transportation system and lead to the adoption, initiation, and programming of
transportation improvements; and
WHEREAS, CalTrans has established procedures requiring the applicant to certify by
resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the State;
and
WHEREAS, The City has developed a proposed project, Connect Carmel Linking Trails
to Transit and People to Places, to study past proposals, consult with experts and citizens, and
develop a coherent plan for a local network of pedestrian and cycling trails and transit routes
throughout the City and to nearby visitor attractions and transportation hubs; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes to apply to the State of California’s Department of
Transportation’s FY2011-2012 Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant for up to
$150,000 in grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the City will be providing up to $15,000 in local matching funds including
up to $3,750 in-kind for staff time and other administrative costs; and
WHEREAS, the City will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete
the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmelby-
the-Sea does hereby:
1. Approve the submittal of an application to the State of California Department of
Transportation’s FY 2011-2012 Community–Based Transportation Planning Grant
Program.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to (a) enter into a contract with the State of California
Department of Transportation upon receipt of a Community-Based Transportation
Planning Grant from that agency and (b) conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents, including but not limited to contracts, subcontracts, applications, agreements,
59
extensions, renewals, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the
completion of the project.
3. Accept, appropriate, expend, and administer the grant funds, if secured, in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth in the approved grant for the project.
4. Agree to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations, and guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA on this1st day of March 2011, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
__________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
60
61
Making Highways More Livable, One Grant at a Time
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
62
Table of Contents
Grant Program Description ………………………………………………………............. Page 1
Grant Program Summary Chart …………………………………………………............. Page 3
General Information and Requirements …………………………………………............. Page 5
Grant Programs
 Environmental Justice ……………………………...............................................
 Community-Based Transportation Planning……………………………………..
 Partnership Planning …………………………………………………….............
 Transit Planning
o Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies …………………………...
o Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies …………………………
o Transit Planning Student Internships ……………………………………
Page 9
Page 9
Page 16
Page 16
Page 16
Page 16
Transportation Planning Grant Application …………………………………………….. Page 22
Sample Scope of Work …………………………………………………………………….. Page 32
Sample Project Schedule …………………………………………………………….......... Page 35
Map of District Boundaries ……………………………………………………………….. Page 36
Map of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies …………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 37
Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant Contact Information ……………………...... Page 38
APPLICATIONS MUST BE SENT VIA E-MAIL BY:
5:00 PM,WEDNESDAY,MARCH 30, 2011
HARD COPIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
Use the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader® to complete the
application. The electronic version of this form must be submitted in the PDF
format available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html.
ADA Notice: For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For
information call (916) 654-6410 or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N
Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814.
63
1
Grant Program Description
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) invites applications for the current
Transportation Planning Grant cycle. The funds available from the six grant programs identified in
this package may be used for a wide range of transportation planning purposes.
INTRODUCTION
Caltrans provides transportation planning grants for:
 Environmental Justice (EJ)
 Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP)
 Partnership Planning (Partner)
 Transit Planning
 Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies (Urban)
 Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies (Rural)
 Transit Planning Student Internships (Intern)
Each transportation planning grant program has program-specific purposes and is intended to address
local and/or regional needs and issues. Transportation planning grant applications should also
incorporate broader goals and reflect attributes desired throughout the transportation system.
Grant applicants must clearly demonstrate how their proposed planning project promotes the
following Federal and/or State transportation planning goals.
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GOALS
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight.
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life,
and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned
growth and economic development patterns.
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between
modes, for people and freight.
7. Promote efficient system management and operation.
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
Transportation Planning Grants are intended to promote a balanced, comprehensive multimodal
transportation system. The Federal and State goals provide a framework for the
grant programs. The Environmental Justice and the Community-Based Transportation
Planning grant programs reflect State goals, while the Partnership Planning and Transit
Planning grant programs reflect Federal Goals. The results of these grants should
ultimately lead to the adoption, initiation, and programming of transportation
improvements.
64
2
Grant Program Description
STATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GOALS
1. Improve Mobility and Accessibility: Expand the system and enhance modal choices and
connectivity to meet the State’s future transportation demands.
2. Preserve the Transportation System: Maintain, manage, and efficiently utilize California’s
existing transportation system.
3. Support the Economy: Maintain, manage, and enhance the movement of goods and people to
spur the economic development and growth, job creation, and trade.
4. Enhance Public Safety and Security: Ensure the safety and security of people, goods, services,
and information in all modes of transportation.
5. Reflect Community Values: Find transportation solutions that balance and integrate community
values with transportation safety and performance, and encourage public involvement in
transportation decisions.
6. Enhance the Environment: Plan and provide transportation services while protecting our
environment, wildlife, historical, and cultural assets.
REGIONAL BLUEPRINT AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES GOALS
1. Complements or advances the Region’s Blueprint Planning efforts. Click here for information.
2. Advances a community’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and will assist transportation
agencies in creating enduring communities.
Every Caltrans transportation planning grant application should be coordinated with the transportation
planning efforts taking place under the region’s Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) or
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Additionally, all applications should be in accord with
that region’s Blueprint Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375) if applicable. Regional
Blueprints and Sustainable Communities Strategies are tools that will help communities reduce
greenhouse gases and will assist transportation agencies in creating enduring communities for
residents throughout the entire State. Further, applications that incorporate Complete Streets
provisions as required by AB1358, as well as implementation of actions contained in Caltrans’ Smart
Mobility Framework, will enhance sustainability efforts supported by the State.
Each grant program has different purposes and matching fund requirements. Applicants may submit
more than one application, but any given project can only be submitted to one grant program. The
Caltrans’ grant programs staff will check all applications for duplicate projects including those with
different titles. At Caltrans’ discretion, an application may be referred to a different grant program
for consideration, if the application is better suited for that program.
The following pages summarize each of the transportation planning grant programs. Refer to these
charts for eligibility requirements for each grant program.
65
3
Transportation Planning Grant Summary Chart
GRANT FUND
SOURCE PURPOSE WHO MAY APPLY LOCAL MATCH
Community-
Based
Transportation
Planning
(CBTP)
State
Highway
Account
Budget
$3 million
Grant Cap
$300,000
Fund coordinated
transportation and
land use planning
that promotes public
engagement, livable
communities, and a
sustainable
transportation
system, which
includes mobility,
access, and safety.
The following may apply directly or as a
sub-recipient:
 Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
 Cities and Counties
 Transit Agencies
 Native American Tribal Governments
The following may apply only as a
sub-recipient:
 Universities and Community Colleges
 Community-Based Organizations
 Non-Profit Organizations (501.C.3)
 Public Entities**
10% minimum (in
non-federal funds).
At least 7.5% of the
amount requested
must be cash match
and the rest may be
in-kind.*
Environmental
Justice
(EJ)
State
Highway
Account
Budget
$3 million
Grant Cap
$250,000
Promote community
involvement in
planning to improve
mobility, access, and
safety while
promoting economic
opportunity, equity,
environmental
protection, and
affordable housing
for low-income,
minority, and Native
American
communities.
The following may apply directly or as a
sub-recipient:
 Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
 Cities and Counties
 Transit Agencies
 Native American Tribal Governments
The following may apply only as a
sub-recipient:
 Universities and Community Colleges
 Community-Based Organizations
 Non-Profit Organizations (501.C.3)
 Public Entities**
10% minimum (in
non-federal funds).
At least 7.5% of the
amount requested
must be cash match
and the rest may be
in-kind.*
Partnership
Planning
(Partner)
FHWA***
State
Planning
and
Research,
Part 1
Budget
Federal
funds
$1,000,000
Grant Cap
$300,000
Fund transportation
planning studies of
multi-regional and
statewide
significance in
partnership with
Caltrans.
The following may only apply as an
applicant:
 Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
The following may only apply as a
sub-recipient:
 Universities and Community Colleges
 Native American Tribal Governments
 Cities and Counties
 Community-Based Organizations
 Non-Profit Organizations (501.C.3)
 Public Entities**
20% minimum (in
non-federal funds or
an in-kind*
contribution). The
entire minimum 20%
local match may be
in the form of an inkind
contribution.
Additional local
funds above the
minimum local
match are desired.
66
4
Transportation Planning Grant Summary Chart (Continued)
GRANT FUND
SOURCE PURPOSE WHO MAY APPLY LOCAL MATCH
Statewide or
Urban Transit
Planning
Studies
(Urban)
FTA***
Section 5304
Budget
Federal
funds
$2,000,000
Grant Cap
$300,000
Fund studies on
transit issues having
statewide or multiregional
significance
to assist in reducing
congestion.
The following may only apply as an
applicant:
 Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
The following may only apply as a
sub-recipient:
 Transit Agencies
 Universities and Community Colleges
 Native American Tribal Governments
 Cities and Counties
 Community-Based Organizations
 Non-Profit Organizations (501.C.3)
 Public Entities**
11.47% minimum (in
non-federal funds or
an in-kind*
contribution). The
entire minimum
11.47% local match
may be in the form
of an in-kind
contribution.
Rural or Small
Urban Transit
Planning
Studies
(Rural)
FTA***
Section 5304
Budget
Federal
funds
$1,000,000
Grant Cap
$100,000
Fund public
transportation
planning studies in
rural or small urban
areas of California
(transit service area
with population of
100,000 or less).
The following may only apply as an
applicant:
 Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
The following may only apply as a
sub-recipient:
 Transit Agencies
 Universities and Community Colleges
 Native American Tribal Governments
 Cities and Counties
 Community-Based Organizations
 Non-Profit Organizations (501.C.3)
 Public Entities**
11.47% minimum (in
non-federal funds or
an in-kind*
contribution). The
entire minimum
11.47% local match
may be in the form
of an in-kind
contribution.
Transit
Planning
Student
Internships
(Intern)
FTA***
Section 5304
Budget
Federal
funds
$500,000
Grant Cap
$50,000
Fund student
internship
opportunities in
transit planning at
public transit
agencies.
The following may only apply as an
applicant:
 Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
The following may only apply as a
sub-recipient:
 Transit Agencies
 Universities and Community Colleges
 Native American Tribal Governments
 Cities and Counties
 Community-Based Organizations
 Non-Profit Organizations (501.C.3)
 Public Entities**
11.47% minimum (in
non-federal funds or
an in-kind*
contribution). The
entire minimum
11.47% local match
may be in the form
of an in-kind
contribution.
* In-kind contribution can include a documented, quantified amount of equipment, supplies, or other tangible resources, space, or
staff time.
** Public entity includes the State, the Regents of the University of California, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency,
and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State. (Government Code Section 811.2)
*** FHWA is the Federal Highway Administration. FTA is the Federal Transit Administration.
67
5
General Information and Requirements
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
All applications are required to be submitted via e-mail (hard copies will not be accepted).
Environmental Justice and Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant Programs
Submit the following required documents as separate attachments: application, application signature
page, scope of work, project schedule, and any other supporting documentation via e-mail to
OfficeofCommunityPlanning@dot.ca.gov. (See Application Signature Page for requirements.)
Carbon copy (cc) the appropriate Caltrans District contact on the e-mail (refer to the Transportation
Planning Grant District Contact List). Identify the District number, grant program, and project title in
the subject line of the e-mail (i.e., D1 CBTP, City of Can Do Planning Project). The e-mail must be
submitted by 5:00 pm, Wednesday, March 30, 2011. Late applications will not be reviewed.
Only one application submittal per e-mail is permitted.
Partnership Planning and Transit Planning Grant Programs
Submit the following required documents as separate attachments: application, application signature
page, scope of work, project schedule, and any other supporting documentation via e-mail to
Regional_Planning_Grants@dot.ca.gov. (See Application Signature Page for requirements.)
Carbon copy (cc) the appropriate Caltrans District contact on the e-mail (refer to the Transportation
Planning Grant District Contact List). Identify the District number, grant program, and project title in
the subject line of the e-mail (i.e., D1 Partner, City of Can Do Planning Project). The e-mail must be
submitted by 5:00 pm, Wednesday, March 30, 2011. Late applications will not be reviewed.
Only one application submittal per e-mail is permitted.
Caltrans district staff is available prior to the March 30 deadline to answer general questions to help
interested groups complete their applications.
Timeline
 December 1, 2010 – Transportation Planning Grants Guide and application available by e-mail
and the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html
 March 30, 2011 – Final application due date
 Summer 2011 – Estimated time of grant award announcements (upon approval of State budget)
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
Grant payments are made only as reimbursements. Invoices for reimbursement need to be submitted
in concurrence with the completion of project milestones no more frequently than monthly or at a
minimum quarterly. The Grantee must pay its sub-recipients and named subcontractors prior to
submitting an invoice requesting reimbursement from Caltrans. A single, one-time, lump sum
invoice for the entire grant is not allowed. Local match must be expended on a proportional basis
coinciding with the expenditure of the grant funds. The proportional expenditure must be clearly
identified in the scope of work and project schedule.
Non-federal sources for local match can include local sales tax, special bond measures, private
donations, private foundations, etc. Examples of in-kind contributions include donated printing,
facilities, interpreters, equipment, advertising, staff time, etc. All in-kind contributions must be
itemized.
68
6
General Information and Requirements (continued)
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Grantees are required to maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and
segregate incurred project costs and matching funds by line item. The accounting system of the
Grantee, including its sub-recipients and subcontractors, shall conform to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles that enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion
and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices sent to or paid by Caltrans.
Allowable project costs will be in compliance with 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 18
and Office of Management and Budget A-87. It is the Grantee’s responsibility, in conjunction with
Caltrans’ district staff, to monitor work and expenses to ensure the project is completed according to
the contracted scope of work and project timeline/project schedule and funding chart. Grantees must
monitor work and costs to ensure their invoices are submitted on a regular and timely basis (monthly
or quarterly). Grantees must communicate with their local Caltrans District Planning Office to ensure
any issues are addressed early during the project period.
An Indirect Cost Allocation Plan or Central Service Cost Allocation Plan and related documentation
are to be provided to the Caltrans’ Office of Audits and Investigations annually for review and
approval prior to the Grantee seeking reimbursement of indirect costs. The Grantee must prepare and
submit their Indirect Cost Allocation Plan or Central Service Cost Allocation Plan in accordance with
Office of Management and Budget A-87 and Caltrans’ Local Programs Procedures 04-10
(LPP 04-10).
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lpp/LPP04-10.pdf
PRE-AWARD AUDIT
Partnership Planning, Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies, and Community-Based
Transportation grants are available in amounts up to $300,000. However, any awarded grant in
excess of $250,000 will require a pre-award audit. The audit has the potential to delay the start of the
project and applicants are encouraged to determine if the delay will hinder their ability to complete
the project by the terms specified in the contract. For more information see Caltrans’ Local Programs
Procedures 00-05 “Pre-Award Audit Requirements and Consultant Procurement” dated December 15,
2000.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lpp/LPP00-05.pdf
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES
Direct costs must be used only for planning-related activities, such as community surveys,
community meetings, charrettes, focus groups, data gathering and analysis, planning consultants,
bilingual services to facilitate meetings, reproduction costs, office supplies, concept drawings of the
project, computer rental, transit passes, (for CBTP and EJ only; light snacks and non-alcoholic
refreshments) to facilitate the project.
INELIGIBLE PROJECTS AND EXPENSES
Some activities, tasks, project components, etc. are not eligible for these grant programs, regardless of
fund source. In particular, environmental studies, plans, or documents normally required for project
development under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), or any Project Initiation Document (PID) are not eligible expenses under these
grants. Construction and procurement of equipment or materials, such as building a facility or
purchasing computers, are not eligible expenses. Construction projects, construction materials,
maintenance, decoration, or acquisition of any vehicles, and shuttle programs are also ineligible.
69
7
General Information and Requirements (continued)
INELIGIBLE PROJECTS AND EXPENSES (continued)
In addition, the purchase of computers, software, and office furniture or any other capital
expenditures are ineligible expenses. These grants cannot be used for personal expenses, such as
meals, use of personal vehicles, organizational membership fees, or other items unrelated to the
project. If an application has any of the above stated elements, it will be disqualified.
OWNERSHIP
Any technologies or inventions that may result from the use of these grants are in the public domain
and may not be copyrighted, sold, or used exclusively by any business, organization, or agency.
Caltrans reserves a royalty-free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or
otherwise use and to authorize others to use for public purposes.
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
Letters of support for the project are strongly encouraged. They should be addressed to the grant
applicant and submitted via e-mail with the application. Such letters can come from communitybased
organizations, local governments, Native American Tribal governments, service agencies,
elected officials, and citizens. Letters of support received separately from the application package
may not be considered.
SUBCONTRACTING
When applicable, applicants must comply with bidding requirements for third party contracts. See
49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to
State and Local Governments:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/TEA21/GrantMan/HTML/03_DOTComRul_49CFR18.html
There is no standard template for subcontracting for these planning grants. However, Grantees are
encouraged to use a subcontracting agreement that clearly specifies the work, deliverables, due dates,
and costs that will permit the Grantee to have proper accountability and management. Request for
proposal and consultant contract must be consistent with the scope of work and project schedule.
Projects are sometimes an extension of a larger, ongoing transportation project. For example, a city
or regional agency is working on plans to improve a major corridor and a properly selected consultant
is already employed, but additional planning is needed to address local issues and community
outreach along that corridor. The consultant can be used for this additional work without further
bidding, but the Grantee must submit a written explanation to the Caltrans’ district contract manager
describing how the additional work is part of this larger, continuing project and why it merits a
waiver from competitive bidding. In general, Grantees must conduct the procurement of goods and
services in a fair and open competitive manner. Grantees are prohibited from restricting competition
in any government-funded procurement transaction.
70
8
General Information and Requirements (continued)
SUBCONTRACTING (continued)
In addition to the paragraphs above, the following applies only to the Environmental Justice
and Community-Based Transportation Planning grant programs.
 If the grant applicant specifically identifies a sub-recipient to perform subcontractor duties in the
Scope of Work/Budget and Timeline, the sub-recipient may be employed without further bidding.
However, when choosing a sub-recipient applicants are reminded to select them at the onset of
their application in a fair and careful manner and be able to justify the value the sub-recipient
brings to the project. A sub-recipient cannot be private for profit.
 If a sub-recipient/subcontractor is not identified on the Scope of Work/Budget and Timeline and
the work completed exceeds $25,000 in cost, the work must be competitively bid at the start of the
project. The bidding process does not need to be elaborate, but must reflect an honest and
reasonable effort to seek at least three written proposals for the same work or services. It must be
a fair, objective, and documented process. Grantees are advised to retain their documentation.
The subcontractor may be private, public, non-profit, etc.
 If a sub-recipient/subcontractor is not identified on the Scope of Work/Budget and Timeline and
the work contemplated is less than $25,000 in cost, the work is not subject to bid requirements.
However, prior approval of the subcontractor by your Caltrans District Planning Office is required
before work can begin.
TITLE VI NONDISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENT
Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Specifically Title VI provides
the following:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age,
or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the Federal
government.
Caltrans is responsible for complying with Civil Rights requirements and for monitoring funding
compliance of any sub-recipients. This is also applicable to sub-recipients of State funding. The
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration each have requirements that
recipients must demonstrate continued compliance with Title VI. Compliance with Title VI includes
conducting meetings in a fair and reasonable manner that are open to all members of a community.
Compliance also reflects not only law but is a good policy that builds the kind of trust and
information sharing upon which successful planning is done. Even where a city or county may not be
receiving federal funding for transportation, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 also obligates
that a city or county comply with Title VI, if it receives any other federal funding for any program.
AWARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
If an agency does not demonstrate adequate performance and timely use of funds, Caltrans may take
appropriate actions, which can include termination of the grant. Inadequate performance by
applicants or an applicant’s subcontractor may hinder their ability to leverage future grant awards.
Applications that modify the scope of work of a previously awarded grant project may be
disqualified.
71
9
An electronic version of this guide and other grant-related resources are available at the following website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html
For more guidance and information regarding the submission of applications to the EJ and CBTP
grant programs refer to the Environmental Justice and Community-Based Transportation Planning
Grants Handbook available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/ej_cbtp_toolbox.html
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE and
COMMUNITY-BASED
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
72
10
PURPOSE
The Environmental Justice (EJ) planning grants are intended to promote the involvement of lowincome
and minority communities, and Native American Tribal Governments, in the planning for
transportation projects to prevent or mitigate disproportionate, negative impacts while improving their
mobility, access, safety, and opportunities for affordable housing and economic development.
The Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) Grant Program funds coordinated
transportation and land-use planning projects that encourage community involvement and partnership.
Projects must support livable/sustainable community concepts with a transportation or mobility
objective and promote community identity and quality of life.
EJ GRANT SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
Proposed projects should have a clear focus on transportation and community development issues that
address the interests of low-income, minority, Native American, and other under-represented
communities. Competitive project applications should describe how the project will be carried
forward to the next phase.
CBTP GRANT SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
Project applications should involve conceptual-level plans or study activities that include communitybased
stakeholder collaboration and consensus building through active public engagement. Each
application should display a transportation/land use benefit that will likely induce additional benefits.
Competitive project applications should describe how the project will be carried forward to the next
phase.
WRITING TO GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The State Transportation Planning goals provide the framework or basis for the EJ and CBTP Grant
Programs. These goals are general statements or visions that Caltrans values and wants to ultimately
achieve. A competitive grant application would address and articulate how the project relates to
multiple State goals.
Grant specific objectives are the intermediary step between the goal and implementation. The grant
program objectives indicate the specific purpose of each grant program. The proposed projects are
the means of implementing the objectives and the goals. When preparing a grant application, bear in
mind the goals as well as the purpose or objective of each grant program.
In addition, Caltrans supports the ongoing Regional Blueprint Plan (RBP) and the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS - SB 375) efforts. A competitive grant application would address how
the project may help implement an RBP or SCS, if one exists or is being developed for that location.
Caltrans also supports Complete Streets and the Smart Mobility Framework (SMF). Information on
these efforts can be found at:
Complete Streets: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.html
SMF: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/smf.html
Environmental Justice and
Community-Based Transportation Planning
73
11
WRITING TO GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (continued)
A competitive grant application would consider the tools and techniques contained in the Smart
Mobility Framework as well as typical components of complete streets. Specifically, this might
include how the project addresses components of community design, regional accessibility, place
types, priority activities to achieve Smart Mobility outcomes, community transition, and associated
multimodal performance measures for the appropriate context of the problem.
CBTP GRANT BONUS SCORING
Local governments with projects designated under the California Department of Housing and
Community Development’s (HCD), Catalyst Projects for Sustainable Strategies Program will receive
ten bonus points if the following condition is met:
 The individual application will compete against all applications being evaluated and must
score in the top 33 percent. If the application scores in the top 33 percent, ten bonus points
will be added to the initial evaluation score. So, if the initial application score is 80 points and
falls in the top 33 percent of all scores, ten bonus points will be added, for a total score of 90
points.
For more information on the Catalyst Program, please contact HCD at (916) 323-3176 or visit their
website at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/
WHO MAY APPLY
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs),
cities, counties, transit agencies, and federally recognized Native American Tribal Governments may
apply for this grant program directly as an applicant or as a sub-recipient. Universities, community
colleges, community-based organizations, non-profit organizations (501.C.3), and public entities may
only apply as a sub-recipient with an applicant. Sub-recipients are encouraged to work far in advance
of the application deadline with the appropriate applicant to coordinate application development.
Local governments with projects designated under the HCD Catalyst Projects for Sustainable
Strategies Program are welcome to apply.
District Staff
Caltrans’ district staff can be a valuable resource during the application process. Applicants are
encouraged to contact district staff for initial application review and recommendations prior to the
application due date. If awarded a grant, the applicant should include district staff when planning
both technical advisory and community meetings. In addition, district staff will help to ensure that
the approved scope of work, project timeline, and project funding will be maintained throughout the
life of the contract. Caltrans wants to be an active partner.
EXAMPLES OF PROJECT TYPES
 Long-term sustainable community/economic development growth studies or plans
 Community to school studies or plans/Safe Routes to School studies or plans
 Jobs and affordable housing proximity studies or plans
 Transit Oriented/Adjacent Development or “transit village” studies or plans
Environmental Justice and
Community-Based Transportation Planning
74
12
EXAMPLES OF PROJECT TYPES (continued)
 Infill or compact development studies or plans
 Mixed land-use development studies or plans
 Context-sensitive streetscapes or town center studies or plans
 Complete street studies or plans
 Suburban community or urban commercial corridor retrofit studies or plans
 Community revitalization studies or plans
 Smart Growth Planning studies
 Bike and pedestrian safety enhancement studies or plans
 Traffic calming and safety enhancement studies or plans
 Rural smart growth studies or plans
 Welfare-to-Work Transportation Assistance Programs or transit studies or plans
 Corridor enhancement studies or plans
 Health equity studies or plans
 Collaborative regional studies or plans
Engineering /Design/Environmental Work
Environmental studies, plans, or documents normally required for project development under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or
any Project Initiation Document (PID) are not eligible under these grant programs. Projects that
contain ineligible expenses such as CEQA, even though funded by non-grant sources, are not allowed
due to potential disruption to the project schedule. General Plans or updates to the elements within in
a General Plan are not eligible projects under this program. General Plans are required under
California state law (§65300) and are not considered to be consistent with the intent of the CBTP or
EJ program.1 Engineering plans and design specification work are also not eligible. Both types of
work are very time consuming and would not be able to be completed within the strict grant
timeframe. However, conceptual design work is permitted. Applications received containing any of
these components, other than conceptual design, will be disqualified and will not be scored by the
review committee.
LOCAL RESOLUTION REQUIREMENT
A local resolution from the applicant’s governing board stating the title of the person authorized to
enter into a contract with Caltrans must be included with the application. The local resolution is a
critical part of the grant application package. The following elements must be included:
 The resolution must be made by the governing board of the grant applicant.
 The resolution must name the title of the person authorized to enter into a contract with
Caltrans on behalf of the applicant.
 The resolution must be enacted by the application deadline.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to plan ahead and ensure that there is adequate time to get the
resolution on the agenda of the governing board in order to meet the application deadline.
Applications without the required local resolution will be at a competitive disadvantage.
1 http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/publications/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf
Environmental Justice and
Community-Based Transportation Planning
75
13
OVERALL WORK PROGRAM
Once a CBTP or EJ grant is awarded, applicants who receive a grant must work with their MPOs and
RTPAs to include the project as a formal work element in the current Overall Work Program.
QUARTERLY REPORTING
A formal quarterly progress report is required for all grants as outlined in the Environmental Justice
and Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants Handbook. These reports are based on
project activities, invoice summaries, and prior correspondence. Therefore, it is important that the
grantee and district establish and maintain open and continuous communications throughout the
project.
FUNDING
Each grant cycle has an estimated funding target of $6 million for both grant programs, pending
approval of the State budget. Funding distribution will depend upon the quality and amount of
applications for each program.
Funding for each project requires a minimum 10 percent local match which must be distributed
proportionally throughout the scope of work. Local match funds cannot be federal, or money that has
already been earmarked for other programs or projects (e.g. local sales tax, special bond measures,
private donations, and private foundations). One-quarter of the value of the local match may be used
for in-kind services. In-kind services must be clearly identified in the scope of work and may include
the value of non-cash donated services or goods and can take the form of real property, equipment,
supplies, services, and other expendable property (e.g. staff time, use of equipment, donated printing,
facilities, interpreters, advertising, and refreshments provided at public participation events).
CONTRACTING
Once awarded, these grants funds are available for a limited amount of time. All awarded project
funds must be encumbered during the first fiscal year after the State budget is approved. Work may
begin during the first fiscal year only after the Grantee receives a fully executed contract and has been
notified by Caltrans to begin work. This typically occurs the February after the grant is awarded. It is
important for applicants to reflect this estimated project start date in the scope of work and project
schedule. The second and third fiscal years are for project-related activities.
February 28, 2014
 Contract expires (no time extensions will be granted).
 Reimbursable work must be completed.
April 28, 2014
 All final invoices must be submitted to Caltrans for approval and reimbursement. This allows
Caltrans sufficient time to comply with the State Controller’s Office payment requirements.
REVIEW PROCESS
All applications submitted to the EJ and CBTP Grant Programs go through three levels of review--
Caltrans Districts, Caltrans Headquarters Office of Community Planning (OCP), and a multidiscipline
review committee. District staff reviews all applications for content, submission of proper
documentation, and overall relationship to local and regional planning efforts. The district gives each
Environmental Justice and
Community-Based Transportation Planning
76
14
REVIEW PROCESS (continued)
application a rating of high, medium, or low. Applications given a low rating by the district will not
be scored by the review committee. OCP staff review applications for content, completeness, and
meeting technical requirements. OCP assesses the readiness to enter into contract with Caltrans. The
review committee composed of Caltrans and non-Department employees are subject matter experts
that review for the content and quality of the overall application.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The EJ and CBTP Grant Programs are very competitive. Below is a list of main factors considered in
scoring and nominating an application for funding. The most competitive applications will meet the
following criteria and those that do not will be at a competitive disadvantage. Missing pieces will
result in point deductions and a lower application score.
Strong applications address all of the following:
 All responses must be clear and concise and address every aspect of each question. The
responses need to demonstrate that the applicant understands the core EJ/CBTP concepts.
Applicants need to make an extraordinary effort to incorporate these concepts into the project.
The responses also need to demonstrate the importance and relevance of the project, the
present innovative planning approaches to address deficiencies, and the possible
improvements that will benefit those engaged in the project.
 The overall application addresses state goals and program objectives.
 The application is complete and it is submitted correctly. In addition to containing all needed
documentation; a detailed Scope of Work, timeline and budget.
 A local resolution must be signed and dated no later than the application deadline.
 Strong supporting documents that further illustrate need, implementation possibilities,
community support and project management.
 Scope of Work (SOW) shall include:
 In MS Word format (use template provided)
 Contains tasks consistent with project schedule (timeline)
 Detailed description of each task
 Includes public participation and services to diverse communities
 Lists project deliverables
 Project Schedule (timeline and budget) shall include:
 In MS Excel format (use template provided)
 Contains tasks consistent with SOW
 A task for a kickoff meeting with district staff. The purpose is to discuss grant
procedures and establish overall project expectations.
 RFP for consultant services, if applicable
 Of the total local match, the cash match and in-kind match are differentiated
 Local match is proportionally distributed throughout each task
 A task for reporting milestone completion (quarterly reports)
 Accurate start and end date of project
 Map of project area
Environmental Justice and
Community-Based Transportation Planning
77
15
EVALUATION CRITERIA (continued)
Additional Documents (Not required, but may enhance application)
 Letters of Support: Must be included with application. Letters received separate from the
application package may not be considered.
 Photos that help to further explain the situation and need for the grant.
Past Performance
Previous grant performance will be considered during the evaluation process. Recipients with a
history of poor performance such as poor project management, untimely invoice submittals, or an
overall poor quality of the final product, may be at a competitive disadvantage in the application
review process. Grant funds may not be awarded to prior grant recipients with unresolved past
performance issues. If you are a current or previous grant recipient, it is important that you contact
your District Office before submitting your application to ensure that you do not currently have any
unresolved past performance issues.
FINAL PRODUCT
All final reports funded shall credit either the EJ or CBTP financial participation on the cover or title
page. Every final product delivered under these grant programs are expected to result in a
documented study, plan, or concept that can be used by the applicant to further smart growth and a
community’s sustainability. Final products are expected to include identification of potential barriers
to implementation and then propose strategies and tools that could address those barriers and advance
the project toward implementation.
Final Payment: Caltrans reserves the right to withhold final payment to an agency pending
receipt of final deliverable(s) by Caltrans’ contract manager.
Project Close Out: At the end of the contract, four hard copies and four CD’s of the final
product are required to be submitted to the District Office.
Environmental Justice and
Community-Based Transportation Planning
78
16
PARTNERSHIP PLANNING
and
TRANSIT PLANNING
Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies
Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies
Transit Planning Student Internships
An electronic version of this guide and other grant-related resources are available at the following website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html
Note: Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) or Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) must be the applicant
for the following four grant programs.
For more information about the grant programs covered in this section, please visit the Office of Regional and
Interagency Planning Grants website at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/Grants/grants.html
79
17
The four transportation planning grant programs included in this section are federally funded.
The role of the MPO and RTPA is to facilitate a fair and open competitive application and
outreach process. For an MPO or RTPA to influence the applicant pool either formally or
informally by pre-screening applications is contrary to both State and Federal administration
of these grant programs.
WHO MAY APPLY
Only MPOs and RTPAs that have a current Master Fund Transfer Agreement with the Caltrans
Office of Regional and Interagency Planning (ORIP) may apply for the Partnership Planning and
Transit Planning Grant Programs. Universities and community colleges, Native American Tribal
Governments, cities and counties, community-based organizations, non-profit organizations (501.C.3)
and public entities may apply as a sub-recipient. Sub-recipients are encouraged to work far in
advance of the application deadline with the appropriate MPO or RTPA to coordinate application
development. It is also beneficial for sub-recipients to be informed of the appropriate MPO or RTPA
process and schedule, as they may differ slightly from Caltrans.
District Staff
Caltrans’ district staff can be a valuable resource during the application process. Applicants are
encouraged to contact district staff for initial application review and recommendations prior to the
application due date. Once grants are awarded, district staff will help to ensure that the approved
scope of work, project timeline, and project funding will be maintained throughout the life of the
grant project. Caltrans will be an active partner.
OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP)
All grant recipients must have their approved projects identified as individual Work Elements in their
current Overall Work Program (OWP) and in future OWPs until the project is complete. Projects
should be completed no later than June 30, 2014. All grant recipients must file a Final Request for
Reimbursement no later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year to coincide with the submission
of the MPO’s/RTPA’s OWP Final Expenditure Report.
LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION
All Federal grant programs require a non-federal local match (i.e. State or local funds). The
Partnership Planning Grant Program requires the applicant to provide a 20 percent local match. The
Transit Planning Grant Program requires the applicant to provide an 11.47 percent local match.
The local match can be all cash, all in-kind, or a combination of the two. If in-kind services are used
for the local match, the in-kind provider must be named and documentation of services rendered must
be provided, e.g., a description of the number of staff, their job titles and their hourly rate. The
salaries expended should equal the total in-kind local match stated on the grant application cover
sheet. The in-kind contribution information must be identified on the cover page of the grant
application, the project schedule and funding chart, and the Work Element in the OWP. Caltrans
ORIP, located in Sacramento, must approve the use of in-kind contributions as a condition of grant
acceptance.
Partnership Planning and Transit Planning
80
18
QUARTERLY REPORTING
A grant progress report must be prepared every quarter for each awarded Partnership Planning and
Transit Planning project that has been awarded. Caltrans staff will provide the brief reporting form
and due dates.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) REPORTING
Grant recipients are required to report any Partnership Planning and/or Transit Planning grant-funded
contracting opportunities that may involve DBE participation. DBE reporting is required twice a
year: April 1sst and October 1st. For details about DBE requirements, visit the ORIP DBE website at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/DBE/DBE.html
FINAL PRODUCT
All final reports funded through the Partnership Planning and the Transit Planning grant programs
shall credit the Federal Transit Administration or Federal Highway Administration’s financial
participation on the cover or title page. Two hard copies of all final reports shall be forwarded to the
Caltrans District Office responsible for the administration and oversight of the grant. An electronic
file of the final report is also required.
REVIEW PROCESS
All applications submitted to the Partnership Planning and Transit Planning Grant Programs go
through three levels of review--Caltrans Districts, Caltrans Headquarters functional area experts, and
two interagency review committees (one for Partnership Planning and one for Transit Planning).
District staff reviews all applications for content, submission of proper documentation, and overall
relationship to regional planning efforts. The district gives each application a rating of high, medium,
or low. The district also provides comments to inform the interagency review committee. The
Caltrans Headquarters functional area experts review and provide comments pertaining to the
application subject matter, which are also used to inform the interagency review committee. The
interagency review committees review and evaluate applications for content, completeness, and
meeting technical requirements. Once the interagency review committees evaluate, rank and select
the best applications for grant funding, final recommendations are presented to Caltrans management
for approval.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Partnership Planning and Transit Planning Grant Programs are very competitive. Below is a list
of main factors considered in scoring and nominating an application for funding. The most
competitive applications will meet the following criteria and those that do not will be at a competitive
disadvantage. Missing pieces will result in point deductions and a lower application score.
Strong applications address all of the following:
 The overall application addresses the grant specific program objective. The application
responses need to demonstrate that the applicant understands the primary objective of each
grant program.
 State and federal goals are addressed throughout the application.
 Consistency between the grant application, scope of work and timeline.
 A detailed plan for implementation of the study results.
Partnership Planning and Transit Planning
81
19
EVALUATION CRITERIA (continued)
 All responses must be clear and concise and address every aspect of each question. The
responses also need to demonstrate the importance and relevance of the project, the present
innovative planning approaches to address deficiencies, and the possible improvements that
will benefit those engaged in the project.
 Scope of Work (SOW) shall include:
 In MS Word format (use template provided)
 Contains tasks consistent with project schedule (timeline)
 Detailed description of each task
 Includes public participation and services to diverse communities
 Lists project deliverables
 Project Schedule (timeline and budget) shall include:
 In MS Excel format (use template provided)
 Contains tasks consistent with SOW
 A task for a kickoff meeting with Caltrans staff. The purpose is to discuss grant
administration procedures and establish overall project expectations.
 RFP for consultant services, if applicable
 Of the total local match, the cash match and in-kind match are differentiated
 Local match is proportionally distributed throughout each task
 A task for grant administration (including quarterly reports)
 Accurate start and end date of project
 Map of project area
Additional Documents (Not required, but may enhance application)
 Letters of Support: Must be included with application. Letters received separate from the
application package may not be considered.
 Photos that help to further explain the situation and need for the grant.
Past Performance
Previous grant performance will be considered during the evaluation process. Recipients with a
history of poor project management, untimely invoice submittals, or an overall poor quality of the
final product, may be at a competitive disadvantage in the application review process. Grant funds
may not be awarded to prior grant recipients with unresolved past performance issues.
WRITING TO GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Both Federal and State goals provide the framework or basis for the Partnership Planning and Transit
Planning grant programs. These goals are general statements or visions about what each organization
values and wants to ultimately achieve. A competitive grant application would address and articulate
how the project relates to multiple Federal and State goals.
Grant specific objectives are the intermediary step between the goal and implementation. The grant
specific program objectives indicate the specific purpose of each grant program. The proposed
projects are the means of implementing the objectives and the goals. When preparing a grant
application, bear in mind the goals as well as the purpose or objective of each grant program.
Partnership Planning and Transit Planning
82
20
WRITING TO GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (continued)
In addition, Caltrans supports the ongoing Regional Blueprint Plan (RBP) and the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS - SB 375) efforts. A competitive grant application would address how
the project may help implement an RBP or SCS, if one exists or is being developed for that region.
Partnership Planning
FUNDING
The Partnership Planning grant program is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (State
Planning and Research, Part I). The Federal Highway Administration has authorized Caltrans to
distribute these grant funds.
Approximately $1,000,000 will be available for this grant cycle. The maximum amount per grant
cannot exceed $300,000.
GRANT SPECIFIC PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Partnership Planning Program is to encourage or strengthen multi-agency and/or
government-to-government partnerships. The projects must be jointly performed with Caltrans. The
proposed Partnership Planning projects must have a statewide and/or regional benefit. The
anticipated benefits of the project must ultimately result in improvements to the statewide or regional
transportation system.
EXAMPLE PROJECT TYPES
 Studies that identify regional, inter-county, and/or statewide mobility and access needs
 Corridor studies and corridor preservation studies
 Projects that evaluate transportation issues involving ground access to international borders,
seaports, airports, intermodal facilities, freight hubs, and recreational sites
Transit Planning
FUNDING
The Transit Planning Grant Program is funded by the Federal Transit Administration (Section 5304).
The Federal Transit Administration has authorized Caltrans to distribute these grant funds. Funding
distribution will depend on the quality and amount of applications for each Transit Planning
program.
STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES
An estimated $2.0 million will be available for this grant cycle. The maximum amount per grant
cannot exceed $300,000.
GRANT SPECIFIC PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies Program is to address
transit planning issues of statewide or regional significance. The proposed planning
studies are intended to improve transit services and to facilitate congestion relief by
offering an alternative to the single occupant vehicle.
Partnership Planning and Transit Planning
83
21
STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES (continued)
EXAMPLE PROJECT TYPES
 Identification of policies and procedures to integrate transit into the transportation
system planning process
 Statewide transit planning surveys and research
 Identification of policies, strategies, and programs to preserve transit facilities and
optimize transit infrastructure
 Development of transit planning and travel forecasting tools and models
RURAL OR SMALL URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES
An estimated $1.0 million will be available for this grant cycle. The maximum amount per grant
cannot exceed $100,000.
GRANT SPECIFIC PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies Program is to help
transit providers with technical planning for the operation and maintenance of the transit
system. The intent is to support transit and/or intermodal planning studies that show
benefit to rural or small urban service areas with a population of 100,000 and less.
EXAMPLE PROJECT TYPES
 Short-range transit development plans
 Transit marketing plans
 Site selection studies
 Transit service implementation plans
 Ridership surveys
 Social service improvement studies
TRANSIT PLANNING STUDENT INTERNSHIPS
An estimated $500,000 will be available for this grant cycle. The maximum amount per grant cannot
exceed $50,000.
GRANT SPECIFIC PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Transit Planning Student Internships program is to provide student
internships in transit planning at public transportation agencies. The intent is to foster the
education of university and community college students with an interest in the field of
transit planning. Internships are for students only. The application, including the project
scope of work and timeline, should strike a balance between administration of the
internship program and the specific intern assignments to be completed.
Partnership Planning and Transit Planning (continued)
84
22
85
23
86
24
87
25
88
26
89
27
90
28
91
29
92
30
93
31
94
32
SAMPLE SCOPE OF WORK
Click Scope of Work (required document) to access a sample format
95
33
96
34
97
35
SAMPLE PROJECT SCHEDULE
Click Project Schedule (required document) to access a sample format
98
36
99
37
100
38
101
39
102
40
103
1303 J Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-448-1198
www.lgc.org
Qualifications and Experience — Community Design Projects
The Local Government Commission (LGC) is a 30-year old non-profit, non-partisan, membership
organization of local elected officials, local government staff and community leaders. Our
membership is primarily from California, with a smaller percentage from other states. The LGC
was founded as a state commission in 1979 to assist local governments in implementing
renewable energy programs and became a private nonprofit in 1983. Since then it has grown into
an organization with approximately 1,000 members and a staff of 18 dedicated professionals.
During the past 20 years, the organization has focused on the problems – and opportunities –
caused by rapid growth, especially in California and other western states. The LGC began to
address these challenges in 1991 with the drafting of The Ahwahnee Principles for Livable
Communities. These 19 principles form a nationally-recognized set of local and regional land
use, transportation and community design policies that give cities and counties a tool for
planning growth that avoids the multiple problems of current sprawl development patterns. The
Principles advocate building walkable neighborhoods that provide a mix of uses and housing
types within walking distance of transit.
Since 1992, the LGC has organized over 250 small and large conferences; produced numerous
guidebooks, pamphlets, videos and slide shows on key subjects; developed a cutting-edge set of
economic development principles; built a national resource center on land use and transportation
issues called the Center for Livable Communities; and published a national newsletter (Livable
Places Update). Since 2001, through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the LGC has been the organizer of the New Partners for Smart Growth
conference, the largest national multidisciplinary conference on creating healthy, livable, safe
communities. The conference typically brings together over 1,500 elected officials, community
leaders, planners, architects, public health officials, developers, environmentalists, and others for
three days of discussions on how to implement smart growth policies.
To improve public engagement in the planning process, in 1994 the LGC published a guidebook
on “Participation Tools for Better Land Use Planning” and developed the Community Image
Survey (CIS) to assist in the process. The LGC has since developed over 25 CIS’s and has
helped conduct participatory design charrettes in over 40 cities and counties across the state. The
charrettes typically involve a series of workshops and walkability assessments aimed at helping
communities develop visions and plans to create safer, more walkable, bicycle-friendly places.
Since 2001 the LGC has partnered with over 30 local jurisdictions to develop plans for
revitalization with funding from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through
its Environmental Justice and Community-Based Transportation Planning grant programs. LGC
staff helps write the proposal, manage the project, contract with technical experts, organize and
facilitate workshops and walkability audits and write a final report and plan. Recent projects
include a Pedestrian Plan for the City of Richmond, CA; a plan for Highway 1 north of Half
Moon Bay in San Mateo County; and plans for revitalizing the Chinatown neighborhood in
Salinas, CA.
104
Local Government Commission
Project References
February 2011
David G. Holland, Assistant County Manager
San Mateo County
455 County Center, 4th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 363-4131
Fax: (650) 599-1721
dholland@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Project: Highway 1 Corridor Plan, 2010
Richard Mitchell, Director
Planning and Building Services
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
510-620-6706
Project: Richmond Pedestrian Plan, 2010
Greg Humora, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942-5502
619-667-1146
ghumora@ci.la-mesa.ca.us
Project: La Mesa Walkability Plan, 2006
Don Pauley, City Manager
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA 93631
559-897-5821
dfpauley@cityofkingsburg-ca.gov
Projects: Central Kingsburg Revitalization Plan, 2007; Downtown Kingsburg Form-Based Code, 2010-11
Jose Antonio Ramirez, City Manager
City of Firebaugh
1133 "P" St.
Firebaugh, CA 93622
Phone (559) 659-2043
Fax (559) 659-3412
citymanager@ci.firebaugh.ca.us
Project: Central Firebaugh Revitalization Plan, 2007
Don Reynolds, Redevelopment Project Manager
City of Salinas Redevelopment Agency
831-775-4245
donaldr@ci.salinas.ca.us
Project: Historic Chinatown Renewal Project Plan (2008) and Implementation Strategy for the Chinatown Renewal
Project Plan (2010)
Rosemarie Amaral, MPH, Health Educator
Office of Policy, Planning and Communication
Fresno County Department of Public Health
559-445-3276
RAmaral@co.fresno.ca.us
Project: Walkable Communities and Safe Routes to School Workshops in Fresno, CA in 2007, 2009 and 2010