CITY COUNCIL: AGENDA & MINUTES February 2012

AGENDA--AMENDED
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
4:30p.m., Open Session

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

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

Broadcast date
Sunday, February 12,2012
8:00 a.m., MCAET Channel 26

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

III. Pledge of Allegiance

IV. Extraordinary Business

A. Certificate of Appreciation for Mitch Kastros for his service to the City.

B. Certificate of Appreciation for Magdy Ibrahim of Patisserie Boissiere.

C. Certificate of Appreciation for Laurie Schumann for her service as the
City's representative to Community Human Services.

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).

1. Receive Mayor's Annual Report.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Receive Quarterly Marketing Report.

2. Receive SCC's Quarterly Financial Report.

3. Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Second Quarter Financial Report.

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 January 10, 2012.

B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of January 2012.

C. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant from the California
Coastal Conservancy in the amount of$250,000 to implement the Del Mar
Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to
execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments.

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 approving the modifications to the Conflict of Interest Code List.

F. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a $2,000 donation from the
Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally for deposit into the Carmel Police DARE Program Account.

G. Consideration of a Resolution approving a pass-through disposal rate
increase of0.78% (as approved by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District) and an annual cost-of-living adjustment of2.58% for a total increase of3.36%.

VDI. 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 an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC.

IX. Ordinances

Two Ordinances regarding changes to the Public Employees' Retirement System will be considered under "Orders of Council".

X. Resolutions

A. Consideration of a Resolution approving a reduced rental fee at
Vista Lobos for two nonprofit groups, Science of the Soul and Sun Street Centers.

B. Consideration of a Resolution appointing the Mayor and a designated
Councilmember to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority.

XI. Orders of Council

A. Receive report regarding enhancement of the Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan.

B. Consideration of criteria to waive certain City fees.

C. Adopt updated Harassment Prevention Policy.

D. Review of the Planning Commission's Wine Tasting Policy.

E. Approve amendments to the contracts with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council as follows:

1) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or
after April 15, 2012.

2) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, F AS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012.

H. Scheduling Future City Council meetings - Please Bring Your Calendar.

XII. Adjournment

The next meeting of the City Council will be:
Regular Council Meeting- 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Council Chambers

The City of Cannel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-theSea 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
February 7, 2012


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 4:36 p.m. Mayor McCloud called the meeting
to order.

II. ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage & Mayor McCloud

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Asst. City Administrator/City Clerk
Mike Calhoun, Interim Police Chief
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE


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

IV. EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS


Mayor McCloud asked for a moment to remember Jean Draper and Marcia Hovick who recently
passed away.

A. Certificate of Appreciation for Mitch Kastros for his service to the City.

B. Certificate of Appreciation for Magdy Ibrahim of Patisserie Boissiere.

C. Certificate of Appreciation for Laurie Schumann for her service as the City’s representative to Community Human Services.

Mayor McCloud presented the certificates. Monta Potter, CEO of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce also presented a Certificate to Magdy Ibrahim and Lynn Wood in recognition of their Anniversary. Laurie Schumann’s contributions were noted by the Mayor, although she was not in attendance.

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


A. Announcements from Closed Session.

City Attorney Don Freeman said the Council met in Closed Session on Monday, February 6, to discuss two items, and there are no announcements for the public.

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).

1. Receive Mayor’s Annual Report.

Mayor McCloud presented the report.

Announcements from City Council members.

Council Member Sharp noted that the City had received a certificate from the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce in recognition of being a member for five years.

Council Member Hazdovac noted the completion of the Del Mar parking lot.

Mayor McCloud noted that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District now offers the public rain sensors that can be attached to automatic sprinkler systems and that the New York Times ran an article about the Sunset Center.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Receive Quarterly Marketing Report.

Jeff Burghardt presented the report.

Jeanne Byrne, Chair of the Pacific Grove Auto Rally, and board members Bruce Obbink and Jack McKinnon, presented a donation of $2,000 to the Carmel Police Department’s DARE program.

2. Receive SCC’s Quarterly Financial Report.

Sally Reed, Treasurer of SCC, Inc. presented the report.

3. Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Second Quarter Financial Report.

City Administrator Jason Stilwell presented the report.

VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES


Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:34 p.m.

John Aliotti, a former La Playa Hotel employee, and Mark Weller and Chris Fitz, representing UNITE HERE Local 483, addressed Council regarding employment with La Playa.

Nina Beety spoke regarding PG&E meters.

Stacy Maheen, Bay Bikes, spoke regarding a bake sale to raise funds for Dave and Debbie Travaille, who recently experienced a fire at their home in Mission Fields.

Roberta Miller announced the upcoming Candidates Forum, sponsored by the Carmel Residents Association, from 7:00-9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February at Carpenter Hall at the Sunset Center.

Barbara Livingston, president of the Carmel Residents Association, spoke regarding MST’s plans for a transit yard on former Fort Ord property.

Richard Kreitman, owner of Gallery North, discussed the possibility of “Locals Night” events.

Thompson Lange, Board Member of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce, noted the AT&T shuttle service from the Carmel Plaza and a Candidates Forum, sponsored by the Chamber, scheduled for Thursday, March 8, at Church of the Wayfarer.

Joe Cadelago, of Waste Management, Inc. noted that 10 tons of electronic waste was collected at the January 28 event co-sponsored by the City, the Carmel Residents Association, and Waste Management, Inc.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:53 p.m.

VII. CONSENT CALENDAR


A. Ratify the minutes for the regular meeting of January 10, 2012.

B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of January 2012.

C. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Del Mar Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments.

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 approving the modifications to the Conflict of Interest Code List.

F. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a $2,000 donation from the Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally for deposit into the Carmel Police DARE Program Account.

G. Consideration of a Resolution approving a pass-through disposal rate increase of 0.78% (as approved by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District) and an annual cost-of-living adjustment of 2.58%
for a total increase of 3.36%.

Council Member Talmage pulled Item G.

Sean Conroy, Planning and Building Manager, clarified plans in conjunction with Item C.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 5:57 p.m.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-F, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried unanimously.

To accommodate representatives from Waste Management, Inc., Council then heard Item VII.G.

City Administrator Stilwell presented the staff report.

Michael LaRussa and Felipe Melchor of Waste Management, Inc. addressed Council.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 6:16 p.m.

Speaking on this item were: Safwat Malek, Barbara Livingston, Jonathan Sapp, Amanda LeVett, Marguerite Primrose and Frank Primrose.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:25 p.m.

Felipe Melchor addressed public comments.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to continue this item, to obtain a legal opinion, to draft an
addendum, and/or to renegotiate the franchise agreement, seconded by Council Member
SHARP and carried unanimously.

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS


A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 3 N/E of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC.

Council Member Burnett recused himself as he lives near the subject of the appeal.

Planning Services Manager Sean Conroy presented the staff report.

Claudio Ortiz, representing Plum Holdings, addressed Council.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 7:02 p.m.

Speaking to this item were: Carol Dellecker, who read a letter from Steven Silver, a neighbor on Lincoln; John Pitcher, Judie Profeta, Malone Hodges, Monte Miller, Barbara Livingston, and Eric Barstad.

Fred Kern, the appellant, clarified several points.

Roberta Miller, and Lorelei Gabel Kalinowski addressed Council.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 7:26 p.m.

Claudio Ortiz clarified some additional points.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve the retaining wall to the south that is not in the
public right of way, to require a green wall, to require a ridge height of 20 feet, and to remove
Special Condition #10, seconded by Mayor McCLOUD, and failed with the following roll call
vote:

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

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to amend the previous motion but to allow a ridge height
of 21 feet, seconded by Council Member SHARP, and failed with the following roll call vote:

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

Council Member TALMAGE moved to return to his original motion, seconded by Council
Member SHARP, and passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT

Council took a 10-minute break at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened at 8:08 p.m.

IX. ORDINANCES


A. The two ordinances regarding CalPERS were considered under the “Orders of Council” portion of the agenda.

XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL


This item was taken out of order

B. Consideration of criteria to waive certain City fees.

City Administrator Jason Stilwell presented the report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 8:30 p.m.

Barbara Livingston and two members of the “Good Morning Carmel” community aid group addressed Council.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt a 15% reduction on the building permit fees for
nonprofit organizations, to continue the item regarding fee reductions for facility rentals and
special events, and requested staff to provide additional information related to those two
areas, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

X. RESOLUTIONS


A. Consideration of a Resolution approving a reduced rental fee at Vista Lobos for two nonprofit groups, Science of the Soul and Sun Street Centers.

This item was continued as it relates to the previous item (Item XI-B).

B. Consideration of a Resolution appointing the Mayor and a designated Councilmember to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 9:26 p.m.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to appoint the Mayor and Council Member Talmage to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, seconded by Council Member BURNETT, and passed 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

XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL


A. Receive report regarding enhancement of the Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan.

Interim Police Chief Mike Calhoun presented the report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 9:49 p.m.

Barbara Livingston asked about emergency training for staff.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 9:52 p.m.

B. Consideration of criteria to waive certain City fees. (This item was heard earlier)

C. Adopt updated Harassment Prevention Policy.

City Attorney Don Freeman presented the report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 10:04 p.m.

Jim Emery addressed Council.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 10:06 p.m.

Council Member BURNETT moved to move the first sentence (“The policy of the City…harassment in any form is the workplace is unacceptable and will not be tolerated”) to the Policy section, to ensure that all elected officials, staff, and volunteers receive training at least every two years and specify that a signed copy be in the file, and to add two business days (for reporting), seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and passed 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

D. Review of the Planning Commission’s Wine Tasting Policy.

Planning Services Manager Sean Conroy presented the report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 10:30 p.m.

John Stilwell addressed Council.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 10:30 p.m.

By consensus, Council unanimously approved Option 1 of the staff’s recommendations, to take no action and allow the Commission to continue operating under the criteria of the Wine Tasting Policy.

E. Approve amendments to the contracts with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council as follows:
1) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, 3-Year FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012,
2) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, 3-Year FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April 15, 2012.

City Administrator Stilwell presented the report for both items.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 10:37 p.m.

Council Member BURNETT moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, 3-Year FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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

Council Member BURNETT moved to adopt the first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, 3-Year FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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

Council Member BURNETT moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 50, 3-Year FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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

Council Member BURNETT moved to adopt the first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 50, 3-Year FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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

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

XII. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McCloud declared the meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk MAYOR SUE McCLOUD

CITY COUNCIL: Tour of Inspection & Closed Session February 6, 2012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection and Closed Session
Monday, February 6, 2012 -- 4:30 p.m.

Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues

The City Council will first meet at City Hall on the east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues.

I. Roll Call, then depart for the Tour of Inspection

1. View the site of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 3 N/E of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC.

II. Adjournment to Closed Session at City Hall

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:

1. Labor Negotiations – Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the various bargaining units.

2. Existing Litigation -- Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818.

III. Announcements in Open Session (if any).

IV. Adjournment

CITY COUNCIL: Check Register February 2012

City of Carmel by-the-Sea
Check Register
February 2012



Check No.--Check Date--Vendor Name--Amount--Expense Acct--Description
123856 2/28/2012 ACME ROTARY BROOM SERVICE $ 479.42 01 76049 0003 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 479.42

123806 2/14/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 15.00 01 64017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123806 2/14/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 5 .00 01 69017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123806 2/14/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 35.00 01 74017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123806 2/14/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 25.00 01 84017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123857 2/28/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 15.00 01 64017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123857 2/28/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 5 .00 01 69017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123857 2/28/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 35.00 01 74017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123857 2/28/2012 AFLAC - FLEX ONE $ 25.00 01 84017 0005 MEDICAL PROGRAM
Vendor Total -----> $ 160.00

123807 2/14/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 65.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
123807 2/14/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 180.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
123841 2/21/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 60.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
123841 2/21/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 50.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
123841 2/21/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 65.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
123841 2/21/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 40.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
123841 2/21/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 50.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
123841 2/21/2012 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 55.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 565.00

123808 2/14/2012 AIRTEC INC $ 290.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 290.00

123842 2/21/2012 ALHAMBRA $ 65.35 01 64053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 65.35

123843 2/21/2012 AMERICAN SUPPLY COMPANY $ 708.28 01 70044 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
123843 2/21/2012 AMERICAN SUPPLY COMPANY $ 86.74 01 70044 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 795.02

123774 2/7/2012 ANDY & ME AUTO UPHOLSTERY $ 363.52 01 76049 0001 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 363.52

123844 2/21/2012 ANDON LAUNDRY SERVICE $ 357.25 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 357.25

123858 2/28/2012 ANIMAL SHELTERING $ 20.00 01 74033 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
Vendor Total -----> $ 20.00

123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 914.26 01 64036 TELEPHONE
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 641.91 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 352.33 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 212.19 01 69036 TELEPHONE
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 362.72 01 72036 TELEPHONE
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 572.04 01 74036 TELEPHONE
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 137.08 01 76036 TELEPHONE
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 15.81 01 82036 TELEPHONE
123809 2/14/2012 AT&T $ 16.36 60 81036 TELEPHONE
Vendor Total -----> $ 3,224.70

123845 2/21/2012 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $ 451.70 07 72603 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
123845 2/21/2012 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $ 112.08 07 72603 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 563.78

123859 2/28/2012 BROWNSTEIN/HYATT/FARBER/SCHRECK $ 140.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 140.00

123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 3,511.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 1,955.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 782.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 425.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 905.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 588.24 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 3,400.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 2,353.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 16,625.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 1,831.37 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 614.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
123810 2/14/2012 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 3,125.00 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
Vendor Total -----> $ 36,114.61

123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 101.13 01 64026 UTILITIES
123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 1,827.76 01 70026 UTILITIES
123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 111.30 01 72026 UTILITIES
123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 1,702.23 01 76026 UTILITIES
123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 12.72 01 82026 UTILITIES
123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 138.74 01 84026 UTILITIES
123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 69.37 60 81026 UTILITIES
123846 2/21/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 349.32 01 78053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123860 2/28/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 1,126.72 01 76026 UTILITIES
123860 2/28/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 809.43 01 76026 UTILITIES
123860 2/28/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 62.60 01 64026 UTILITIES
123860 2/28/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 44.97 01 64026 UTILITIES
123860 2/28/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 62.60 01 70026 UTILITIES
123860 2/28/2012 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 44.97 01 70026 UTILITIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 6,463.86

123861 2/28/2012 CA RESRV PEACE OFFCR ASSN $ 84.00 01 74033 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
Vendor Total -----> $ 84.00

123775 2/7/2012 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 192.00 01 64040 ADVERTISING
123775 2/7/2012 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 88.64 01 69040 ADVERTISING
123862 2/28/2012 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 69.98 01 69040 ADVERTISING
Vendor Total -----> $ 350.62

123776 2/7/2012 CARMEL GARAGE $ 190.73 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
123776 2/7/2012 CARMEL GARAGE $ 275.68 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
123776 2/7/2012 CARMEL GARAGE $ 1,528.20 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,994.61

123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 175.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 175.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 175.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 50.00 01 76051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 175.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 840.78 01 76051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 542.30 01 76051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 72.60 01 76051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
123777 2/7/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 175.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123863 2/28/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 100.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123863 2/28/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 100.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123863 2/28/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 175.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123863 2/28/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 175.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
123863 2/28/2012 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 100.00 50 24050 0418 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
Vendor Total -----> $ 3,030.68

123778 2/7/2012 CARMEL TOWING & GARAGE $ 24.62 01 76046 FUEL
123778 2/7/2012 CARMEL TOWING & GARAGE $ 21.22 01 76046 FUEL
123778 2/7/2012 CARMEL TOWING & GARAGE $ 70.00 01 76049 0003 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 115.84

123864 2/28/2012 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICE CORP $ 3,710.02 01 88578 CATERPILLAR LOADER
Vendor Total -----> $ 3,710.02

123811 2/14/2012 CDW-G GOVERNMENT INC. $ 931.84 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 931.84

123847 2/21/2012 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 142,300.00 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 142,300.00

123779 2/7/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 214.40 01 74017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123812 2/14/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 145.00 01 69017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123812 2/14/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 176.80 01 74017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123812 2/14/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 114.00 01 84017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123812 2/14/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 76.00 01 70017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 43.50 01 60017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 29.70 01 64017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 19.80 01 65017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 29.70 01 67017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 49.50 01 69017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 19.80 01 70017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 39.60 01 72017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 188.10 01 74017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 79.20 01 76017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 19.80 01 78017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 89.10 01 84017 0004 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 340.80 01 67017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 115.00 01 69017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
123865 2/28/2012 COASTAL TPA, INC $ 470.00 01 74017 0003 MEDICAL PROGRAM
Vendor Total -----> $ 2,259.80

123692 2/23/2012 COLTON, INC. $ (72.75) 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ (72.75)

123813 2/14/2012 COLTON HEATING & SHEET METAL, INC. $ 72.75 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 72.75

123866 2/28/2012 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE $ 20.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 20.00

123867 2/28/2012 COMCAST $ 4 .14 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123867 2/28/2012 COMCAST $ 172.46 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123867 2/28/2012 COMCAST $ 69.74 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 246.34

123780 2/7/2012 SEAN CONROY $ 36.08 01 64030 0213 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ 36.08

123814 2/14/2012 CONTE'S GENERATOR SERVICE $ 303.24 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 303.24

123781 2/7/2012 COPIES BY-THE-SEA $ 149.79 01 64039 PRINTING
123781 2/7/2012 COPIES BY-THE-SEA $ 94.34 01 69039 0001 PRINTING
Vendor Total -----> $ 244.13

123868 2/28/2012 CORBIN WILLITS SYSTEM $ 720.79 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 720.79

123840 2/14/2012 DADIW ASSOCIATES $ 4,037.50 01 64053 0011 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 4,037.50

123869 2/28/2012 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE $ 128.00 01 67110 PRE-EMPLOYMENT
123869 2/28/2012 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE $ 300.00 50 24050 0534 DEPT OF JUSTICE LIVESCAN FEE
Vendor Total -----> $ 428.00

123870 2/28/2012 DIGITAL PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP $ 150.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 150.00

123871 2/28/2012 DLB ASSOCIATES INC. $ 2,902.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 2,902.00

123872 2/28/2012 DOCUTEC $ 78.28 01 65042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
123872 2/28/2012 DOCUTEC $ 234.85 01 65042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
123872 2/28/2012 DOCUTEC $ 139.40 01 65042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
123872 2/28/2012 DOCUTEC $ 449.38 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 901.91

123815 2/14/2012 DON CHAPIN COMPANY,INC. $ 399.71 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123873 2/28/2012 DON CHAPIN COMPANY,INC. $ 53.65 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 453.36

123874 2/28/2012 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE CO. $ 31.33 01 74034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIOINS
Vendor Total -----> $ 31.33

123816 2/14/2012 ED SANTACRUZ JANITORIAL SERVICE $ 1,700.00 01 70053 0010 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123875 2/28/2012 ED SANTACRUZ JANITORIAL SERVICE $ 900.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 2,600.00

123817 2/14/2012 ERICKSON AUTOMOTIVE & 4X4 $ 1,179.46 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,179.46

123848 2/21/2012 DDEVANS CONSULTING $ 200.00 01 63053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 200.00

123876 2/28/2012 FASTENAL COMPANY $ 89.64 01 89432 PD/YTH CTR GENERATOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 89.64

123877 2/28/2012 FEDEX $ 26.87 01 69095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 26.87

123878 2/28/2012 LESLIE FENTON $ 84.36 01 64030 0229 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123878 2/28/2012 LESLIE FENTON $ 6 .33 01 64030 0229 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ 90.69

123879 2/28/2012 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,INC.#679 $ 11.92 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
123879 2/28/2012 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,INC.#679 $ 95.19 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 107.11

123880 2/28/2012 FIRST ALARM-MONTEREY CO. $ 184.84 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 184.84

123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 515.07 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 30.33 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 210.11 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 615.40 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ (4.95) 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ (0.43) 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ (10.51) 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123881 2/28/2012 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ (5.92) 01 76045 0001 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,349.10

123882 2/28/2012 GRANICUS, INC. $ 521.90 50 24050 0804 PUBLIC EDUC./GOVT ACCESS(PEG)
Vendor Total -----> $ 521.90

123883 2/28/2012 GREEN VALLEY LANDSCAPE INC. $ 1,200.00 01 78053 0005 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123883 2/28/2012 GREEN VALLEY LANDSCAPE INC. $ 155.07 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,355.07

123884 2/28/2012 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 300.00 01 78053 0003 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123884 2/28/2012 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 325.00 01 78053 0004 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123884 2/28/2012 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 415.00 01 78053 0006 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123884 2/28/2012 GREENSCAPE CALIFORNIA $ 750.00 01 78053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,790.00

123818 2/14/2012 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS $ 1,350.64 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,350.64

123782 2/7/2012 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 266.04 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123819 2/14/2012 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 1,324.99 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,591.03

123783 2/7/2012 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 300.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
123885 2/28/2012 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 350.00 01 78050 0002 OUTSIDE LABOR
123885 2/28/2012 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 1,200.00 01 78050 0002 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,850.00

123820 2/14/2012 JNM AUTOMATION $ 95.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 95.00

123886 2/28/2012 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 365.00 01 78050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 365.00

123887 2/28/2012 JOHNSON, ROBERTS & ASSOC. $ 17.00 01 67110 PRE-EMPLOYMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 17.00

123784 2/7/2012 KNAPP HARDWARE, INC. $ 73.16 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
123784 2/7/2012 KNAPP HARDWARE, INC. $ 2 .05 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
123784 2/7/2012 KNAPP HARDWARE, INC. $ 100.52 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 175.73

123785 2/7/2012 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES $ 150.00 01 60033 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
123849 2/21/2012 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES $ 2,344.00 01 60033 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
Vendor Total -----> $ 2,494.00

123888 2/28/2012 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE $ 783.60 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 783.60

123821 2/14/2012 LIU OF NA $ 205.92 01 65016 RETIREMENT
123821 2/14/2012 LIU OF NA $ 823.68 01 69016 RETIREMENT
123821 2/14/2012 LIU OF NA $ 205.92 01 70016 RETIREMENT
123821 2/14/2012 LIU OF NA $ 1,647.36 01 76016 RETIREMENT
123821 2/14/2012 LIU OF NA $ 205.92 01 78018 LIFE INSURANCE
123821 2/14/2012 LIU OF NA $ 1,707.16 01 21285 LIUNA SUPPL EE RETIREMENT
123821 2/14/2012 LIU OF NA $ 1,184.04 01 21285 LIUNA SUPPL EE RETIREMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 5,980.00

123786 2/7/2012 M.J.MURPHY $ 20.41 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123786 2/7/2012 M.J.MURPHY $ 12.75 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 33.16

123889 2/28/2012 MARTECH INC $ 100.00 01 65051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
123889 2/28/2012 MARTECH INC $ 300.00 01 65051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 400.00

123787 2/7/2012 WORLD MARKETING LA $ 765.00 01 64300 ELECTION
123822 2/14/2012 WORLD MARKETING LA $ 728.00 01 64300 ELECTION
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,493.00

123823 2/14/2012 MARCELLO & COMPANY CPAS $ 2,500.00 01 67400 AUDITS
Vendor Total -----> $ 2,500.00

123824 2/14/2012 TIMOTHY J. MERONEY $ 112.23 01 76047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 112.23

123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 8 .29 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 20.55 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 23.65 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 8 .42 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 62.90 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 23.65 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 8 .42 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 23.65 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 8 .42 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 8 .42 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 62.90 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 62.90 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 23.65 01 76053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123788 2/7/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 62.90 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
Vendor Total -----> $ 408.72

123825 2/14/2012 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 15.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
Vendor Total -----> $ 15.00

123890 2/28/2012 MONTEREY CNTY ANIMAL SERV $ 1,600.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,600.00

123789 2/7/2012 MONTEREY TIRE SERVICE $ 573.93 01 76048 TIRES/TUBES
123789 2/7/2012 MONTEREY TIRE SERVICE $ 40.00 01 76048 TIRES/TUBES
Vendor Total -----> $ 613.93

123850 2/21/2012 MTRY COUNTY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU $ 23,675.50 01 20260 TOURISM IMPRVMT DISTRICT PYBLE
123850 2/21/2012 MTRY COUNTY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU $ 647.50 01 20260 TOURISM IMPRVMT DISTRICT PYBLE
123850 2/21/2012 MTRY COUNTY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU $ (236.76) 01 36351 0002 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
123850 2/21/2012 MTRY COUNTY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU $ (6.48) 01 36351 0002 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 24,079.76

123826 2/14/2012 MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER $ 10,071.00 01 76055 STORM WATER RUNOFF PROG EXP
Vendor Total -----> $ 10,071.00

123891 2/28/2012 MONTEREY CO MAYOR'S ASSOC $ 1,100.00 01 60033 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,100.00

123851 2/21/2012 MONTRY BAY TELEPHONE SERV $ 89.55 07 72036 TELEPHONE
Vendor Total -----> $ 89.55

123892 2/28/2012 MONTEREY BAY PLANNING SERVICES $ 741.25 01 61051 0040 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 741.25

123893 2/28/2012 MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING $ 28,852.69 01 89641 DEL MAR UNDERGROUND WATER TANK
123893 2/28/2012 MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING $ 161,463.74 01 89584 0001 FY 09-10 STREET & RD PROJECTS
Vendor Total -----> $ 190,316.43

123827 2/14/2012 JOHN NAGEL $ 1,160.00 50 24050 2420 NAGEL/033P12/010129011000
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,160.00

123790 2/7/2012 NANCY'S MID VLY FLORIST $ 48.26 01 60095 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES/SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 48.26

123791 2/7/2012 NATURE CONSERVANCY $ 25.00 01 78033 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
Vendor Total -----> $ 25.00

123852 2/21/2012 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP. $ 150.00 01 62053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 150.00

123894 2/28/2012 NEW IMAGE LANDSCAPE CO. $ 2,937.50 01 78053 0002 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

123792 2/7/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 90.66 01 72036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 93.03 01 64036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 29.05 01 65036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 171.37 01 69036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 57.98 01 70036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 422.06 01 74036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 108.98 01 76036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 28.99 01 78036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 43.48 01 82036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 14.50 01 72036 TELEPHONE
123828 2/14/2012 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 549.97 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 1,610.07

123895 2/28/2012 OCCU-MED LTD. $ 50.00 01 67110 PRE-EMPLOYMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 50.00

123793 2/7/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 80.91 01 69042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
123793 2/7/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 59.95 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123793 2/7/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 2 .11 01 69043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
123853 2/21/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 41.98 07 72043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
123896 2/28/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 52.96 01 65042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
123896 2/28/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 17.50 01 74054 EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
123896 2/28/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 24.65 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123896 2/28/2012 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 124.99 01 65042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 405.05

123794 2/7/2012 ORCHARD SUPPLY $ 84.55 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 84.55

123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 579.91 01 64026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 54.09 01 70026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 812.21 01 72026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 3,005.21 01 74026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 1,214.52 01 76026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 126.11 01 78026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 956.80 01 82026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 1,899.73 01 84026 UTILITIES
123795 2/7/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 149.32 60 81026 UTILITIES
123829 2/14/2012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 280.85 01 76026 UTILITIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 9,078.75

123830 2/14/2012 PACIFIC CREDIT SERVICES INC. $ 24.00 01 67110 PRE-EMPLOYMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 24.00

123831 2/14/2012 PENINSULA MESSENGER SERVICE $ 4,389.00 01 64204 MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT
Vendor Total -----> $ 4,389.00

123854 2/21/2012 PENINSULA WELDING & MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC $ 19.46 07 72603 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
123854 2/21/2012 PENINSULA WELDING & MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC $ 32.00 07 72603 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 51.46

123897 2/28/2012 PERMIT SERVICES INC. $ 245.00 01 33405 PLANNING PERMITS
Vendor Total -----> $ 245.00

123796 2/7/2012 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 70.00 01 64030 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123796 2/7/2012 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 11.65 01 64038 POSTAGE
123796 2/7/2012 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 4 .31 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
123796 2/7/2012 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 46.00 01 64030 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123796 2/7/2012 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 110.70 01 64030 0205 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ 242.66

123832 2/14/2012 PROFESSIONAL PROP MAINT $ 7,259.23 01 70053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123832 2/14/2012 PROFESSIONAL PROP MAINT $ 7,259.23 01 70053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123832 2/14/2012 PROFESSIONAL PROP MAINT $ 7,259.23 01 70053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 21,777.69

123898 2/28/2012 PUBLIC STORAGE INC $ 386.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 386.00

123797 2/7/2012 R&S ERECTION OF MONTERE BAY INC $ 648.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 648.00

123798 2/7/2012 VICTORIA RAGGETT $ 176.63 50 24050 0733 ARTS & CRAFTS PROGRAM
Vendor Total -----> $ 176.63

123899 2/28/2012 RANCHO CAR WASH $ 127.14 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 127.14

123765 2/28/2012 RESIDENCE INN SAN JOSE SOUTH $ (592.24) 01 64030 0257 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123765 2/28/2012 RESIDENCE INN SAN JOSE SOUTH $ (592.24) 01 64030 0245 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123900 2/28/2012 RESIDENCE INN SAN JOSE SOUTH $ 896.96 01 64030 0245 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ (287.52)

123833 2/14/2012 JAN ROEHL $ 600.00 01 64051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 600.00

123901 2/28/2012 SALINAS VALLEY FORD SALES $ 508.77 01 76049 0002 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 508.77

123834 2/14/2012 SAME DAY SHRED $ 138.00 01 67051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 138.00

123902 2/28/2012 SEASIDE GARDEN CENTER $ 10.71 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 10.71

123799 2/7/2012 KENT SEAVEY $ 500.00 50 24050 1308 C.H.P.LLC/00ONI/010264007000
Vendor Total -----> $ 500.00

123800 2/7/2012 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 24.77 01 76047 0001 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
123800 2/7/2012 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 25.68 01 76057 0001 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
123800 2/7/2012 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 82.62 01 76047 0003 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
123800 2/7/2012 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 46.44 01 76047 0003 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 179.51

123855 2/21/2012 STRATEGIC INSIGHTS INC $ 995.00 01 67043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 995.00

123903 2/28/2012 SUNBADGE COMPANY $ 157.01 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 157.01

123835 2/14/2012 TONY'S FRAME SHOP $ 209.14 01 60207 COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY
Vendor Total -----> $ 209.14

123801 2/7/2012 TOPE'S TREE SERVICE $ 400.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
123801 2/7/2012 TOPE'S TREE SERVICE $ 200.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
123904 2/28/2012 TOPE'S TREE SERVICE $ 3,200.00 01 78050 0004 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 3,800.00

123836 2/14/2012 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT $ 1,450.00 01 67424 W/C SELF-FUNDED RUN-OUT CLAIMS
123905 2/28/2012 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT $ 1,450.00 01 67424 W/C SELF-FUNDED RUN-OUT CLAIMS
Vendor Total -----> $ 2,900.00

123837 2/14/2012 TRUCKSIS ENTERPRISES,INC. $ 300.00 01 69053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total -----> $ 300.00

123906 2/28/2012 ULTRAMAX $ 872.00 01 74057 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 872.00

123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 24.77 01 82043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 7 .38 01 70044 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 103.64 01 64030 0205 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 80.00 01 64030 0215 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 462.09 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 398.62 01 64030 0256 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 5 .89 07 72603 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 4,000.00 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 20.36 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 21.45 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 33.30 01 67428 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 450.00 01 64030 0201 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 42.87 01 74031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 10.81 07 72043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 131.95 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 42.80 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 54.92 01 64030 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 60.45 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
123907 2/28/2012 US BANK $ 47.49 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 5,998.79

123802 2/7/2012 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN EQUIP $ 75.36 01 76057 0003 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
123908 2/28/2012 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN EQUIP $ 96.78 01 76049 0004 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
123908 2/28/2012 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN EQUIP $ 64.92 01 76049 0004 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Vendor Total -----> $ 237.06

123803 2/7/2012 VALLEY HILLS NURSERY $ 82.58 01 78045 0001 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
Vendor Total -----> $ 82.58

123838 2/14/2012 VASILOVICH RESIDENTIAL PLNG & DESIGN $ 340.00 50 24050 2420 NAGEL/033P12/010129011000
Vendor Total -----> $ 340.00

123909 2/28/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 37.36 01 69053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123909 2/28/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 38.01 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123909 2/28/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 76.04 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123909 2/28/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 93.19 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
123909 2/28/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 0 .17 01 64036 TELEPHONE
123909 2/28/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 35.03 01 60036 TELEPHONE
Vendor Total -----> $ 279.80

123804 2/7/2012 MARC WIENER $ 18.32 01 64030 0253 TRAINING/BUSINESS EXP.
Vendor Total -----> $ 18.32

123839 2/14/2012 WINNERS AWARDS & ENGRAVER $ 204.82 01 74050 OUTSIDE LABOR
Vendor Total -----> $ 204.82

123805 2/7/2012 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE CO. $ 134.06 01 76057 0005 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Vendor Total -----> $ 134.06

138 Checks Grand Total -> $ 534,420.12

CITY COUNCIL: Fiscal Year 2011/1012 Second Quarter Financial Report

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2012
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file

BACKGROUND
The second quarter financial report is presented annually to the City Council to provide a mid-year assessment of City revenue and spending. At this time no adjustments to the budget are being recommended. Attached is a budget status report for the first half of this fiscal year.

In summary both revenues and expenditures are closely aligned with budget estimates. Overall at 50% of the year revenues are at 47% of budget and expenditures are at 50% of budget. Specific variances and key issues are described below.

Revenue
Revenue received through the first part of this fiscal year is slightly below budget projections. This negative variance is primarily due to timing; a timing variance is when revenue is still projected to materialize but at a different time than projected in the budget. Staff does not recommend recognizing additional revenue estimates at this time.

Property tax has a positive timing variance. Property taxes are paid in December and April and some estimating is always required of how much of the taxes will be paid in each installment. We anticipate the second installment being slightly below budget with the overall revenue for the year meeting budget estimates.

Transient Occupancy Tax is below budget at the mid-point of the fiscal year. Economic recovery is slow. Occupancy rates remain stable but there is downward pressure on room prices from online sales. The holiday season revenue has yet to be received and indications are that the season's occupancy and rates were strong. A primary concern for Transient Occupancy Tax revenue is the temporary closure of the La Playa hotel. Although many visitors will likely stay at other inns within the Village, the loss of the
largest Inn creates the distinct possibility that Transient Occupancy Tax revenue will fall short of budget estimates. This revenue source will have to be monitored closely during the second half of the fiscal year.

Sales tax revenues have a negative variance through the first half of the fiscal year. The variance is both a timing variance and a true variance. Adjusting for the timing variance, sales tax revenues are at approximately 49% of budget at the mid-point of the fiscal year.

Receipts for first quarter sales were 8.0% higher than the first quarter of fiscal year 2010-2011. This year's budget assumed a seven percent growth in sales tax revenue from the prior fiscal year. We anticipate strong sales tax receipts from the holiday period but broader trends show a slowing of the sales tax growth after the first of the year. At this point we project sales tax revenues will meet the budget estimates.

Revenues other than the big three are generally tracking budget. The primary negative variance is transfers from other funds. These transfers will be completed during the second half of the fiscal year as required, based on project costs, and as revenue becomes available.

Expenditures
Expenditures incurred during the first half of the fiscal year match budget estimates. This apparent alignment presents areas of potential concern upon closer analysis.

Expenditures are balanced despite departmental staffing vacancies. Library, Police, and Administration have positive variances as a result of salary savings.

Opposing these savings are projected over expenditures in Legal, Administrative Services, and Ambulance.

• Legal has significant expenditures, beyond what was included in the adopted budget, for litigation costs and preservation of the City's ambulance operation rights. The year end estimate is that Legal will be over budget by $100,000.

• Ambulance has significant transition costs that were not included in the budget. These transition costs may be partially absorbed in the budget during the second half of the year as the ambulance function continues to operate with staffmg efficiencies.

• Administrative Services has a true variance of $33,000 in liability insurance and risk management premiums. The increase in premiums was not fully accounted for in the budget.

The operating departments overall are managing their budgets and expenditures. Information Services, Community Planning and Building, Public Works, and Forest Parks and Beach all are closely monitoring their budgets and are managing costs to end the fiscal year within appropriation limits.

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Second Quarter Financial Report
Fiscal Year 2011-2012

YTD Actual--Annual Budget--Budget Remaining-50% of year

Revenue
Property Tax 2,396,946 4,200,000 1,803,054 57%
Transient occupancy Tax 1,973,214 4,210,000 2,236,786 47%
Sales Tax 772,580 1,870,000 1,097,420 41%
Business license Tax 451,500 500,000 48,500 90%
Fees and Permits 202,129 : 425,000 222,871 48%
Interest, Rent, Parking Lot 128,199 l 263,300 135,101 49%
Franchise Fees 86,492 504,608 418,116 17%
Intergovernmental 179,279 382,800 203,521 47%
Traffic Safety 53,717 250,000 196,283 21%
Charges for Service 21,360 49,200 27,840 43%
Court Fines 5,074 35,200 30,126 14%
Grants 181,863 352,158 170,295 52%
Miscellaneous 26,509 100,600 74,091 26%
Transfers 167,689 1,059,080 891,391 16%
Total Revenuet 6,646,551 14,201,946 7,555,395 47%

Expenditures
City Council 76,017 106,574 30,557 71%
Legal 152,121 204,333 52,212 74%
Engineering 900 10,800 9,900 8%
Treasurer 1,000 2,400 1,400 42%
Administration 382,492 930,122 547,630 41%
Information Services 150,288 306,003 155,715 49%
Administrative Services 464,840 638,660 173,820 73%
Community Planning & Building 280,962 560,472 279,510 50%
Facilities Maintenance 243,339 471,364 228,025 52%
Fire 884,996 1,769,740 884,744 50%
Ambulance 225,000 ' 250,000 : 25,000 90%
Police 1,330,713 3,069,774 1,739,061 43%
Public Works 547,962 1,100,423 552,461 50%
Forest, Parks & Beach 210,613 484,918 274,305 43%
Sunset 325,000 650,000 325,000 50%
Community Services 47,607 124,833 77,226 38%
Harrison Memorial Library 433,476 ; 998,173 564,697 43%
Marketing & Economic Revitalization 179,787 324,000 144,213 55%
Grants 74,834 158,350 83,516 47%
Capital Outlay 263,871 3.59,370 95,499 73%
Capital Improvement 408,863 1,126,538 717,675 36%
Property Tax Assessments 31,289 32,600 1,311 96%
Debt Service 422,211 533,515 111,304 79%
Benefit Liability 13,999 56,650 42,651 25%
Salary Savings (80,000} (80,000} 0%
Total Expenditures 7,152,182 14,189,612 7,037,430 50%

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Accepting Grant from California Coastal Conservancy of $250,000 to Implement Del Mar Master Plan

Meeting Date: 7 February 2012
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Ping & Bldg Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Del Mar Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments.

Description: The City received a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy on 10 November 2011 to fund the implementation of the Del Mar Master Plan (DMMP). The Coastal Conservancy's procedures require that the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the grant before final execution.

Overall Cost: $250,000
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $250,000

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: As part of the Del Mar Master Plan implementation, a pedestrian path is proposed from Ocean Avenue to Fourth Avenue to link with the recently completed path that runs to the Pebble Beach Gate on San Antonio A venue. A small ADA boardwalk and viewing platform is proposed at the west end of the Del Mar parking area to allow individuals with disabilities the opportunity of an improved beach experience.

A portion of the DMMP has been implemented through a joint effort between the City and the Pebble Beach Company including the installation of a pedestrian path from the Pebble Beach Gate to Fourth Avenue, a beach access staircase at the north end of the beach, and a boardwalk connecting Fourth Avenue with the beach staircase. WWD prepared the plans for this project. The grant is intended to fund the remaining elements of the Master Plan with no expenditures by the City.

Decision Record: N/ A
Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 TO IMPLEMENT THE DEL MAR MASTER PLAN AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND ANY OTHER GRANT-RELATED DOCUMENTS OR AMENDMENTS

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

WHEREAS, the City adopted the Del Mar Master Plan (DMMP) on 1 September 2009; and

WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission certified the DMMP on 14 January
2010; and

WHEREAS, on November 10, 2011 the City was awarded a $250,000 grant for the
implementation of the DMMP by the California Coastal Conservancy; and

WHEREAS, the procedures established by the California State Coastal Conservancy require a grantee to certify by Resolution the acceptance of such grant agreement and its terms before submission of said agreement to the State; and

WHEREAS, the City will comply with the assurances and conditions contained in the grant agreement.

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

1. Accept a grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Del Mar Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of February 2012 by the following roll call vote:

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

ATTEST: SIGNED,


____________________ ________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Destruction of Certain Records in accordance with §34090 et seq. of the Government Code

Meeting Date: February 7, 2012
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin

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: $65
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: In the past five years, Council approved Resolutions 2007-66,2008-77,2009-12, 2010-39, 2011-9, 2011-21, and 2011-40 authorizing destruction of documents.

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2012-
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 2011/2012.

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 7th day of February 2012 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 -- Records to Be Destroyed
Name Date
Food stores 1986-96
Friends of Grove (oil tankers) 1980
Friday Letters 1989
General Plan Questionnaire 1982
Gamble Property 1985
General Plan Zoning 1981-90
General Plan Committee 1984
Grid Pruning 1982
Girl Scouts 1981
Code Enforcement Grant Pgm. 2003
Concession Stand Relocation 2002
Commercial District Cleaning 2000-2003
Zoning Code Amendments 1997-2000
Custodial Services 1994-2000
Cruise Ships 1990-2000
Corp Yard Water Recycling 2002
Corp Yard Lighting 2000
Corp Yard Fuel Dispenser 2001
Corp Yard Security gate 1998
Condo/Time Shares 1981
Drain Repairs - Del Mar 1998
Del Mar Trash Enclosures 2001
Designs Traditions Project 2000
Tourism-Energy 2000-2001
Emergency Plan 2003
Equipment Manuals (obsolete)
FORA 1993-2004
Devendorf Park Landscaping 1999
Devendorf Park Bus Shelter 1982
Disadvantaged Business Pgm. 2001
Driveways 1982-1996
Fences 1981-1982
Fine Arts Petitions 1990-1996
Fire Apparatus 1998
Chip Sealing 1997
Forest Hill Playground 1996
First Murphy 1981-96
Fire Engine Donations 1992
Fourth of July 1983-2003
2010 Election Unused Ballots 2010
2010 Election Tally Sheets 2010
2010 Election Index 2010
2010 Election Ballot Cards 2010
2010 Vote-by-Mail Envelopes 2010
2010 Voted Provisional Ballots 2010
2010 Voted Provisional Ballot Envelopes 2010
Municipal Code Revisions 1996-2003
Council/B &C Meeting cassettes 1995-2005
Compensation studies 2000

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Modifications to Conflict of Interest Code List

Meeting Date: February 7, 2012
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the modifications to the Conflict of Interest Code List.

Description: The California Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to periodically review its Conflict oflnterest Code to determine its accuracy. The attached "Exhibit A" lists the Designated Officials and Employees on the modified Conflict of Interest Code. "Exhibit B" is the version most recently approved by Council on October 5, 2004 and is provided as reference. The definition of the disclosure categories and consultants that were approved in 2004 remain the same, so have not been repeated in "Exhibit B."

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

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution approving the modifications to the Conflict of Interest Code List.

Important Considerations: As required by the Fair Political Practices Commission, the current Code incorporates, by reference, Title 2 California Code of Regulations, Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code. The Political Reform Act of 1974 directed that a Conflict oflnterest Code also identity all positions that take or authorize any official action on behalf of their agencies. This includes an official's participation by way of advising or making recommendations to a decision-maker, whether or not the decision-maker follows the official's advice.

Decision Record: Council last approved amendments to the City's Conflict of interest Code on October 5, 2004.

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE_______________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, amendments to the Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., have in the past and foreseeably will in the future, require conforming amendments to be made in Conflict of Interest Codes adopted and promulgated pursuant to its provisions; and

WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted Title 2, California Code of Regulations §18730, which contains the terms of a standard model Conflict of Interest Code, which can be incorporated by reference, and which will be amended to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice and hearings conducted by the Fair Political Practices Commission pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code Section 11370 et. seq.; and

WHEREAS, certain changes and additions must be made periodically to the existing Code; and

WHEREAS, incorporation by reference of the terms of the aforementioned regulation and amendments to it in Conflict of Interest Codes will save the City time and money by minimizing the actions required to keep the Code in conformity with the Political Reform Act.

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

1. Rescind and supersede all previously adopted Resolutions and amendments
thereto approving or adopting Conflict of Interest Codes for the City Council and City agencies (Departments, Boards, Commissions, Committees, etc.).

2. Approve the adoption and incorporation by reference of the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, as it may be amended from time to time by the Fair Political Practices Commission, along with the attached Appendix "A" in which officials and employees are designated and disclosure form categories are set forth, which constitutes the Conflict of Interest Code for all departments and agencies of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

3. Require that all designated officials and employees file statements of economic interests with the City Clerk, who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction.

4. Impose fines allowed by law for persons filing after deadlines set by this Code.

5. Adopt the attached Appendix "A", listing of designated officials and employees who are governed by the Conflict of Interest Code, including the list of disclosure categories.

6. Upon receipt of the statements of the Mayor and members of the City Council, the City Administrator, the City Treasurer, the City Attorney and the members of the Planning Commission, the City Clerk shall make and retain a copy and forward the original of these statements to the offices of the Fair Political Practices Commission. Statements for all other designated employees shall be retained by the City Clerk.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL- BY-THE-
SEA this 7th day of February 2012, 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"
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DESIGNATED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES

The following is a listing of those persons who are required to submit Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, excluding those persons who are already required to file the Form 700 pursuant to Government Code Section 87200. These individuals included in this Government Code section are: the Mayor and all members of the City Council, all members of the Planning Commission, the City Administrator, City Attorney, City Treasurer and all candidates for any elective office. Designated officials and employees shall file statements of economic interests with the City Clerk.

1. Members of the Boards and Commissions are required to file Form 700 - (Disclosure Category 1)
2. Persons occupying any of the following designated positions are required to file Form 700:

Department Position Disclosure Category

Administration City Clerk, City Engineer, Deputy City Clerk, 1
Finance Specialist 1
Information Systems/Network Manager 2

Community Planning
and Building Planning Services Manager, Building Official, 1
Associate Planner 2, 3, 4

Facilities Facilities Maintenance Manager 2, 3


Forest, Parks and Beach City Forester 1

Library Director, Circulation Supervisor 1

Police Interim Chief 1

Public Works Superintendent 2, 3, 4

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES:

1. All investments and business positions in business entities, sources of income, and interests in real property.

2. Investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income from entities providing supplies, services, equipment, or machinery of the type used by the designated employee's unit.

3. Investments and business positions in business entities, and income from sources engaged in construction, building, or material supply.

4. Investments and business positions in, and income from sources engaged in, the construction of public works projects.

CONSULTANTS

Consultants are defined for reporting purposes as persons who prepare, produce or perform services of a general nature and/or on an ongoing basis and participate by direct advice to the decision-makers. Generally, consultants who prepare a product or perform services for single specific matters are not the type of consultant required to be covered by the Code, whereas consultants who provide more general assistance and advice to a government agency on an ongoing basis should be covered.

Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the Code subject to the following limitation:

The City Administrator may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written
determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties; and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Administrator's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.

EXHIBIT "B"
DESIGNATED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES (ADOPTED 2004)
The following is a listing of those persons who are required to submit Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, excluding those persons who are already required to file the Form 700 pursuant to Government Code Section 87200. Designated officials and employees shall file statements of economic interests with the City Clerk.

1. Members of Boards, Commissions and Committees required to file Form 700 - (Disclosure Category 1):
Carmel Art Board
Community Cultural and Activities Commission
Community Traffic Safety Commission
Design Review Board
Forest and Beach Commission
Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees
Public Improvement Authority
Historic Preservation Committee

2. Persons occupying any of the following designated positions are required to file Form 700:
Department Position Disclosure Category

Administration City Clerk, City Engineer, Personnel/Risk Management, Finance Specialist, Financial Services Coordinator 1
Information Systems/Network Manager 2

Art, Recreation and Community Services Community Services Manager 1

Community Planning and Building Principal Planner, Building Official 1
Associate Planner, Assistant Planner 2, 3, 4
Building Services Supervisor 2, 3

Forest, Parks and Beach City Forester 1

Library Director, Circulation Supervisor 1

Police Chief 1

Public Works Street Supervisor 2, 3, 4

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Accepting $2,000 Donation from Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally for Deposit into Carmel Police DARE Program Account

Meeting Date: February 7, 2012
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a $2,000 donation from the
Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally for deposit into the Carmel Police DARE
Program Account.

Description: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea received a donation of $2,000 from Pacific Grove Youth Action Inc., also known as the Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally, in support of the Carmel Police DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program. DARE is a school-based program to help young people avoid drug and alcohol abuse.

The Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally is a fundraiser for the Pacific Grove
Youth Action, which started in 1993. Since 2003, Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally has donated to benefit youth programs in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

City Policy C89-41, Acceptance of Donations and Gifts to the City, requires that City Council approve donations larger than $1,000. This current donation will be placed into Carmel Police DARE Program Deposit Account #50-24050-0528.

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

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Resolution accepting this donation from the Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally.

Decision Record: In the past five years, Council has approved the following resolutions accepting donations from the Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally: Resolution 2011-21, Resolution 2009-94; Resolution 2008-80 and Resolution 2007-05.

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A $2,000 DONATION FROM THE PACIFIC GROVE CONCOURS AUTO RALLY FOR DEPOSIT INTO THE CARMEL POLICE DARE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

WHEREAS, the Pacific Grove Concours Auto Rally generously donated $2,000 to the Carmel Police DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Policy C89-41, Acceptance of Donations and Gifts to the City, requires City Council approval for donations more than $1,000.

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

1. Accept with gratitude the donation of $2,000 from the Pacific Grove Auto Rally and authorize its deposit into the Carmel Police DARE Program Deposit Account 50-24050-0528.

2. Request that the Mayor send a letter of thanks.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of February 2012, 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 Approving Pass-Through Disposal Rate Increase of 0.78% & Annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment of 2.58% for a Total Increase of 3.36%

Meeting Date: February 7, 2012
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving a pass-through disposal rate increase of 0.78% (as approved by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District) and an annual cost-of-living adjustment of 2.58% for a total increase of 3.36%.

Description: Waste Management (WM), Inc. is the City's trash and recycle collector. It has an exclusive Franchise Agreement with the City. The agreement provides for an annual rate adjustment, based on changes in disposal rates and inflation.

WM notified the City of the proposed fee increase on November 18, 2011. This notice conforms with the exclusive Franchise Agreement requiring WM to notify the City at least 60 days in advance. The total adjustment is comprised of a pass-through disposal rate increase of0.78% and cost-of-living adjustment of2.58%. The rates were not adjusted in 2011.

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

Staff Recommendation: Approve requested 0.78% fee adjustment and the 2.58% cost-of-living adjustment.

Important Considerations: The WM request conforms to Section 6, Collection Rates, as written in the City's exclusive Franchise Agreement.

Decision Record: At its March 2, 2010, meeting Council approved a pass-through fee adjustment of 0.54% and a cost-of-living increase of2.48% (Resolution 2010-20). This Resolution was subsequently rescinded on April6, 2010 and only the 0.54% pass-through fee adjustment was approved (Resolution 2010-33). Prior to that, Council approved a Waste Management fee increase of 11.7% in April2008 and 5.93% increase in January 2006.

Reviewed by:
-
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PASS-THROUGH DISPOSAL RATE OF 0.78% (AS APPROVED BY THE MONTEREY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT) AND AN ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT OF 2.58% FOR A TOTAL OF 3.36%

RECOMMENDED MOTION
Adopt the Resolution approving the rate adjustment.

BACKGROUND
USA Waste of California, Inc. doing business as Carmel Marina Corporation, also known
as Waste Management, performs trash and recycling collection in the City of Carmel-bythe-
Sea through an exclusive franchise agreement. Per the terms of the agreement, Waste
Management submitted a letter dated November 18, 2011, requesting a collection fee
adjustment increase of 3.36% effective January 1, 2012. That letter is attached.
There are two components of the requested rate increase. One is the pass-through rate
increase of 0.78% as a result of a disposal rate increase from $46.25 to $47.00 effective
January 1, 2011 and from $47.00 to $48.25 per ton effective January 1, 2012. This is in
accordance with section 6.d. of the Amended Exclusive Franchise Agreement. This
section provides that the “Collector shall receive periodic pass-through rate adjustments
to cover the increased cost of dump fees at the Monterey Regional Waste Management
District site…” The notice requirements specified by the agreement have been met for
both portions of the rate increase request.
The second component of the rate increase request is a cost-of-living adjustment
(COLA). This adjustment is based on three-quarters of the percentage increase in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area (All Items, All
Urban Consumers), “less the percentage of operating expenses attributable to dump fees
paid at the disposal site…” Using this formula, the CPI adjustment applying 75% of the
COLA increase is 2.58%. A letter from attorney John Lynn Smith, representing Waste
Management, is attached. It argues the City is obligated under the agreement to approve
this rate adjustment.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 3.36% total rate increase per the
terms of the franchise agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City can expect franchise fee revenue to increase by approximately $5,000 annually
as the source of fee revenue is formulaic based on the gross income of the franchisee.
34
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING AN ANNUAL PASS-THROUGH RATE
INCREASE OF 0.78% FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND
A 2.58% COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR
A TOTAL INCREASE OF 3.36%
WHEREAS, Waste Management is the City’s trash and recyclable goods
collector; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District increased the
disposal fees to take effect on January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Waste Management is requesting a 2.58% cost-of-living adjustment
in addition to the requested 0.78% pass-through disposal cost; and
WHEREAS, Waste Management submitted a formal written request 60 days prior
to the effective date as required in its exclusive Franchise Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve a rate adjustment of 0.78% for residential and commercial customers
to cover cost increases to disposal fees, as set by the Monterey Regional
Waste Management District.
2. Approve a cost-of-living adjustment increase of 2.58% for 2012.
3. Authorize the effective date of January 1, 2012 for the above annual rate
adjustment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of February 2012, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST: _______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
_____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
35
36
. WAS1' ............ MIINT
November 18, 2011
Carmel-By-The Sea
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
P.O.BoxCC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Re: 2011 and 2012 Collection Rate Adjustment
Dear Mr. Stilwell:
WASTI! MANAGI!MINT
11240 Commercial Parkway
Castroville, CA 95012-3206
In accordance with Section 6 ofthe agreement between USA Waste of California, Inc. dba
Carmel Marina Corporation and the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, we calculated a collection rate
adjustment increase of0.86%, effective January 1, 2011. The total adjustment is comprised of a
pass-through disposal rate increase and an annual cost-of-living adjustment. City Council heard
the item twice and deferred the adjustment pending clarification on rate adjustment process.
That has been provided, and a copy is enclosed for your records.
Due to the delay, the next disposal rate increase is nearly here without resolution of the prior
year's increase. As the tipping fee increase effective January 1, 2012 was finalized by Monterey
Regional Waste Management District today, November 18,2011, we have updated the
adjustment increase for collection rates. The 2012 adjustment is 2.47%, also comprised of passthrough
disposal rate increase and an annual cost-of-living adjustment.
Therefore, the total increase adjustment calculated for collection rates is 3.36% effective January
1, 2012. All calculations are enclosed for your review.
Your prompt attention to this is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to call me should you have
questions.
Sincerely

Michael LaRussa
Contract Compliance Manager
Office: (831) 796-2256 Cell: (831) 535-9325
Enclosures: 2011 and 2012 Rate Adjustment Calculations
Letter dated August 15, 2011



John Lynn Smith
Direct Phone: +1 415 659 4863
Email: jlsmith@reedsmith.com
August 15, 2011
By Express Mail
John Goss
Interim City Administrator
Carmel-By-The-Sea
P.O. BoxCC
Carmel, CA 93921
Carmel Marina Corporation - 2011 Rate Adjustment Request
Dear Mr. Goss:
Reed Smith LLP
1 01 Second Street
Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
+1 415 543 8700
Fax +1 415 391 8269
reedsmith.com
This letter responds to your letter dated July 5, 2011 regarding Carmel Marina Corporation's ("CMC")
requested 2011 rate adjustment.
While the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea ("City") can exercise its discretion to grant CMC the requested
rate increase, it must abide by the terms of the Amended Exclusive Franchise Agreement ("Agreement")
in doing so and cannot, by law, exercise such discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner by
continuously denying CMC the opportunity to recoup its costs and receive a reasonable return. Denying
CMC of such an opportunity squarely contradicts the original intent of the City and CMC in entering
into the Agreement, as well as established law, including a California Supreme Court opinion, which
states that:
A utility's rates are essentially the sum of two distinct components: its
operating expenses and its return on invested capital. The basic principle
[of ratemaking] is to establish a rate which will permit the utility to
rec·over its costs and expenses plus a reasonable return on the value of the
property devoted to public use ... the "return"- i.e., the profit- of the
utility is calculated solely on the rate base- i.e., the capital contributed by
its investors.
So. Cal. Edison Co. v. P. UC. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 813, 818-9.
The City's denial of CMC' s requested rate adjustment, and rescission of previously approved rate
increases, has left CMC without a cost-of-living rate increase for the past three years. The City's actions
require CMC to provide the same quality and level of services while costs continue to rise and rates
remain the same. Under those circumstances, CMC will not be able to recoup its costs and receive a
reasonable return, as required by law and consistent with the intent of the Agreement. Accordingly, the
City must reconsider the denial of the cost-of-living portion of CMC's rate adjustment request and
adjust rates appropriately.
NEW YORK • LONDON t HONG KONG t CHICAGO • WASHINGTON, D.C. • BEIJING • PARIS • LOS ANGELES • SAN FRANCISCO • PHILADELPHIA • SHANGHAI • PITTSBURGH
MUNICH • ABU DHABI • PRINCETON • NORTHERN VIRGINIA • WILMINGTON • SILICON VALLEY • DUBAI • CENTURY CITY • RICHMOND • GREECE • OAKLAND

CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Approve a Project with Special Conditions for the Demolition of Existing Residence & Construction of New Residence

Meeting Date: 7 February 2012
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located on Monte Verde, 3NE of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group on behalf of Plum Holdings, LLC.

Description: The Planning Commission approved the project with 10 special conditions. The appellant is requesting that three of the special conditions for the project approval be removed. The project is located on Monte Verde 3 NE of Third A venue (Block 31 Lot 14).

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal but revise the special conditions.

Important Considerations: The Planning Commission is the decision making body for Track Two Design Review project. CMC Section 17.54.040.C indicates that Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. Council Member Burnett lives within 500 feet of this property, so must recuse himself from considering this appeal.

Decision Record: On January 11, 2012 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project with special conditions.

Attachments:
• Attachment "A" Summary of PC Special Conditions
• Attachment "B" Appellant Letter
• Attachment "C" PC Staff Report (1/11/12)
• Attachment "D" Reduction Plans
• Attachment "E" Correspondence

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator, Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 7 FEBRUARY 2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A PROJECT WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE. (THE APPELLANT IS CLAUDIO ORTIZ DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF PLUM HOLDINGS, LLC.)

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This site is located on Monte Verde Street three northeast of Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence, a detached garage and a subordinate unit. The subject property slopes from east to west at approximately 23%. The property contains 12 trees, six of which are significant.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story residence with a guesthouse. The proposed residence has three levels, but is designed so that no portion of the building qualifies as three stories. The residence includes a 1,341 square foot main (upper) floor, a 1,088-square-foot middle floor (367 sq. ft. devoted to guesthouse) and a 670 square foot basement that includes a garage with tandem parking.

The Planning Commission reviewed this project on three separate hearings and on January 11, 2012 unanimously approved the project with ten special conditions (see attachment “A”). The property owner is appealing three of these conditions.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 7,515 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations-- Allowed--Existing--Proposed
Floor Area 2,853 sf (41%) NA 2,853 sf (41%)*
Site Coverage 928 sf (12.3%) NA 914 sf (12.2%)
Ridge Height (/) 18/24 ft. NA 18 ft./21 ft.
Plate Height (/) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 12 ft. /18 ft.
* Project includes 391 sq. ft. located in basement. Total floor area is 3,098 sq. ft. when factoring basement bonus

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW

During the design review process several changes were made to the design at the request of the Commission in order to improve the project. Below is brief summary of some of the more prominent changes.

• The Commission was concerned that the residence had a three-story appearance. To address this concern the property owner moved the garage 12 feet closer to the street and proposed a green roof above the garage. The width of the garage was also revised from a two car garage door to a single car garage door. These revisions allowed the garage to blend more naturally with the site, limited the three story appearance, and reduced the width of the driveway.

• The Commission was concerned with the number and prominence of the retaining walls. The applicant had originally proposed 6-7 foot tall retaining walls on the sides of the driveway, but revised the design to reduce the height of the walls to approximately three feet.

• The applicant had originally proposed stone on portions of the residence and on the retaining walls. However, the Commission had concerns about the use of stone on the residence and the similarity of the stonework to the neighboring homes. The applicant eliminated the stone from the design to address these concerns.

On January 11, 2012 the Commission outlined the following findings prior to the adoption of the special conditions:

The Residential Design Guidelines encourage projects to:

• Maintain a forested image on the site (Guideline 1.4).
• Maintain an informal image to residential streets in Carmel (Guideline 1.5).
• Maintain a landscaped edge where it exists and avoid adding new pavement that would widen street (Guideline 2.2).
• Minimize footprint of building on a steep slope (Guideline 3.1).
• Minimize the visual impact of garden walls and retaining walls (Guideline 3.3).
• Maintain a forest foreground image at front of properties (Guideline 4.0).
• Minimize the amount of paved surface area for any driveway (Guideline 6.3).
• Avoid expanses of paving that are visible from the street (Guideline 6.3).
• Building shall appear to be no more than two-stories (Guideline 7.7).
• Using low plate heights is encouraged (Guideline 7.7).
• Avoid buildings that are monumental and formal (Guideline 8.2).

The Commission then went on to state that it was difficult for the project to accomplish these guidelines due to the style of building, the square footage of the building and the context of surrounding buildings. Furthermore, the building should be different from adjacent buildings in materials and site planning.

The Commission then adopted 10 special conditions in order to bring the project more into compliance with the sections of the Design Guidelines stated above. The applicant indicated that he understood the special conditions.

APPEAL
The property owner’s representative filed an appeal on January 11, 2012. The property owner is only appealing special conditions 5, 6 and 10. The appellant has provided a letter outlining the basis for the appeal (see attachment “B”).

EVALUATION
This hearing is considered a de novo hearing, meaning the Council is not limited to discussing only those issues raised by the appellant. However, staff recommends focusing on just the three special conditions being appealed. Below is a list of the three special conditions that are being appealed followed by a brief response from staff.

Special Condition #5: The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.

Response: As presented at the January 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the project included a three foot tall retaining in the public right-of-way at the front of the property running north from the driveway. A three foot tall retaining wall on the property line running south of the driveway was also proposed that would replace an existing retaining wall in roughly the same location. The purpose of the retaining walls was to limit soil erosion and to stabilize the slope.

The Commission was concerned with the excessive use of retaining walls on the property and added special condition #5 to prohibit any walls at the front of the property other those needed for the driveway. The property owner has agreed to eliminate the front wall located to the north of the driveway. However, the applicant is requesting to be allowed to replace the existing retaining wall south of the driveway.

Staff supports the Commission’s overall objective of limiting the use of retaining walls on this site. However, staff is also sympathetic to the need for a retaining wall south of the driveway as referenced in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Removing this wall would create difficulties in stabilizing the soil at this corner and could undermine the wall on the adjacent property. Staff notes that the Building Official
reviewed the property after the appeal was filed and recommends that a wall be maintained at this location. The applicant has already agreed to provide landscaping to screen the wall. Staff would recommend amending Special Condition #5 to allow for a wall at this location provided it
is screened with landscaping to the extent possible.

Special Condition #6: The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.

Response: The Planning Commission had concerns regarding the mass of the building and after much discussion recommended that the applicant lower the height by two feet without changing the roof pitch. Reducing the building height two feet could be accomplished in a number of ways including lowering the plate heights and/or further excavating the site. The property owner would strongly prefer to maintain the height as
currently proposed, but has indicated a willingness to reduce the height by 12 inches, rather than the 24 inches required by the Commission.

At approximately 21 feet, the residence is already three feet below the maximum allowed height. Staff notes that the mass of the residence is consistent with the context of other structures in the neighborhood and is 14 feet lower than the neighboring residence to the south. The proposed ridge height is only slightly higher than the ridge height of the existing building on the site. The applicant has stepped the floor plan and is proposing a fair amount of sub-grade space to help minimize the mass. Finally, the existing forest canopy also provides a significant amount of screening from the street.

However, staff notes that the slope of the site does contribute to a more massive appearance for this building than otherwise would be the case on a less steep lot. Reducing the height of the building by 12 inches, as suggested by the appellant, would appear to accomplish the Commission’s goal of reducing the mass of the building without significantly compromising the appellant’s design. Staff recommends amending special
condition #6 to require a height reduction of one foot.

Special Condition #10: Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Response: All design review projects are approved with the following standard condition:

“The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as submitted on ______ 2012 and approved by the Planning Commission, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change in writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection approval.”

It is not uncommon for applicants to request revisions during the construction process. Typically revisions such as minor changes to windows/doors, site coverage, landscaping, etc. would be approved at the staff level. More significant revisions such as material changes, alteration to the building or roof forms, introduction of new elements, etc. would be referred back to the Planning Commission.

Special Condition #10 would require the appellant to return to the Commission for even the most minor of revisions and could add unnecessary project delays. Staff agrees that most revisions should require Planning Commission review, but some flexibility should be maintained for minor revisions. Staff recommends amending Special Condition #10 to reflect the standard condition that is typically used for design review projects.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant the appeal but revise Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10 as follows:
5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway, and rear patio, and south of the driveway to replace the existing retaining wall in roughly the same location. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street. The final landscape plan shall include plantings that will screen the retaining wall running south from the driveway to the extent possible
and no new paving shall be added between the street edge and the wall.
6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet one foot (1’) while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.
10. Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review. The applicant shall submit in writing any
proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the Planning Commission on 11 January 2012 and revised by the City Council on 7 February 2012, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change
in writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection approval.”

Attachment "A" Special Conditions
1. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree of substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The tree shall be planted onsite located approximately 10 feet from any building and shown on the final landscape plan submitted with the building permit application.
2. The guesthouse shall not be used as a subordinate unit or permanent living facility.
3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all encroachments into the right of way prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The walkway opening on the lower floor shall remain unenclosed.
5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.
6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.
7. The applicant shall revise the front entry stairs so that they follow the natural grade.
8. The applicant shall eliminate the front portion of the crawlspace that extends beyond the footprint of the house.
9. The soil on the green roof above the garage shall be sloped and not terraced as shown on the plans.
10. Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Attachment "B" Appellant letter and exhibits

CODG
Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc.
S/W Co. of Dolores and Fifth
P.O. Box 3775
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
(831) 626-4146 off
(831) 626-4544 fax

www.codginc com

November 24, 2008

Mrs. Sue McCloud, Mayor
Community Planning and Building Department
Post Office Drawer G
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921

Ref: DS 11-100 (Plum Holdings LLC)
Monte Verde 2 NE of 3rd.
BLK 31, Lots 14 APN 010-221-012
Planning Commission Hearing January 11th, 2012

Dear Mayor McCloud and Members of the City Council:

I write this letter on behalf of Plum Holdings, LLC, and managing partner Mr. Fred Kern, who resides at Monte Verde 2 N/E of 3rd street. The Planning Commission approved the project with nine conditions. We are appealing the following three conditions:

• The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway walls shall taper to the ground as they approach the street.

This project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission three times. The first two times the Commissioners approved a retaining wall concept. The
original concept had two staggered retaining walls on one side to the garage and three staggered retaining walls on the opposite side of the garage. The Commissioner's input at the first hearing was to minimize the impact of the walls. We then proposed to build a green wall with plants that would camouflage it. Thus keeping with the Carmel look and feel. At the second hearing, we provided a simple sketch on how we would approach the green wall concept. We also reduced the retaining walls to one on each side of the driveway. At the second hearing, the Commissioners instructed us to reduce the height of the walls, which we did (proposing to keep the wall between two-feet to three-feet high). At the third Planning Commission hearing, we were simply told not to propose any retaining walls on the front yard. This was quite the surprise to us, as we had done everything to comply with the first two hearing's requests. More importantly, Mr. Kern who lives at this address and makes a strong effort to accommodate any neighborly concerns, spends a significant amount of time clearing the gutter due to the erosion after every rain. This issue also addresses the lack of parking in this narrow street. Again, Mr. Kern is willing to address this concern by improving the safety for emergency vehicles and creating more space for vehicles to park. The retaining walls serve to control the erosion and provide the safety that this street currently lacks. The Planning Commission seems unable (or unwilling)
to hear our requests or the voices of those fifteen neighbors who signed a
petition and those residents who have expressed their concerns at every
hearing. We have met with engineers and the City Forester who both support
the retaining walls on the front yard of the property. There are also three oak trees that are undermined by the erosion taking place and as the trees grow, the portion of the hill which is only a few feet away from the street will simply give away in time. The southwest portion of the site contains a three-foot retaining wall, from the corner of the property to the driveway. If we were to remove it, it would create drastic cuts to the hill. Therefore, we feel that a retaining wall in this location is the best solution to maintain the integrity of the hill.

• The applicant shall reduce the height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.

A comment was raised at the second hearing about the height of the building. This was addressed by me, stating that we would study it and return with options. After careful analysis and consideration my alternative was to reduce the overall height of the building by ten-inches. We determined to reduce the roof pitch to 5:12 instead of the 6:12 as designed. Two of my visual observations in reducing the pitch created a negative impact in the overall design. Firstly, the low pitch resembled a flat roof since you would be looking at the underside of the overhang and therefore would not see much roof at all. Secondly, from street level looking back at the building at a distance of 100 feet, a ten-inch or twelve-inch elevation change of the ridge height would be negligible, however, the individual living in the house would be significantly adversely impacted by the design change. More importantly, my decision to keep the height of the building as proposed was based on the following facts:

1. The building is currently three feet below the maximum ridge height
allowed.
2. The plates (wall heights) meet the allowed height limit. In only a small area are we at the limit on a single-story portion of the building. On the twostory portions of the building, we are under the allowable limits by sixinches. Ninety percent of this house is well under the plate height limit allowed.
3. The building meets the volume allowed and is under the limit by 6,300 cu. ft. (under by 18.4%).
4. The house is designed on a hill and the floor levels are designed at an
elevation to minimize the cut on the hill. In other words, the house is
designed to accommodate the terrain and the slope of the hill.
5. The design does not impose on the neighbors' views or sunlight. In fact
the surrounding neighbors are in favor of the design and project.
6. The house is fourteen feet lower than the house next-door to the south.
7. The highest ridge of our project is below the finished floor of the house behind us, to the east.

For the past eleven years working with the City of Carmel, I have never seen such contradictory opinions that appear to manipulate the design of our buildings to the personal whims of the Planning Commission. During the last hearing, one of the commissioners indicated that we should reduce the ridge height by lowering the roof pitch. After my explanation, their mind was changed. They then turned the focus to reducing the highest ridge to meet an adjacent ridge that is two and one-half feet lower. This was impossible to accommodate, and after much debate, the commission settled with a two-foot reduction (which, incidentally, makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the overall project concept). The concern here is that most of their decisions were based on last minute input without any technical or design analysis on their part. I had to explain how the ridge heights varied to each other and even drew a diagram to inform the commission of the span of a building and how given roof pitches determines ridge height.

I honestly believe that we should not need to reduce the building height based on my observation detailed above. There is no justification to lowering the ridge; however, we would prefer to maintain the height as initially proposed, but are willing to lower the building one-foot if necessary. Regardless, previous hearing bodies would not have imposed such conditions after hearing the above stated facts, in addition to having fifteen neighbors speak in favor of the project.

• Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for your review.

Is this how the City of Carmel wants to be portrayed or would like to be
represented at a public hearing? The Planning Commission is supposed to
uphold the "code", "interpret the guidelines", and just as importantly, be the "voice for the neighbors". I am severely disappointed with the lack of professionalism displayed on the current Planning Commission. In current
form, they do not appear to represent the voice of the people with any sense of integrity or respect that one would expect from a city like Carmel. This last condition placed on this project is discriminatory and it singles out my client in order for the commission to make a point to control and/or intimidate him. Again, in my entire career, I have never seen such authoritarianism.

If my client elects to change a window size by six inches, or change the
windows from wood to steel windows, or even move a door over twelve inches,
he has to have it approved by the Planning Commission. Where does this leave working with the planners and staff? Where is the sense of commitment and trust that should be synonymous with City and all of those
who deign to represent it? This is definitely a new voice that the City has adopted. But, understand that Mr. Fred Kern is the first one to have such condition placed on his project.

In the end, we all want/need to work together to improve upon the City of Carmel. We make accommodations for changes accordingly to the input from our neighbors, committees, planning staff, and owner of the property. My previous experience has been that a collaborative endeavor produces a finer project, or better yet, a house that the owner enjoys. Overall, this house complies with the codes, meets the guidelines, and the neighbors are at peace with it. More importantly, Mr. Kern will have a house that he will enjoy for his retirement. While, on the other hand, the Planning Commission has abused its authority and strong armed us, in many cases, to make changes that are basically their own biases - which is not conducive to building strong relationships or projects. I am hopeful that common sense will prevail and that the Planning Commission will cease and desist with biases and opinions and hold to the code, and that we will reach a consensus that will justify what my client and all his neighbors have
been trying to express.

For the above reasons, Plum Holdings, LLC, and Mr. Fred Kern, respectfully request that the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's conditions.

Thank you very much for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,


Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc.



Claudio Ortiz, Principal

Attached:
- Neighbors Petition (exhibit A)
- Elevations showing the plate and ridge height (exhibits B & C)
-Photos showing the erosion on the hill and ridge height (exhibits 01-08)

Attachment "C" PC Staff Report
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 11 January 2012 BLOCK: ll LOT: 14
FIRST HEARING: 1119/11
ITEM NO: DS 11-100/UP 11-19
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED FROM: 12/12/11
APPLICANT: Plum Holdings LLC
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 2/5112
Consideration of Design Study, Use Permit, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity (VHFHSZ) Overlay Districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3- new construction)

LOCATION: ZONING:
Monte Verde 2 NE of3rd R-1, BR, AS, VHFHSZ

ISSUES:
1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17.10.1) and the Residential Design Guidelines?

OPTIONS:
1. Approve the application as submitted.
2. Approve the application with special conditions.
3. Continue the application with a request for changes.
4. Deny the application.

RECOMMENDATION:
Option #2 (Approve the application with special conditions.)

ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report dated 11 January 2012.
2. Application Materials.
3. Project Plans.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Amended & Approved 1111112
APPLICATION: DS 11-100/UP 11-19
BLOCK: 31
LOCATION: Monte Verde 2 NE of3rd
REQUEST:
APPLICANT: Plum Holdings LLC
LOT: 14
Consideration of Design Study, Use Pennit, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity (VHFHSZ) Overlay Districts.

ADDITIONAL REVIEW:
1. Planning Commission 11/9/11.
2. Planning Commission 12/12/11.

BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This site is located on Monte Verde Street two northeast of Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence and a detached garage and subordinate unit. The subject property slopes from east to west at approximately 23%. The property contains twelve trees, six of which are significant.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and construct a new twostory residence and guesthouse. The proposed residence has three levels, which includes a 1,341 square foot main (upper) floor, a 1,088 square foot middle floor (367 sq. ft. devoted to guesthouse) and a 670 square foot lower floor and basement that includes a garage with tandem parking.

The Planning Commission reviewed this project on two occasions and both times continued it with a request for changes. At the first hearing the Commission requested that the materials on the front fa9ade be treated differently and that the applicant consider alternatives that would push the garage further forward to help mitigate the appearance of a three-story building. The Commission also approved the use permit for the guesthouse, contingent upon the applicant receiving design approval.

The applicant made several revisions in order to comply with the requests made at the first hearing, such as removing the stone veneer, pushing the garage forward 12 feet, and revising the parking design to be tandem as opposed to side-by-side. The Commission felt that the changes were an improvement, but still had some issues with the design and continued the application with a request for further revisions.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 7,515 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations--Allowed--Existing--Proposed
Floor Area 2,853 sf(41%) NA 2,853 sf ( 41 %)*
Site Coverage 928 sf (12.3%)** NA 914 sf(12.2%)
Trees (upper/lower) 5/4 trees 2110 trees 3/8 trees
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 ft. NA 18 ft./21 ft.
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 12ft. /18ft.

Setbacks--Minimum Required--Existing--Proposed
Front 15ft. 45.5 15ft.
Composite Side Yard 18ft. 9 in. (25%) 16ft. (26%) 21 ft. 2 in. (28%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft./5 ft. (street) 1 0 ft./6 ft. (street) 4ft. 3 in.
Rear 3ft. 3ft. 3ft. 2 in.
*Project includes 391 sq. ft. located in basement. Total floor area is 3,098 sq. ft. when factoring basement bonus
** Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semi-permeable

EVALUATION:
Previous Hearing: The following is a list of changes requested by the Planning Commission and a response on how the applicant has or has not complied:

1. The applicant shall revise the design to better preserve the natural slope and reduce the appearance of the retaining walls.

Response: The applicant previously proposed to terrace the retaining walls on both sides of the driveway. There were three stepped walls on the north side of the driveway and two on the south side. By working with the grade, the applicant has eliminated the number of retaining walls so that there is now only a single short wall on both sides of the driveway. The result is a substantial improvement to the front elevation that will eliminate the appearance of retaining walls as recommended by the Commission.

The applicant is still proposing a three foot tall wall that would run across the front of the property. The portion of the wall located north of the driveway encroaches into the public right-of-way by approximately three feet. The location of the wall is consistent with the properties to the north. Public works has reviewed the plans and does not have any issues with the proposed encroachment.

The purpose of the wall in the right of way is to help mitigate the soil erosion that occurs at this area of the property. Staff met with the City Forester to review the option of grading this area to provide better slope stability as opposed to using a wall. The Forester has concerns with any grading that would occur around the cypress tree. Landscaping
would help the issue of soil erosion, but would not be as effective as a wall.

There is currently a retaining wall on the south side of the driveway that is approximately four feet tall and is located behind the property line. The applicant is proposing to replace this wall with a three foot wall that is located on the property line. The slope on this half of the property is less gradual than on the northern half and would benefit from maintaining a retaining wall.

With the last plan the applicant proposed to use a green wall, which is designed to allow plants to grow out of the wall. The applicant is now proposing to use a simple plaster wall. The applicant believes that because the wall is only three feet tall, landscaping above and below the wall would provide adequate screening.

2. The applicant shall reduce the size of the deck.

Response: The applicant has substantially reduced the deck so that it is now only located on the rooftop portions of the middle level. The previous deck was approximately 572 square feet while the revised deck is 344 square feet. The reduced deck is an improvement over the last proposal and reduces the mass of the building.

The applicant is proposing a wood trellis in front of the deck to provide an architectural element on the front elevation. Both the railing and the trellis provide visual interest on the front elevation and help break up the mass of the middle and upper stories. Staff supports the deck revision.

3. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the upper level to bring the project into compliance.

Response: In the last staff report it was noted that the residence exceeded the allowed floor area by 1 71 square feet. The floor area of the main level has been reduced by 86 square feet, which gives the applicant two times this amount (172 sq. ft.) to be used in the basement as part of the bonus incentive. The project is now in compliance with the floor
area requirements.

4. The applicant shall remove the portion of the crawlspace that extends beyond the building footprint.

Response: The purpose for requesting that the crawlspace be removed was so that more area could be provided for landscaping above and to minimize the exposure of the wall on the north side of the garage door. The applicant is still proposing to maintain the crawlspace for storage purposes, but has revised the design to address these two issues.

The comer of the crawlspace has been curved and the roof above has been stepped down to four and-a-half feet tall so that it can be buried beneath the grade. As a result there is soil above the crawlspace that provides room for landscaping and the wall on the north side of the garage door is no longer visible. The issues created by the crawlspace have been mitigated by these revisions. However, if the Commission is still concerned staff would recommend that the crawlspace be reduced by 23 feet so that it does not extend beyond the front wall.

5. The applicant shall relocate the guesthouse door so that it is not on the front elevation and shall eliminate the walkway that leads to the door.
Response: The door has been relocated to the south side of the guesthouse and the walkway has been eliminated. There is now a window on the front elevation in place of the door.

6. The applicant shall use the wood headers consistently above all the windows and doors.

Response: The applicant previously proposed wood headers above three of the windows on the front elevation and above the garage door. Windows and doors that did not have headers were either arched or there was no space above the window for a header. The applicant has chosen to remove all of the headers in order to address the Commission's request for consistency. Staff supports the previous proposal because it incorporated more wood into the finish materials, but could also support the current proposal if the Commission is still concerned about consistency.

7. The applicant shall evaluate options for reducing the building height.

Response: At the previous meeting the Commission requested that the applicant explore options for reducing the height to provide a more "nestled" appearance. The applicant did explore the option of reducing the roof pitch from 6:12 to 5:12, but was concerned that it would negatively impact the architecture while only providing a height reduction
of eight to ten inches. The applicant could also potentially reduce the plate height by one foot, but would prefer not to.

The Commission should discuss whether the applicant should make any of the above changes in order to reduce the height by one to two feet. Such a small reduction in height would likely only have a minor effect on reducing the appearance of mass. It is also important to note that the height of the proposed residence is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood as evident on the street elevation. However, if the Commission is concerned with the height staff would recommend reducing the pitch to 5:12.

8. The applicant shall propose two upper-canopy trees on the property.
Response: The City Forester met with the applicant on site to determine where these trees could be planted. One location is on the south side of the property as indicated on the site plan. The Forester had difficulty in finding an adequate location for the second tree and recommends that the site only be required to plant one upper-canopy tree. Staff notes that with the proposed project there would still be eleven trees on the property and an additional oak tree at the front of the property in the right-of-way. The City Forester will be at the hearing to answer any questions about the trees.

Covered Walkway: CMC 17.70 defines floor area as "the total gross square footage included within the surrounding exterior walls of all floors contained within all enclosed buildings on a building site. "

In the last report staffs interpretation of the Code was that the covered walkway should not count as floor area because it is not fully enclosed, but should be counted as site coverage. Staff noted that the property would exceed the allowed site coverage if the walkway were included in the calculations and for this reason recommended that it be removed. However, the applicant expressed a strong desire to maintain the walkway in
order to have exterior access to the lower level, and reduced the size of the rear patio to gain the necessary site coverage for the walkway.

In the last report staff also raised an issue with the large opening that the walkway created on the south side of the garage. The applicant has reduced the size of the opening and created more of an arched doorway. The doorway provides more enclosure to the walkway, but is a visual improvement over the last the proposal. Staff has added a special condition that the doorway shall remain unenclosed.

Summary: The applicant has made several revisions to the design in order to address the concerns raised by the Commission. As a result the project is a substantial improvement over the original proposal. The following is a list of the improvements that were made:

• The garage was pushed forward 12 feet. The revisions make it appear more as though the garage is located in front of the residence as opposed to below, which helps reduce the three-story appearance.
• The prominence of the retaining walls has been reduced. This was accomplished by pushing the garage forward, which allowed for shorter walls that are not as long. The number of retaining walls has also been reduced.
• The applicant eliminated the stone from the residence and the retaining walls. As a result the residence is consistent in its use of materials and is adequately differentiated from the neighboring homes.
• The size of the deck has been reduced and the rooftop deck above the garage has been replaced with a landscaped green roof.
• The applicant has revised the crawlspace so that it is below grade.
• The entrance to the guesthouse has been relocated.
• The entrance to the walkway has been reduced in size.

RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Study application with special conditions.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree of substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The tree shall be planted onsite located approximately 10 feet from any building and shown on the final landscape plan submitted with the building permit application.

2. The guesthouse shall not be used as a subordinate unit or permanent living facility.

3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all encroachments into the right of way prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4. The walkway opening on the lower floor shall remain unenclosed.

5. The applicant i only pennitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground a they approach the street.

6. The applicant hall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.

7. The applicant shall revise the front entry tairs so that they follow the natural grade.

8. The applicant shall eliminate the front pOition of the crawlspace that extend beyond the footprint of the house.

9. The soil on the green roof above the garage shall be sloped and not tenaced as shown on the plans.

10. Any external changes to the project hall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Monte Verde 2 N.E of 3rd

To the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-sea in
reference to:

Proposed Action: Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for a new residence located
in the Single family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.

Property located : Monte Verde 2 N.E of 3rd

Parcel Description : Block 31, lot(s) 14

Applicant : Plum Holdings, LLC

Date of Notice : October 24, 2011

File#: DS 11-100

I acknowledge that I have looked through the drawings of the proposed home and approve of the proposed action in regards to the above property. I feel that this would be a good improvement and enhancement to the neighborhood.

I am in support of approving this project.

Address

Years

Email

Phone

Print Name

Signature