February 09, 2022
2022-2023 FEE SCHEDULE & BASIS OF CHARGES
FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
All Rates are Subject to Basis of Charges
PLAN REVIEW COST STRUCTURE NOTES
Complete Plan Review Percentage Cost: 70%
Partial Review (Structural and Non-Structural): 40%
Hourly Plan Review: $140 Non-Structural Review
$160 Structural Review
Fee includes:
➢ Initial review and two (2) rechecks. Hourly
charges apply after three (3) or more rechecks.
➢ Shipping, courier, and electronic service.
Code Enforcement
Project Manager ............................................................................................................................... $180/hour DirectorofCode Enforcement.........................................................................................................$170/hour SeniorCodeEnforcementOfficer.....................................................................................................$125/hour Code Enforcement Officer.................................................................................................................. $95/hour Administrative Support .................................................................................................................... $80/hour Building & Fire
Permit Manager..................................................................................................................................$120/hour Senior Permit Technician....................................................................................................................$100/hour Permit Technician...............................................................................................................................$90/hour Clerk/Administrator............................................................................................................................$70/hour Chief Building Official .........................................................................................................................$170/hour Senior Combination Building Inspector (Building Inspector III) .........................................................$135/hour Commercial Building Inspector (Building Inspector II) ......................................................................$115/hour Residential Building Inspector(Building InspectorI)..........................................................................$105/hour Civil Plan Review (Grading, Improvement Plans)...............................................................................$170/hour StructuralPlanReviewEngineer........................................................................................................$160/hour Non-StructuralPlans Examiner..........................................................................................................$140/hour FirePreventionOfficer ......................................................................................................................$155/hour FireProtectionEngineer(FPE)............................................................................................................$205/hour Fire Plans Examiner ............................................................................................................................$145/hour Fire Inspector II...................................................................................................................................$125/hour Fire Inspector I....................................................................................................................................$115/hour Inspector of Record ............................................................................................................................$160/hour Public Works Inspector.......................................................................................................................$155/hour DSA Class 1 / OSHPD A Inspector.......................................................................................................$155/hour DSA Class 2 / OSHPD B Inspector.......................................................................................................$115/hour DSA Class 3 / OSHPD C Inspector........................................................................................................$105/hour CertifiedAccess Specialist(CASp).......................................................................................................$170/hour GoFormz Software.................................................................................................................. $50/usermonthly Hourly overtime charge per inspector.....................................................................................1.5 x hourly rate Mileage (for inspections performed within the City).................................................................. IRS Rate + 20% 334
Qualifications to Provide Code Enforcement, Community Development, Public Works, and Fire Services to the City of Rolling Hills.
Section 4: Fee Schedule
February 09, 2022
Planning
Principal-in-Charge ........................................................................................................................... $275/hour HousingPolicyDirector....................................................................................................................$220/hour Planning Director.............................................................................................................................. $200/hour Principal/Planning Manager ............................................................................................................. $170/hour Senior Planner .................................................................................................................................. $155/hour Associate Planner ............................................................................................................................. $135/hour Assistant Planner ............................................................................................................................. $110/hour Senior Planning Technician...............................................................................................................$100/hour Planning Technician.......................................................................................................................... $90/hour BASIS OF CHARGES – BUILDING & FIRE
Rates are inclusive of “tools of the trade” such as forms, telephones, and consumables. • All invoicing will be submitted monthly.
• Staff Augmentation work (excluding plan review) is subject to 4-hour minimum charges unless stated otherwise. Services billed in 4-hour increments.
• Most plan reviews will be done in 10 business days or less and 5 business days or less for re-checks. This is not inclusive of holidays or the day of the pick-up of plans. • Expedited reviews will be billed at 1.5x the plan review fee listed in the fee schedule. Return time will be within seven (7) days of receipt of the plans from the City. • Plan review of deferred submittals & revisions will be billed at the hourly rateslisted. • All plan review services will be subject to a $250.00 minimum fee if percentage-based fee or two (2) hour minimum charge if hourly rates apply.
• Larger complex plan reviews can be negotiated to achieve the best possible pricing. 4LEAF has a proven track record of working with municipalities to provide expedited reviews with discounted pricing when applicable.
• 4LEAF assumes that these rates reflect the 2022-2023 contract period. 3% escalation for 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 is negotiable per market conditions.
• Overtime and Premium time will be charged as follows:
- Regular time (work begun after 5AM or before 4PM) 1 x hourly rate - Nighttime (work begun after 4PM or before 5AM) 1.125 x hourly rate - Overtime (over 8-hour M-F or Saturdays) 1.5 x hourly rate - Overtime (over 8 hours Sat or 1st8-hour Sun) 2 x hourly rate - Overtime (over 8 hours Sun or Holidays) 3 x hourly rate • Overtime will only be billed with prior authorization of the Director or other designated Citypersonnel. • All work with less than 8 hours rest between shifts will be charged the appropriate overtime rate. • Mileage driven during the course of Inspections will be charged at cost plus 20%. • Payment due on receipt. All payments over 30 days will be assessed a 1.5% interest charge. • Client shall pay attorneys’ fees, or other costs incurred in collecting delinquent amounts. • Client agrees that 4LEAF’s liability will be limited to the value of services provided. 335
Qualifications to Provide Code Enforcement, Community Development, Public Works, and Fire Services to the City of Rolling Hills.
Section 4: Fee Schedule
February 09, 2022
BASIS OF CHARGES – PUBLICWORKS
• Rates shown assume the projects will require compliance with California Prevailing Wage rate requirements and assumes the Client will be filing a PWC-100 Form to the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for the projects.
• Rates for prevailing wage categories are subject to annual escalations in accordance with the bi-annual wage determinations from the California DIR.
• Per the new requirements being enforced under SB 854 and because it is assumed that a PWC-100 Form will be filed by the Client to the CA DIR for each project, 4LEAF is required to notify an authorized Apprenticeship Committee through submittal of a DAS-140 form. We are then required to make an official request to an authorized Apprenticeship Committee for an apprentice by submitting a DAS-142 form. We are not assured the apprenticeship committee will be able to provide a suitable / qualified apprentice for the project. Per the apprenticeship requirements, the hours worked by the apprentice must be in a ratio of 1:5 for apprentice to journeyman hours. 4LEAF will not know the labor classification of the Public Works Apprentice until an Apprentice is dispatched to the site; therefore, the rates for the five Periods listed under the California DIR’s Wage determination for Building Construction Inspector were used to determine the range of hourly rates for Public Works Inspector Apprentice. • Pre-approved Overtime and Premium hours for labor categories subject to Prevailing Wage requirements will be charged per the following:
- Nighttime (work begun after 4PM or before 5AM) 1.125 x hourly rate - Overtime (over 8 hour M-F or Saturdays) 1.35 x hourly rate - Overtime (over 8 hours Sat or 1st 8hour Sun) 1.85 x hourly rate - Overtime (over 8 hours Sun or Holidays) 2.35 x hourly rate • All invoicing will be submitted monthly.
• All work with less than 8 hours rest between shifts will be charged the appropriate overtime rate. • Subconsultant Invoices will be assessed a 10% Administrative Processing Fee. • Project-related mileage for inspections will be billed at the allowable IRS Rate. • Payment due on receipt. All payments over 30 days will be assessed a 1.5% interest charge. • Client shall pay attorneys’ fees, or other costs incurred in collecting delinquent amounts. • Client agrees that 4LEAF’s liability will be limited to the value of services provided. 336
Agenda Item No.: 13.F
Mtg. Date: 02/14/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PRESENT THE CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022- 2023 AND 2023-2024 DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE JANUARY 22, 2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP.
DATE: February 14, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On Saturday, January 22, 2022, the City Council held a bi-annual Strategic Planning Session facilitated by City Manager Elaine Jeng. The City Council, with Councilmember Mirsch absent:
reviewed the established priorities from the 2020 Strategic Planning Workshop; evaluated City actions and activities since January 2020 supporting the establish priorities; reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan approved as part of FY 20/21 and FY 21/22 Budget adoption;
discussed and established priorities including capital and non-capital projects for the next two fiscal years (FY 22/23 and FY 23/24); and
received public comment for residents in attendance.
DISCUSSION:
Information shared with the City Council at the strategic planning workshop are included with this report.
At the workshop, the City Council shared individual priorities and goals for the next two fiscal years including a comparison of the current priorities and goals to the 2020 established priorities and goals.
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a recap of the conversations at the strategic planning session, review the listed priorities and goals for the next two fiscal years, finalize the list and direct staff to develop budget items to support the list.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 2022 strategic planning workshop was facilitated by staff. There was no fiscal impact to conducting the workshop.
337
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_220122_CC_StrategicPlan_DetailedNotes.pdf
2_SP_2020-Jan-25_StrategicPlanningNotes2.pdf
3_SP_StrategicItems_F.pdf
4_FY 2022 Expenditures by Department.pdf
5_CIP_3Years_2020.pdf
6_CIP_3Years_2021-June-28.pdf
7_SP_2022staffPresentation.pdf
8_StrategicPlanningWorkshopBudgetItems_2020-04-27.pdf
CC_SP_2022CouncilPrioritiesGoals.docx
CC_SP_2020_vs_2022_BriefComparison.docx
CC_SP_2022FinalPrioritiesGoals.pdf
338
Rolling Hills Strategic Plan 2022 – Notes
EJ (Elaine Jeng)
- Set ground rules
- Goals of workshop
- Objectives
o Specific / precise 3-5
o 2 year period
- Beyond today
o Follow-up on 2/28 and 3/14
- 2020 common priorities = 4
- SP sets roadmap for staff work
- Recap of past 2 years
JP (Jeff Pieper) – asks about revenues vs. expenses to understand where we are at PW (Patrick Wilson) – looking forward to a Mid-year recalculation regarding deficit budget EJ – kudos to CC
BD (Bea Dieringer) – kudos to Elaine and staff. Appreciate thankless hours and heavy lifting.
Still will have goals. Want to focus on priorities. Would be helpful to know how much do we have for each category and do we have the money to accomplish certain goals.
EJ – you tell us what you want done, then we come back with cost, trends, etc. - adopted CIP in last 2 years and have not allocated monies yet Priorities Review
PW – Fire fuel reduction – comments on how only 30 properties are truly affected by grant JB (James Black) – Cost is on everyone
PW – a lot of people have questions. They need to be involved.
JB – nothing about city paying for anything
PW – could be financial exposure to some residents. We are looking at high level. Residents want to know how it will affect them.
EJ – Affordable housing requirements
PW – ongoing struggle
JP – going as well as it can. Did good job on SB9. ADU’s – staff is handling well. No real train wrecks.
PW – we should continue as a balance priority
JB – worried about Sacramento destroying our city. We may have dodged bullet. 339
JP – we should revisit within a year to make adjustments if necessary.
JB – look at fencing on Crest Rd. between school property and below. A Large low-income housing project below. Should be a fence with stuff at top to create protection.
BD – going as well as it can. Legislature is always pushing limits. Have lobbyist or access to what is going on. Do whatever mitigations possible. Having experts on tap per Elaine’s suggestion may be worthwhile.
JB – camping laws and trespass laws to minimize homeless issues. LA County DA is not prosecuting homeless.
BD – we have our own ordinance re: trespass
JB – reinforcing no camping
JP – brings up Martin vs. Boise court case
BD – need to be able to provide shelter per case ruling EJ – Understanding obligations re: stormwater impacts to budget. Storm drains / RHCA. Uses Middleridge example and the finding of the city to maintain is problematic.
PW – that was stunning to find out. Talks about another resident blocking a storm drain.
Responsibility for the system – understanding. Push back on RHCA. Could be a slow painful process. Will be a budget impact – like Middleridge.
EJ – getting pricing on Middleridge - coming to the CC meeting on the 24th.
PW – costs could be significant especially with no knowedge of maintenance on the system.
JP – find out what our liabilities are and what else may be in our purview PW – county uncovered this… can we go through their records? EJ – no organization regarding record keeping on site. New team is focusing on that. Plan to go to county for assistance. Asks CC if they are in agreement on funding what is within our control.
JB – don’t need to redo all the drains. Don’t waste staff time to find out what is in our control.
PW – not suggesting that
JB – not legal for someone to block drains. Thought residents were liable for care of water that comes onto property. Code enforcement should handle.
BD – Can’t increase flow of gravity. In terms of drainage, mitigate costs for stormwater. Trying to get out of MS4 permit. Big storm event caused flow. Will that put kibosh on our plan? EJ – Don’t have results on flow yet.
PW – Comments on capturing runoff on private property. Who governs release of water retention LIV’s?
JB – Who comes out to inspect?
JP – Comment about “grading-lady”
340
JB – LA County Civil Engineers
PW – New projects have to retain water on site
EJ – Required to have it in our code. There is a trigger. LIV kicks in if you hit threshold of impervious surface. Typically does not get reached. Very few hit threshold her. We try to capture and infiltrate. We contract out to County.
BD – Mechanism for enforcement
JB – Not a private action. City has to get involved.
PW – Ping pong between RHCA and City. Doesn’t care about RHCA… they get sued and lose.
We have the law on our side.
JS – mentions EWMP and consultant being on the 24th agenda.
JP – We should dump on County to get them to give us the data. Otherwise we fix things when it pops up.
BD – agrees
PW – Doesn’t want staff to do. If easy though… then yes.
EJ – County has a database. Sounds like there is consensus for County to do the research? JP – Value in asking the question.
JB – Limit amount of staff time to 8 hours.
BD – Agrees
JB – Everything is harder than it sounds.
PW – Ask County and report back to CC
JB – reemphasizes no staff time past 8 hours.
EJ – tries to characterize Leah’s comments. Her point is that CC should apply resources to figure out how the city can have a positive impact.
JP – retention is future condition.
EJ – Leah is saying “what about current conditions?” 2 Wrangler Road / Paintbrush Canyon.
Erosion. Not just drainage on one property. It affects multiple properties.
PW – Support RHCA?
EJ – this is regarding…
PW – Do they have interest in any drains?
EJ – they are responsible for those adjacent to roads or underneath.
BD – on case-by-case basis?
EJ –
341
BD – We can evaluate and get more info and then come back to discuss.
JP – start there and mover forward. Comment on grant.
BD – We need info about what we are responsible for.
PW – Go back to prior plan.
EJ – Completion of City Hall campus improvements.
PW – Need options from staff… maybe 3?. Given too much input. We (CC) are not designers or planners.
JB – revisions made it better though.
PW – we’ve reviewed enough. Move forward.
EJ – Leah has a similar point.
PW – we continued it. Do we have plans agreed upon? Budget implications.
JP – How are we paying?. Take punch list (referring to all SP items) and put it in order. HOA wants generator – one big enough for both of us. Re-caps his meeting with RHCA. Removes cost burden from City. This building, tennis courts and sewers (crazy expensive). Federal monies can only be used for broadband, sewer, water. Can we find something that allows us to use grant funds. Sewer should be at bottom of list. Tennis court #1. Fix City Hall - #2.
EJ – per Leah – regarding Fire Safety – we are headed in right direction. Sounds like there may be agreement.
BD – We should be doing something but there are different sentiments from residents about what we should be spending money on. Should do a survey and pursuing based on resident priorities.
EJ – Higher level – do you feel like it is a priority – not a detail level. Specifics will still come to council for a vote. Do you still have same commitment to overall goal. Talks about Leah re:
Sewr / City Hall project. Leah also has concerns on city staffing, re: retention, attraction and development of quality employees to support council vision and goals.
JB – still thinks we should go to old view ordinance. Attorneys- not saving money. Residents not working it out. Need to go back. Now it is nebulous. Has not worked and should be a priority.
BD - ?
PUBLIC COMMENT
Alfred Visco – storm drain at end of Cinchring road dumping into Paintbrush canyon. Backing up – coming down his driveway. RHCA says they don’t maintain and said it is city responsibility.
Figure out whose responsibility it is.
Arlene Honbo – Fire safety is key. Representing block captains. Emergency communication in event of n phones or internet. Doesn’t know if sirens are best option. Need to be educated. If doing a survey – need to educate people first. Emphasizes costs. This effort can be contingent 342
on grant funding. Beta test of emergency information system. Block captains are frustrated with time to execute and push things out. Consider a temp to help get things done. It is ready for deployment. Evacuation brochure is ready to go. Canyon videos are great way to educate residents. Block captains want an evacuation drill. Ready to take on new things but want to finish old objectives.
Mike Schoettle – take Fire Fuel seriously especially home hardening. SCE caused fires in 1973.
Encourage consideration of ALL options. Cameras on SCE poles and historic fire locations to notify FD early.
Alfred Visco – fire safety is main concern. Urge consideration of more exits out of city for evacuation. Example is Crenshaw / Silver Spur or Portuguese Bend reserve exit. Alerting residents. Multiple channels of communication. Siren, satellite phones to block captains – what are those costs. Take a holistic approach on fire.
Priorities
EJ – goes over list on priorities. Remove purchase property.
JB – re: Sewer. Reserves – 3 operational. If we can get grant funding he is interested. If city funds or borrows – he won’t support
JP – more bang for your buck on undergrounding
BD – Tennis Courts
JP – financially out of whack. If we can’t find a grant to supplement $400K for sewer – use it for something else.
BD – utility underground… should it still be a priority? JB – absolutely. Need a plan for the whole city. Move sewer down the list. Fire and undergrounding - move up.
JP – Master Plan not his top priority. Tennis courts and city hall.
EJ – ?
JB – we should generate communication in house. Only outsource production EJ – just looking for efficiencies
BD – we will keep this
JB – no law says we can only have 5 priorities
JP – ok with outsourcing production
EJ – suggests removing “refund residents”
JP – deferred maintenance
JB – our revenues are going to go up. Concept of notary is a good idea. Doesn’t RHCA have one?
JP – no one knows – it’s hidden.
343
JB – passports could be good.
JP – service is better than refunds.
EJ – for 2022, some of this is too specific.
BD – lots of her priorities fall under Emergency preparedness / fire safety JP – just add courts and city hall and be done.
EJ – make it “capital improvements”
JB – view ordinance
JP – re-evaluate view ordinance
JB – should we drill down?
JP – RHCA is better at some services. What are the cost breakdowns between city and RHCA for some of the cap costs like tennis courts
JB – agrees – courts first. It’s been 10 years of ADA talk. We saved money by waiting because the rules have changed so many times and now have a better plan.
BD – courts are heavily used. Make the area safe. Next priority is city hall.
JB – when will we talk specifically about fire – cameras, etc. sirens? JP – piggyback on RPV
BD – would be great to prevent fires
EJ – tennis court ADA is because RHCA wants to replace septic first. If we do court 1 improvements, there is an order of things.
EJ - Additional services for residents: people have asked about movie nights; block captain event (outside); community is thirsty for events; no city sponsored opportunities; residents are craving
JB – great idea – thank you
BD – agree
EJ – Retention: none of the above is possible without staff. Important to have solid folks here and to retain them. Residents have given feedback re: not knowing who is who. Tried different methods for recruitment. Would like to discuss this as a priority to make it a non-issue.
JS – mentions steep learning curve for new hires. Need for a contract planner.
JP – not against people staying and being happy. This is a problem everyone is having.
Mentions inflation. This topic goes unsaid – doesn’t necessarily need to be on SP. This was a better place to work when state wasn’t so in our face. Evolution. Length of meeting is doing more stuff. How CC uses staff time. How can CC help manage time and maximize removal of pain and suffering? How can CC smooth things out?
344
EJ – filling vacancies starts and repeats. Would like to make this a priority. Staff wears multiple hats. Wants to be direct and honest. Wants to strategically put on the map.
JB – we will never out pay or out “stupid” other cities. If you are looking for us to jack-up pay… no. need to go outside of government for recruitment. We can’t fix certain things. Hire the person… not the position. Treat people well. Respect and appreciate them. Uses Meredith as an example.
JP – all about quality of life. Comments on residents.
EJ –
JP – talks about virtual workspace. New flexibility adds to quality of life. Whatever makes sense – we should talk about it. We only have a $1.8MM budget.
EJ –
BD - get temps to fill in
EJ –
BD –
CIP List
JB – distribute materials to city residents so they know EJ – will do
JB – you deserve credit
EJ – says the council deserves credit
Public Comment
Melissa McNab – Community communication and outreach. So many more people could be here. Good priority.
Jim Aichele – movie night sounds great… but may need a bigger area. Then it is open to anyone in the public, not just RH. Suggests that RHCA put on to avoid that. 345
346
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
PROJECTS 2020 COUNCIL’S PROJECT INPUT ACTIVITIES TAKEN WITHIN TWO YEARS SUGGESTIONS/STAFF’S NOTES SEWER In the past, people were not interested due
to high cost.
Wait for results and costs then figure out
next steps.
Phased. First phase limited scope.
Supports waiting for results, costs and
determining next steps from there.
- Completed phase 2 feasibility
study. This includes Will Serve
Letters from Los Angeles County.
Study provided high-level
estimate for a new sewer line
along Rolling Hills Road.
- Hired NV5 to provide engineering
design for 8” sewer main along
Rolling Hills Road. Design at 100%
completion and provided detailed
engineering estimate of 8” sewer
main.
- Completed phase 3 feasibility
study. Council authorized study of
sewer outlets to Palos Verdes
Drive North (residents’ proposed
project). The study provided high
level of construction costs for
three options to outlet the
effluent.
- Conducted a community survey,
asking residents if they want the
City to implement sewer main.
Data presented to the City
Council.
- Requested the hire of consultant
to pursue grant, low interest loans
for sewer projects.
- Coordinated with RHCA to keep
them updated on the status of the
project. They are in the holding
pattern for the amenities project
at the Tennis Courts pending
sewer installation or septic tank
replacement.
- The City’s Tennis Court ADA
improvement is on hold pending
- Make a decision on the 8” sewer
main.
- Make a decision on the residents’
request to provide sewer outlet at
Palos Verdes Drive North.
- Sewer is an eligible expense for
the American Rescue Plan Act
(APPA) allocation of $441,000.
347
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
sewer installation or septic tank
replacement.
WILDFIRE City in charge of safety.
Great job clearing but need to be expanded.
City should continue Conservancy’s work.
City should hire Association to clear
vegetation (using striping funds).
City enforcement should include
easements. Residents should clear
easements.
Crest Gate should open easily. City take on
enforcement responsibility.
Supports City enforcement on easement;
authority over Crest Gate’s accessibility;
expanding vegetation clearance done by
Conservancy and providing firebreak.
- Based on the City’s advocacy, the
RHCA automated the Crest Road
East gate.
- Staff report on dead vegetation
enforcement on a quarterly basis.
- Requested Council to purchase a
Kubota to assist with code
enforcement’s work on enforcing
dead vegetation ordinance.
- City received grant funding from
CALOES/FEMA; Vegetative
Management Grant Project
Performed Environmental Assessment for 30 residents
Filed CEQA Categorical Exemption
- City staff met with LACFD and
began forming the project design
for the Vegetative Management
Grant Project
- Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy fuel load reduction
(40+ acre area)
- Drafted, adopted a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
- City started the Fire Fuel
Committee specifically to problem
solve for potential wildfire
community concerns
- Hardening the Home Videos:
instructions on how to harden
your home
- Canyon Management Videos:
instructions on how to manage
your canyons
- Harden the Home inspections
from the Los Angeles County Fire
348
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
Department Forestry DivisionTrevor Moore
- Fire Works Ordinance (not
passed)
- Communal Bin event (Five 40-
cubic yard bins) for community
use to reduce vegetation
- Worked with RHCA to add
chipping event for the
community.
- Worked with LACFD to conduct
roadside clearance inspections for
all roads in Rolling Hills.
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
EVACUATION
Devote money to education, planning and
dissemination of information.
Supports increasing budget next year.
- Block Captain/Emergency
Preparedness budget in 17/18
was $4,500. In 18/19, the budget
was $8,000, in 19/20 the budget
was $14,875. The budget for
20/21 was $29,000 and the
budget for 21/22 is $137,360.
- Council was asked to consider
hiring a marketing firm to provide
an Evacuation procedures
brochure drafted by the Block
Captains and place the company
on-call for educational material on
emergency preparedness.
- Block Captain communication
project: outdoor alert system
(HQE feasibility study).
- Emergency Information System
(EIS) online database for city
contact with residents
- Communications Project (RHCA
Improving Wi-fi)
- City participation in the Prepared
Peninsula Expo
- Peninsula Wide Evacuation Map
- Conduct citywide emergency drill.
349
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
UTILITY
UNDERGROUNDING
Have grant cover costs.
Buy SCE rights.
Supports undergrounding and expanding
to other areas.
- Staff conducts monthly meetings
with utility companies for
progress updates on the Eastfield
Assessment District project.
- Staff conducts monthly meetings
with residents to educate them on
the process to create an
assessment district.
- Completed design to the Eastfield
Assessment District project.
- Completed numerous meetings
with residents in the Eastfield
Assessment District area with
subject matter experts including
financial advisors.
- Brought the project to a vote and
the project was voted down.
- Council approved resolution on
the city’s contribution to single
pole undergrounding, and
assessment district projects.
- Processed one reimbursement for
single pole undergrounding
project.
- Awarded by CalOES/FEMA
approximately $1.5M grant funds
for Crest Road East
Undergrounding project.
Preliminary Drawing/Design
began. Confirmed Rule 20A with
Utility Companies. Monthly status
meetings with all stakeholders
(SCE, utilities, engineers, etc.) will
commence in February 2022.
- Worked with Cal/OES on potential
Eastfield Drive Utility
Undergrounding grant award.
Council approved environmental
clearance documents for the said
- Focus on completing Cal/OES
grant project on Crest Road East
- Consider a utility underground
masterplan for the entire city.
350
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
project and agreed to adhere to
constructions provisions if the city
was awarded funds. Waiting to
hear from CalOES/FEMA.
DRAINAGE Improve civic center campus.
Install catch basins at key locations.
Try to eliminate flow outside of the City.
Figure out a way to use money being paid
to consultants on infrastructure that will
eliminate the need to participate in MS4.
Find Exit strategy.
Educate residents on drainage and erosion.
Make it standard requirement to retain
100% of water on site and enforced by PC.
Figure out exit strategy from MS4
reporting and divert money paid to
consultant to help build infrastructure.
Educate resident about drainage and
erosion.
- Submitted a revised TMRP to
requested the LA Regional Water
Quality Control Board to reduce
the frequency of trash monitoring
to comply with the trash TMDL.
Reduction in frequency was grant
but not at the level requested by
the City.
- Review diversion project (Bent
Springs Canyon) as a strategy to
comply with MS4 permit.
- Initiated the Sepulveda Canyon
monitoring. Council approved to
release the first year data (no
flow) to the LA Regional Water
Quality Control Board to consider
that the City does not discharge to
impair waters of the US.
- Council conducted a workshop
with the Planning Commission in
September 2021 to direct PC to
find ways to retain more
stormwater discharge on private
property.
- Council authorized joining the
Peninsula EWMP and directed
staff to prepare addendum.
- Consulted directed staff to ask
City of Torrance to design
Torrance Airport infiltration
project increments should the
Regional Board reject City’s
approach to compliance with
TMDL (no flow or clean flow from
Sepulveda monitoring data).
- Investigate outstanding
agreements with County to
maintain drains in the community.
- Work plan to meet obligations of
the drainage maintenance
agreement.
351
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
- Council and staff looking at
creative ways to spend Measure
W local returns to implement
impactful clean water projects.
- The City has been an outlet for
residents to voice drainage issues
experienced in the community
(Mayor Dieringer’s recent meeting
with resident of 2 Wrangler Road).
EASE PERMIT
PROCESS
No change - Previously, applicants of
development projects subjected
to discretionary review had to
complete the entitlement process
over four Planning Commission
meetings (a duration of a
minimum of four months).
- Staff cut down the entitlement
process to two Planning
Commission meetings but drafting
resolutions of approval ahead of
time to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
- Improvements where possible,
staff is always evaluating.
Operational improvements are
within the purview of the staff.
- Proposed staffing change for
efficiency. Current Planning
Department: Director, Code
Enforcement officer, part-time
Admin Clerk. Proposed Planning
Department: Director, Assistant
Planner. Eliminate Code
Enforcement officer and part-time
Admin Clerk. Out source code
enforcement to utilize the
resources of companies.
- Additional planner to help process
develop applications and work
with applicants to provide
guidance on approvable projects.
COMMUNICATION
WITH RESIDENTS
Keep Blue Newsletter. Periodically increase
content, quarterly.
Explore other medium dissemination.
Explore costs to outsource production.
Explore additional information provided.
Keep Blue Newsletter. Periodically
increase content; quarterly. Come back
with costs regarding outsourcing.
- 47 Blue Newsletters produced in
calendar year 2020.
- 45 Blue Newsletters produced in
calendar year 2021.
- In contrast, 24 Blue Newsletters
produced in calendar year 2017;
25 Blue Newsletter produced in
calendar year 2016.
- Outsource production of Blue
Newsletter would allow internal
staff to be available for other
impactful assignments.
- Residents like the Blue Newsletter
format. Received many
compliments on the Blue
Newsletter. CONSIDER POSTING
352
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
- Approximately $24,000 per year
(material, postage, production
time excluding time to produce
contents) to produce Blue
Newsletter in house.
- Launched new website with
continuous improvements for
functionality. Pushing info out via
Blue Newsletter to ask residents
to refer to the website for more
information.
- Launched Granicus with audio and
video recordings of City Council
meetings. Agendas are achieved
on the City’s website.
- Regional Law, and Public Safety
Committee agendas achieved on
the City’s website.
- Block Captain meeting agendas,
minutes, and or recordings are
available on the City’s website.
- Home hardening education videos
are on the City’s website.
- Joined AlertSouthBay using the
Everbridge Platform. Residents
can get alerts.
- Roll out of Emergency Information
System (EIS) on the City’s website.
- Council authorized the creation of
a database on the City’s website.
In 2022, to have contact
information for all residents for
emergency purposes.
THE BLUE NEWSLETTER ON THE
CITY’S WEBSITE.
- CONSIDER USING SOCIAL MEDIA
TO REACH RESIDENTS –
NEXTDOOR, FACEBOOK, TWITTER,
AND ETC.
MINIMIZE LEGAL
LIABILITY
Put money to minimize liability.
ADA compliance moving forward.
Legal costs keep going up. Limit inquiries to
legal questions.
JPA a great resource.
- Conducted countless meetings on
City Hall ADA improvement
project at the Council level and
staff level to finalize the best way
- On-call consultants: geologist,
soils engineer, hydrologist, and
civil engineer.
- On-call contractors: general
contractor, piping contractor, tree 353
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
Support ADA project to decrease potential
liabilities. Staff to define and narrow
breadth of legal inquiries.
to bring City Hall to comply with
accessibility regulations.
- Council authorized a loan
application to the CJPIA to fund
the construction of the City Hall
ADA improvement project.
- Mitigated liability relating to noncomplaint 5th cycle housing element.
- On the path to comply with the 6th
cycle housing element.
- Complied with SB9 with local
ordinance adoption.
- Complied with ADU mandate with
local ordinance adoption.
- Applied and achieved SB1383
(organics) waiver to implement a
organics collection program.
trimming contractor, and paving
contractor.
- On-call expertise to support the
city when needed. Landslides,
drainage/erosion.
PUBLIC SAFETY Improve coordination with the Association.
Add camera put privacy issues.
How can City enforce public safety with
limited tools?
Armed school officer not meeting terms of
contract. City will put out of Agreement. If
required job not performed.
Use advocacy to promote safety; if need
CC will exercise more authority in the
future. Ensure armed officer meeting
terms of contract.
- Monthly meetings with Captain
Powers and other Regional Law
City Managers on policing issues.
- Twice a month call with Captain
Powers to discuss Rolling Hills
matters.
- Quarterly report from school
district on the performance of the
School Resource Officer funded by
jointly by the school district and
Peninsula cities.
- Quarterly reports from Captain
Powers on crime stats and crime
trends for the Peninsula.
- Use Lomita Sheriff’s Department
CORE Team to address neighbor
issues in the community and for
educating the community.
- Sheriff’s Department and Fire
Department attend all zone 354
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
meetings, and all Block Captain
meetings. They also attend
coyote forums, and public safety
forms whenever they are held.
- Operations visibility.
Councilmember Pieper asked the
Sheriff’s Department to show
presence in the community by
having Black and Whites drive in
the community often.
REINSTATE VIEW
ORDINANCE
Have City protect and enforce view
ordinance.
Wait to process two complaints in the
queue and determine if there’s a need for
City to change ordinance.
Supports waiting for outcome of current
complaints before changing current
process.
- Processed one view case under
new code: Juge (view seeker) and
Tamayo (vegetation owner). Long
process, no mediation, findings by
the Committee on Trees and
View. Currently in the appeal
period.
- A second pending view case just
getting started on the process
(view case against four properties)
- A third pending view case
submitted (2 El Concho –
vegetation owner).
- $2,000 application fee is far below
the amount of money needed to
recover the cost: staff and
attorney. City Attorney’s office is
intimately involved and $2,000
only pays for 10 hours of work for
the City Attorney’s office.
Consider increasing to cover the
cost of the City Attorney’s time.
- View case against 4 properties,
code only allows the charge of one
application fee. Consider changing
code so that each address has an
application fee.
PURCHASE
PROPERTY FOR OS
Not acquire
REFUND THE
RESIDENTS
Refund yearly surplus to residents.
Use money for programmatic services that
will benefit larger community.
Identify CIP to fund in next year to three
years to really see if there’s surplus.
Not connecting to sewer might be missed
opportunity.
Staff coming back with recommendations
on how to spend surplus: services,
drainage, firebreak, etc. Come back after
fiscal year. CC committing money TBD.
- FY21-22, Council adopted a deficit
budget. Reserves are needed for
capital improvement projects,
operation improvements, cost of
service to residents and meeting
mandates.
- Expenditures throughout the year
are monitored by staff to prevent
overspending.
- Can use reserves to hire a Notary
to be at City Hall one day a week
and offer free service to the
residents of Rolling Hills.
- Can use reserve funds to start a
public access channel to
communication with residents and
355
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2022
can broadcast public meetings, fill
contents with educational videos.
- Provide passport service at City
Hall.
356
Page: 1
Adopted YTD
Budget Expenditures Available
GENERAL FUND
01 - CITY ADMINISTRATOR
702 Salaries -Full Time $ 429,100.00 $ 227,038.49 $ 202,061.51 710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 29,000.00 20,599.73 8,400.27 710 CalPERS Unfunded Liability 59,026.00 57,063.00 1,963.00 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 7,700.00 4,089.96 3,610.04 716 Group Insurance 55,000.00 41,506.67 13,493.33
717 Retiree Medical 30,300.00 19,789.11 10,510.89
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 28,400.00 12,680.22 15,719.78 719 Deferred Compensation 4,300.00 2,400.00 1,900.00
720 Auto Allowance 4,800.00 2,550.00 2,250.00
XXX Phone Allowance 1,300.00 - 1,300.00
761 Auto Mileage 500.00 - 500.00
740 Office Supplies 38,040.00 9,255.49 28,784.51
745 Equipment Leasing Costs 14,850.00 6,175.34 8,674.66 750 Dues & Subscriptions 15,240.00 1,490.00 13,750.00
755 Conference Expense 10,000.00 5,429.96 4,570.04
757 Meetings Expense 2,000.00 5,843.00 (3,843.00)
759 Training & Eduxcation 5,000.00 - 5,000.00
765 Postage 20,000.00 7,500.00 12,500.00
770 Telephone 5,700.00 3,180.22 2,519.78
775 City Council Expense 10,000.00 1,785.00 8,215.00
776 Miscellaneous Expenses - 111.03 (111.03)
780 Minutes Clerk Meetings 6,000.00 2,254.99 3,745.01
785 Codification 5,000.00 1,446.09 3,553.91
795 Other Gen Admin Expense 4,900.00 1,441.18 3,458.82
801 City Attorney 91,000.00 64,408.00 26,592.00
820 Website 6,000.00 9,764.00 (3,764.00)
850 Election Expense City Council - 166.85 (166.85)
890 Consulting Fees 161,400.00 43,775.12 117,624.88
925 Utilities - 1,473.69 (1,473.69)
955 Disaster Emergency Equipment - 1,392.00 (1,392.00)
802 Legal Expense - Other 3,000.00 - 3,000.00
790 Advertising 1,000.00 - 1,000.00
Total City Administrator 1,048,556.00 554,609.14 489,946.86
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Expenditures
July 1 to December 31, 2021
357
Page: 2
Adopted YTD
Budget Expenditures Available
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Expenditures
July 1 to December 31, 2021
05 - Finance
750 Dues & Subscriptions 200.00 - 200.00
810 Annual Audit 17,630.00 - 17,630.00
890 Consulting Fees 99,500.00 62,709.15 36,790.85
Total Finance 117,330.00 62,709.15 54,620.85
15- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
702 Salaries $ 237,200.00 115,656.91 121,543.09
710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 17,750.00 8,702.01 9,047.99 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 3,800.00 2,014.50 1,785.50 716 Group Insurance 30,900.00 11,721.41 19,178.59
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 18,790.00 8,990.92 9,799.08
719 Deferred Compensation 1,200.00 - 1,200.00
720 Auto Allowance 2,400.00 1,100.00 1,300.00
XXX Phone Allowance 600.00 - 600.00
758 Planning Commission Meetting - 988.12 (988.12)
761 Auto Mileage - 37.24 (37.24)
770 Telephone - 960.82 (960.82)
776 Miscellaneous Expense 2,000.00 - 2,000.00
750 Dues & Subscription 850.00 - 850.00
755 Conference Expense 5,000.00 - 5,000.00
759 Training & Education 1,000.00 - 1,000.00
790 Advertising - 2,405.65 (2,405.65)
801 City Attorney - 608.00 (608.00)
802 Legal Expenses-Other - 17,376.60 (17,376.60)
872 Property Development-Legal Exp 100,000.00 4,060.85 95,939.15 878 Build Inspect. LA County/Willd 150,000.00 36,138.07 113,861.93 881 Storm Water Management 275,800.00 143,037.85 132,762.15 882 Variance & CUP Expense 7,000.00 5,913.95 1,086.05
884 Special Project Study & Consulting 180,000.00 179,792.64 207.36 950 Capital Outlay 26,400.00 - 26,400.00
Total Planning & Development 1,060,690.00 539,505.54 521,184.46 25 - Public Safety
830 Law Enforcement 220,380.00 85,015.79 135,364.21
833 Other Law Enforcement Expenses 3,000.00 1,129.73 1,870.27 837 Wild Life Mgmt & Pest Control 50,000.00 1,412.40 48,587.60 358
Page: 3
Adopted YTD
Budget Expenditures Available
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Expenditures
July 1 to December 31, 2021
838 Animal Control Expense 6,000.00 2,204.45 3,795.55
890 Consulting Fees - 17,264.35 (17,264.35)
Total Public Safety 279,380.00 107,026.72 172,353.28
65 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL
895 Insurance & Bond Expense 30,260.00 11,025.46 19,234.54 901 South Bay Comm. Organization 20,100.00 1,200.00 18,900.00 915 Community Recognition 16,000.00 4,718.25 11,281.75
916 Civil Defense Expense 650.00 - 650.00
917 Emergency Preparedness 137,360.00 18,988.58 118,371.42 985 Contingency 25,000.00 - 25,000.00
Total Non-Departmental 229,370.00 35,932.29 193,437.71
75 - CITY PROPERTIES
925 Utilities $ 33,810.00 $ 18,684.92 15,125.08
930 Repairs & Maintenance 36,963.00 8,615.00 28,348.00
932 Area Landscaping 28,500.00 7,238.91 21,261.09
Capital Outlay - Buildings & Equip 250,000.00 - 250,000.00 Total City Properties 349,273.00 34,538.83 314,734.17
GENERAL FUND TOTAL $ 3,084,599.00 $ 1,334,321.67 $ 1,746,277.33 359
Page: 4
Adopted YTD
Budget Expenditures Available
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Expenditures
July 1 to December 31, 2021
10 - COPS FUND
COPS Program Expenditures $ 161,100.00 $ 89,712.28 $ 71,387.72 14 - Traffic Safety Fund
Road Striping-Delineators/Pavement $ 10,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500.00 16 - CAL/OES
Safety Element DR4344-PL0521 $ - $ 4,261.00 $ (4,261.00) Vegetation Magmnt DR4382-PJ0175 - 83,950.43 (83,950.43) $ - $ 88,211.43 $ (88,211.43)
25 - Prop A Transportation Fund
Prop A Excbange $ - $ 84,000.00 $ (84,000.00)
40 - Capital Projects Fund
City Hall Improvements $ 300,000.00 $ 12,952.50 $ 287,047.50 41 - Utility Fund
Legal Other & Outside Council $ 1,452.00
Sewer Feasibility Project 7,280.00
$ 763,638.00 $ 8,732.00 $ 754,906.00
50 - Refuse Collection Fund
Refuse Service Contract $ 456,348.00
Operating Transfer Out 12,000.00
$ 912,700.00 $ 468,348.00 $ 444,352.00
360
PROPOSED 3-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FY2020-2021 TO FY 2022-2023
Current Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Project Description FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost
1 8" Sewer Main along Rolling Hills Road* Feasibility Study Phase I $11,391 Feasibility Study Phase II $30,000 Design/Construction $400,000 Construction $700,000 2 Tennis Courts ADA Improvements** Design $8,000 Construction $50,000 Construction $250,000 3 City Hall ADA Improvements** Design $30,000 Design $7,000 Construction $300,000 4 City Hall campus parking lot improvements*** Design $21,000 Design $50,000 Construction $500,000 Total $40,391 $60,000 $457,000 $1,300,000 $500,000
* Possible offset of General Fund with successful grant pursuits. ** Low interest rate financing available through CJPIA for ADA projects with 5 year repay plan. *** Eligible to be funded using a combination of accumulated local returns from Measures R and M transportation funds, Measure A County Park fund, and Measure W Clean Water fund.
SCHEDULE
Project Description FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe 1 8" Sewer Main along Rolling Hills Road* Feasibility Study Phase I Feb 18 - Oct 18 Feasibility Study Phase II May 19-
May 20
Design/Construction July20-
Feb21, May
21 - Sept 21
Construction May 21 - Sept
21 2 Tennis Courts ADA Improvements** Design Construction May 21 - Sept 21
Construction May 21 - Sept
21 3 City Hall ADA Improvements** Design Jan 20 -
Sept 20
Design Jan 20 - Sept
20 Construction July 21 - Nov
21 4 City Hall campus parking lot improvements*** Design Design Feb 22 - Jun 22 Construction Aug 22 - Dec
22 361
PROPOSED 3-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FY2020-2021 TO FY 2022-2023
Year 0 Current Year Year 2 Year 3
Project Description FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 F Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost
1 8" Sewer Main along Rolling Hills Road [1] Feasibility Study Phase I $11,391 Feasibility Study Phase II $30,000 Design $81,196 Construction $1,700,000 2 Tennis Courts ADA Improvements Design $8,000 Construction $300,000 3 City Hall ADA Improvements [2] Design $37,000 Construction $784,390 4 Crest Road East Utility Undergrounding Grant Project [3] Design Design/Construction $763,638 Construction $763,638 5 Vegetation/Fire Fuel Management Grant Project [4] Design [6] $0 Environmental/ Construction
$975,144
6 City Hall campus parking lot improvements [5] Design $50,000 Total $19,391 $30,000 $118,196 $4,523,172 $813,638
[1] Off-set of general fund ($350,000) using American Rescue Fund [2] Low interest rate financing secured ($300,000) through CJPIA for ADA projects with 5 year repay plan. [3] Grant requires 25% local match. City will use Rule 20A credit for local match. [4] Only phase 1 has been awarded. Phase 2 approval will depend on the completion of phase 1. [5] Eligible to be funded using a combination of accumulated local returns from Measures R and M transportation funds, Measure A County Park fund, and Measure W Clean Water fund. [6] No cost to the City; contribution by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
SCHEDULE
Project Description FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 F Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe 1 8" Sewer Main along Rolling Hills Road [1] Feasibility Study Phase I Feb 18 - Oct 18 Feasibility Study Phase II May 19-
May 20
Design Sept '20 - Jun
'21
Construction Jul '21 - Nov '21
2 Tennis Courts ADA Improvements Design Construction Nov '21 - Apr '22
3 City Hall ADA Improvements [2] Design Mar '20 -
May '21
Construction Oct '21 - Feb '22
4 Crest Road East Utility Undergrounding Grant Project [3] Design Jan '21 - Jun '22
Design/Construction Jul '21 -Jun '22 Construction Jul'22 - Sept '22
5 Vegetation/Fire Fuel Management Grant Project [4] Design Dec '20 - Mar '21
Environmental/
Construction
May '21 - Nov
'21; Jan '22 -
Apr '22
6 City Hall campus parking lot improvements [5] Design Jun '22 - Dec '22
362
2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING
WORKSHOP
Saturday, January 22, 2022
City of Rolling Hills
363
2022 COUNCILMEMBER’S PRIORITIES
• Balance the need for fire fuel reduction with concerns and reservations of residents as well as mitigating the financial impact on residents.
• Compliance with Affordable housing requirements while maintaining the traditional Rolling Hills community expectations.
• Developing an understanding of the City’s obligations and responsibilities regarding storm drains and the impact on the budget. • Completion of the City Hall campus improvements.
364
2022 COUNCILMEMBER’S PRIORITIES (cont.)
• Fire Safety – implement all programs (videos, work in conservancy, vegetation management, incentives, etc) to continue to support fire safety.
• Storm drain – what role can the city play to encourage and support RHCA’s efforts to address?
• ADA at City Hall – need to make decision to minimize exposure to complaints and lawsuits.
• Sewer – continue with existing City Hall campus project? • City staffing – what can the city do to attract, retain, and develop top quality employees to support Council’s visions/goals?
365
ADDITIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES?
• Council discussion.
366
CITY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Proposed Budget Items for Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness Utility Undergrounding Drainage Sewer Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost 1 Block Captain Program $50,000 Crest Road
Undergrounding -
CalOES grant
City match provided by
Rule 20A purchased
credits
Parcel based
hydromodification policy
development*
$8,000 Investigate extension of
existing sewer mains
into the City of Rolling
Hills
$30,000
2 Fire Fuel Reduction in the
Preserve
$100,000 Eastfield
Undergrounding -
CalOES grant
City match provided by
Rule 20A purchased
credits
Bend Springs capital
improvement project
feasibility study to
include City Hall
campus*
$80,000 Design of 8" sewer main
along Portuguese Bend
Road/Rolling Hills Road
to connect with County
truck line on Cresshaw
Blvd.
$90,000
3 Fire Fuel Reduction in
Rolling Hills in the areas
adjacent to the Preserve
$50,000 Assessment District
Project Support -
workshops for
neighborhood groups
and supple technical
experts for Q/A
$15,000 Masterplan: eliminate
stormwater discharge
from the City*
$50,000 Pursue grants for capital
improvement projects
$20,000
4 CWPP -
Development/Adoption
$5,000 Pursue grants for
projects
$10,000
5 Arborist to support
enforcement of Fire Fuel
Abatement
$5,000
$210,000 $25,000 *Eligible to use Measure
W local returns
$138,000 $140,000
Grand Total $513,000
367
CITY COUNCIL INDIVIDUAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
PROVIDED BEFORE AND DURING THE 2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP 1 Mayor Dieringer Mayor Pro Tem Black Councilmember Wilson Councilmember Mirsch Councilmember Pieper 1 Complete City Hall
campus improvements
ADA at City Hall – need
to make decision to
minimize exposure to
complaints and lawsuits
2 Hire expert on-call
consultants; understand
drainage responsibility
and issues; stormwater
retention
Does not want to pursue
drainage responsibility;
limit staff time to do
preliminary
investigation on the
responsibility of the city
with respect to drains in
the city
Develop an
understanding of city’s
obligations and
responsibilities
regarding storm drains
and impact on budget
Storm drain – what role
can the city play to
encourage and support
RHCA’s effort to address
drainage issues?
3 Electronic system to
notify residents;
evacuation drill;
evacuation zone study,
incentives for home
hardening; community
survey on vegetation
draft ordinance
Balance the need for fire
fuel reduction with
concerns and
reservations of residents
as well as mitigating the
financial impact on
residents
Fire safety – implement
all programs (videos,
work in conservancy,
vegetation
management,
incentives, etc) to
continue to support fire
safety
4 Compliance with
affordable housing
requirements while
maintaining the
traditional Rolling Hills
Community expectation
5 Sewer – Continue with
existing City Hall campus
project?
Installation of sewer
main lines – seek grants
for implementation
6 City staffing – what can
the city do to attract,
retain, and develop top
368
CITY COUNCIL INDIVIDUAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
PROVIDED BEFORE AND DURING THE 2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP 2 [X] Provided by Councilmembers prior to the January 22, 2022 Strategic Planning Workshop. [X] Expressed by Councilmembers at the January 22, 2022 Strategic Planning Workshop quality employees to
support Council’s
visions/goals?
7 Utility Underground
projects
8 Reinstate view
ordinance to have city
have enforcement
power
Have the Rolling Hills
Community Association
take on the emergency
power project for the
city hall campus
9 Prioritize tennis courts
improvements above
other listed
improvements on CIP
list
Prioritize tennis court
improvements above
other improvements on
CIP list
369
1 2022 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP
CITY COUNCIL’S REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE 2020 ESTABLISHED
PRIORITIES/GOALS
2020 Established Priorities and Goals 2022 Council Comments on 2020 Priorities and Goals 1 Sewer The City Council stated that the cost of sewer installation is cost prohibitive given the available general funds to construct the 8” main line. One Councilmember expressed that this priority should be moved to the bottom of the list for the next two years pending availability of grant funds. Another Councilmember expressed that this priority should be entirely removed from the list. The City Council expressed consensus for staff to pursue grant funds to install the sewer lines. There was no discussion on the current activities relating to this priority and whether if the activities should be abandoned or continued (preparation of 8” sewer main).
2 Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness The City Council expressed consensus that the activities, actions, and pursuits on the wildfire mitigation and emergency
preparedness front were good and should continue. Individual Council members provided input on aspects of this priority (i.e., balance between cost and fire fuel abatement) but there was not consensus on the actions items relating to those input. 3 Utility Undergrounding The City Council expressed consensus that the Crest Road East Utility Undergrounding grant project, and the Eastfied Drive Utility Undergrounding grant project – if awarded, should be the focus on fulfilling this priority.
4 Drainage The City Council expressed consensus that the work to date on finding alternative compliance solutions to the MS4 permit should continue, including retaining more stormwater discharge on private property. On drainage issues in the community 370
2 (erosion, and unclaimed drains accepting stormwater discharges from easement areas), majority of the Council expressed the need to investigate to find out the City’s obligations on this front. Investigation includes research into the ownership of the drains accepting flow from easement areas of the community.
Investigation includes identify the responsible party for maintaining and operating the drains accepting flow from easement areas of the community. One Councilmember
expressed opposing views on the investigation needed but later agreed to it if the amount of staff time spent on the
investigation was minimal.
A. Ease permit process – no action identified in 2020 Remove from list.
B. Communication with residents – keep blue newsletter.
Periodically increase content. Come back with costs regarding outsourcing.
The City Council recognized that the blue newsletter is a popular item and expressed that the contents should continue to be povided by staff but that the production of the newsletter can be contracted out to eliminate tedious manual labor for a small staff.
C. Shorter council meetings – have staff bring the City Council back to focus to keep meeting moving forward.
The City Council expressed that this item should be removed from the priority/goal list for the next two Fiscal Years.
D. Minimize legal liability – Support ADA project to decrease potential liabilities. Staff to define and narrow breadth of legal inquiries.
The City Council discussed that inherent to the city operations, minimize legal liability is a core function of the city and therefore does not need to be listed as a priority/goal.
E. Public Safety – Use advocacy to promote safety, if needed City Council will exercise more authority in the future. Ensure armed school resource officer is armed as a provision of contract.
As with the item on minimize legal liability, the City Council discussed that public safety is an obligation of the city and therefore does not need to be listed as a priority/goal.
F. Reinstate view ordinance – Support waiting for outcome of current complaints before changing current process.
A member of the City Council expressed that only one case has been processed with the current view case and that the City should collect more experience with the current view ordinance before changes are implemented. Another member of the City Council expressed that the fee on view application ($2,000 per application for case against unlimited properties) is insufficient for cost recovery and the fee should be increased. There was no consensus among the City Council to change the current view ordinance.
371
3 G. Purchase property for open space – not acquire The City Council agreed to eliminate this item as a priority/goal due to the Surplus Land Act.
H. Refund the residents – staff coming back with recommendations on how to spend surplus: services, drainage, firebreak, etc.
Come back after fiscal year. City Council committing money TBD.
Staff recommended that the City Council hold community events such as outdoor moving nights at the City Hall campus during the summer time. The City Council expressed consensus to fund community events. There was also consensus among the
Council that surplus should not be used to refund the residents but the surplus funds should be used to provide more services to the residents. With the capital improvement backlog, there was discussion that there would no surplus until after all the capital improvements were completed.
372
Strategic Plan 2022
for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Priority 2022 Action Notes 2022
1 Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness Evacation City should continue work in the Preserve by the Conservancy Conduct emergency prepardness drill.
Consider vegetation management in the canyon ordinance.
Apply for additional grants for fuel management in the community Complete the CALOES/FEMA Vegetation Managgement Grant project Allocate funds to Block Captain Program, fuel abatement in the Preserve, education on emergency prepardness planning and dissemination of information.
2 Utility Undergrounding Complete CALOES/FEMA Utility Undergrounding grant projects.
Support utility undergrounding projects.
3 Drainage Elminate stormwater discharge out of the City. Retain as much stormwater discharge as much as possible on individual parcels.
Find alternative compliance approaches for the MS4 permit.
Reserch ownership, and responsible party for maintaining and operating the common drains in the City of Rolling Hills.
Allocate funding to support the above measures.
4 Communication with Residents Blue Newsletter: good content and quantity. Continue to have staff manage the content of the Blue Newsletters.
Complete Emergency Information System (EIS) and utilize the Alert Southbay to notify residents electronically.
Out source the production of the Blue Newsletter to allow staff time to be spent on services. 5 City personnel recruitment and retention plan Consider benefit package improvements to attract and retain personnel.
Explore quality of life workspace including telecommuting policies, four days per week/ten hour day operations, compensation time, and etc.
Allocate funding to support the above measures.
6 Reinstate View Ordinance Process current view cases per the current ordiannce, observe process, and evaluate after cases have concluded. Consider increasing view applications from $2,000 per application for cases against unlimited properties, to $5,000 per application for a case against one property.
Wiat for outcome of current complaints before changing current process. 7 Expand resident services Hire notary using General Fund and provide one day a month free service at City Hall Consider providing passport service at City Hall
Hold additional community events like "Outdoor Movie Nights," and utilize the City Hall campus for events.
Staff to provide recommendations on service expansion.
8 Sewer Complete current design and feasibility studies in progress.
Apply for Federal, State and Local grants for constructon of the 8" main line along Rolling Hills Road.
Seek and apply for grant funds to support construction of sewer mains in the community. 373
Agenda Item No.: 14.A
Mtg. Date: 02/14/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: VERBAL REPORT ON THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2022
DATE: February 14, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Report from Traffic Commission Chair Pat Wilson.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
374
Agenda Item No.: 15.A
Mtg. Date: 02/14/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL REPORT ON UPDATE TO EXPAND TENNIS COURT 1 TO ADD PICKLEBALL COURTS.
DATE: February 14, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
TBD.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220214_RB_RecParks_AdminReport_Example.pdf
375
Administrative
Report
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
To: RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION
From: CAMERON HARDING, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
TITLE
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE INPUT ON PROPOSED PICKLEBALL LOCATIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the fiscal year 2021-22 budget, the City Council directed staff to conduct a pickleball feasibility study. The city obtained the services of a landscape architect, Hirsch & Associates, to complete this study. Hirsch & Associates provided the Recreation and Parks Commission its proposed scope of work, which was unanimously approved at the Commission’s August 11, 2021 meeting.
Hirsch & Associates has completed its analysis of potential sites for pickleball courts and has identified seven locations for consideration. Each location has its own advantages and limitations that impact the possible number of pickleball courts. These should be considered and balanced when determining the preferred location(s) for future pickleball courts. Staff will include input from the commission as part of a subsequent presentation to the City Council to determine a future site.
BACKGROUND
As part of the fiscal year 2021-22 budget, the City Council directed staff to conduct a pickleball feasibility study. The city obtained the services of a landscape architect, Hirsch & Associates, to complete this study. Hirsch & Associates provided the Recreation and Parks Commission its proposed scope of work, which was unanimously approved at the Commission’s August 11, 2021 meeting.
Hirsch & Associates has completed its analysis of potential sites for pickleball courts and has identified the following locations for consideration:
· Alta Vista Park
· Perry Park
· Anderson Park
· Franklin Park
· Perry Allison Playfield
· Dominguez Park
· Aviation Park Open Field
37617
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
· Each location has its own advantages and limitations that impact the possible number of pickleball courts. These should be considered and balanced when determining the preferred location for future pickleball courts.
Each location has its own advantages and limitations that impact the possible number of pickleball courts. These should be considered and balanced when determining the preferred location for future pickleball courts.
Alta Vista Park
Alta Vista Park is located at 801 Camino Real. The park is 19.42 acres and is a combination of parcels owned by the city and the Redondo Beach School District including three individual multipurpose sports fields, one little league field, Alta Vista Community Center, a picnic shelter, and tennis and racquetball courts. Options for future pickleball facilities at this location include the conversion of one tennis court to become four pickleball courts and the addition of a new, stand-alone single pickleball court on existing green space.
This location is ideal for the conversion of pickleball courts as it would benefit from the existing sport court infrastructure and lighting of the tennis court facility. This would result in cost savings and a shortened installation time. Additionally, Alta Vista Park has on-site, dedicated parking already available so nearby neighborhoods would not be impacted by visitors to the park. Concerns with this location include the need for additional site work for necessary ADA enhancements; the reduction of one tennis court; and potential noise concerns associated with pickleball play to those living nearby the park, specifically on S. Juanita Avenue.
Perry Park
Perry Park is located at 2301 Grant Avenue. It is a 4.13-acre park featuring a teen center, Senior Center, Scout House, sports field, basketball courts, play equipment, and picnic areas. Additionally, a skate park is scheduled to be installed in early 2022. Future pickleball court opportunities have been identified on the basketball courts with enough space for three pickleball courts. Informal pickleball play has been taking place on the basketball courts for quite some time with little to no issues. The proximity of this location to nearby homes is a positive attribute, which would eliminate any noise concerns, especially with the vehicular traffic from Grant Avenue. Perry Park has dedicated, on-site parking as well as existing sport court lighting and fencing on the basketball court, which make it a good location for consideration of permanent pickleball courts.
Alternatively, the surface of the basketball courts would need to be repaired prior to the installation of any pickleball court, which would be an added expense and time. Additional site work for ADA enhancements would also need to be completed.
Anderson Park
Anderson Park is located at 2229 Ernest Avenue and is surrounded by residential properties and Lincoln Elementary School. Anderson Park is a 12.4-acre park that includes the following amenities:
Anderson Park Senior Center, Anderson Park Scout Houses, children’s play area, and basketball and tennis courts.
37718
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
Options for future pickleball facilities at this location include:
· Restriping of one existing tennis court to allow 4 pickleball courts; · Restriping of one existing half-court basketball court for a single pickleball court; and · Three new, stand-alone pickleball courts in the open field area.
Although this location provides a lot of space for consideration, there are a few drawbacks that should be considered, including additional site work for ADA enhancements; the transition of existing tennis and basketball court play into a shared space with pickleball play; and noise impacts to those living nearby with the addition of pickleball play. Alternatively, future pickleball courts could benefit from this location due to existing sport court lighting on the tennis court that could allow pickleball to be played longer hours; the half-court basketball court includes existing sport court lighting and the surface is in good shape, so site work would be minimal; and there is existing on-site parking.
Franklin Park
Franklin Park is located at 807 Inglewood Avenue and features play equipment, restrooms, two basketball courts, two shuffleboard courts, and picnic areas with two BBQ's. Options for future pickleball courts include the restriping of two half-court basketball courts, and an expansion of an existing oversized concrete area. Collectively, this would provide a total of six pickleball courts at this location.
Similar to Perry Park, informal pickleball is being played at this location without issue. While there is some level of concern with expanding the number of pickleball courts due to how close this park is to nearby residential property and the noise impacts this could pose, the fact that it is already taking place makes this location a worthy prospect.
Unfortunately, there are several concerns that should be considered, including the fact that there is no on-site parking. An increase to park amenities may result in parking impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, there would need to be a lot of site work beyond the pickleball courts such as the installation of pathways, ensuring ADA compliance; and fencing and sport court lighting.
Perry Allison Playfield
Perry Allison Playfield is located on 190th Street between Cluster and Blossom Lanes. It is a 0.59- acre park that includes a fenced in grass area. The feasibility study provides an option for future pickleball facilities at this location to include a single, stand-alone court. The use of this open space for a future pickleball court is ideal in the fact that it would not impact an existing sport court.
Additionally, the vehicular noise from 190th may be helpful to negate some of the potential noise impacts from the sport to those living adjacent to the playfield. However, this location has a number of concerns including a lack of available on-site or dedicated parking; no existing sport court lighting, which would limit pickleball play to only daylight hours; proximity to houses, and the need for additional site work for ADA enhancements.
Dominguez Park
Dominguez Park is located at 200 Flagler Lane and is a 24-acre park that includes grass areas, picnic areas, play equipment, a dog park, Heritage Court, and two Little League fields.
37819
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
The feasibility study identifies the open grass area between the dog park and the baseball fields as a potential location that could accommodate six pickleball courts. These courts would need to be installed on their own individual concrete pads due to concerns with ground movement and differential settling as a result of this site being on top of an old landfill. While this would not impact game play, it would increase project costs for installation and maintenance. City engineers have expressed concern with the potential effects of the differential settling and, therefore, do not recommend this location for future pickleball courts.
Aviation Park Open Field
Aviation Park is located at 1935 Manhattan Beach Boulevard and includes two indoor gymnasiums, a track and field, and the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center. Located behind the gymnasium facilities is an unused open field area that has been identified as a potential site for pickleball courts.
As noted in the study, up to six pickleball courts could fit within this space.
This is an ideal location as it would not displace any existing recreational sport or amenity. Its location away from residential areas greatly limits noise impacts, although these impacts should be considered for the Child Development Center on the northwest side of the field.
Additional concerns for this location include the added project costs and installation time associated with the construction of pickleball courts from the ground up. Unique to this location is also the fact that parking adjacent to this area is privately owned by Northrup Grumman. If this site were selected for future pickleball courts, staff would need to determine a parking plan that would ensure pickleball players did not use these private parking spaces.
The completion of the pickleball feasibility study is a helpful and critical step in the development of future pickleball courts in Redondo Beach. Although the results of the study did not find a location void of any major concerns or potential issues, there are a number of viable locations that could be workable with creative approaches to noise abatement materials or other infrastructure modifications.
Input received from the commission will be shared with the City Council as part of its determination of the results of the feasibility study and the potential for future pickleball courts in Redondo Beach.
COORDINATION
The City obtained the services of a landscape architect, Hirsch & Associates, to complete this study.
FISCAL IMPACT
As part of the fiscal year 2021-22 budget, the City Council directed staff to conduct a pickleball feasibility study. The city obtained the services of a landscape architect, Hirsch & Associates, to complete this study. Hirsch & Associates provided the Recreation and Parks Commission its proposed scope of work, which was unanimously approved at the Commission’s August 11, 2021 meeting.
Hirsch & Associates has completed its analysis of potential sites for pickleball courts and has identified the following locations for consideration:
37920
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
· Alta Vista Park
· Perry Park
· Anderson Park
· Franklin Park
· Perry Allison Playfield
· Dominguez Park
· Aviation Park Open Field
Each location has its own advantages and limitations that impact the possible number of pickleball courts. These should be considered and balanced when determining the preferred location for future pickleball courts.
Alta Vista Park
Alta Vista Park is located at 801 Camino Real. The park is 19.42 acres and is a combination of parcels owned by the city and the Redondo Beach School District including three individual multipurpose sports fields, one little league field, Alta Vista Community Center, a picnic shelter, and tennis and racquetball courts. Options for future pickleball facilities at this location include the conversion of one tennis court to become four pickleball courts and the addition of a new, stand-alone single pickleball court on existing green space.
This location is ideal for the conversion of pickleball courts as it would benefit from the existing sport court infrastructure and lighting of the tennis court facility. This would result in cost savings and a shortened installation time. Additionally, Alta Vista Park has on-site, dedicated parking already available so nearby neighborhoods would not be impacted by visitors to the park. Concerns with this location include the need for additional site work for necessary ADA enhancements; the reduction of one tennis court; and potential noise concerns associated with pickleball play to those living nearby the park, specifically on S. Juanita Avenue.
Perry Park
Perry Park is located at 2301 Grant Avenue. It is a 4.13-acre park featuring a teen center, Senior Center, Scout House, sports field, basketball courts, play equipment, and picnic areas. Additionally, a skate park is scheduled to be installed in early 2022. Future pickleball court opportunities have been identified on the basketball courts with enough space for three pickleball courts. Informal pickleball play has been taking place on the basketball courts for quite some time with little to no issues. The proximity of this location to nearby homes is a positive attribute, which would eliminate any noise concerns, especially with the vehicular traffic from Grant Avenue. Perry Park has dedicated, on-site parking as well as existing sport court lighting and fencing on the basketball court, which make it a good location for consideration of permanent pickleball courts.
Alternatively, the surface of the basketball courts would need to be repaired prior to the installation of any pickleball court, which would be an added expense and time. Additional site work for ADA enhancements would also need to be completed.
Anderson Park
Anderson Park is located at 2229 Ernest Avenue and is surrounded by residential properties and
38021
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
Lincoln Elementary School. Anderson Park is a 12.4-acre park that includes the following amenities:
Anderson Park Senior Center, Anderson Park Scout Houses, children’s play area, and basketball and tennis courts.
Options for future pickleball facilities at this location include:
· Restriping of one existing tennis court to allow 4 pickleball courts; · Restriping of one existing half-court basketball court for a single pickleball court; and · Three new, stand-alone pickleball courts in the open field area.
Although this location provides a lot of space for consideration, there are a few drawbacks that should be considered, including additional site work for ADA enhancements; the transition of existing tennis and basketball court play into a shared space with pickleball play; and noise impacts to those living nearby with the addition of pickleball play. Alternatively, future pickleball courts could benefit from this location due to existing sport court lighting on the tennis court that could allow pickleball to be played longer hours; the half-court basketball court includes existing sport court lighting and the surface is in good shape, so site work would be minimal; and there is existing on-site parking.
Franklin Park
Franklin Park is located at 807 Inglewood Avenue and features play equipment, restrooms, two basketball courts, two shuffleboard courts, and picnic areas with two BBQ's. Options for future pickleball courts include the restriping of two half-court basketball courts, and an expansion of an existing oversized concrete area. Collectively, this would provide a total of six pickleball courts at this location.
Similar to Perry Park, informal pickleball is being played at this location without issue. While there is some level of concern with expanding the number of pickleball courts due to how close this park is to nearby residential property and the noise impacts this could pose, the fact that it is already taking place makes this location a worthy prospect.
Unfortunately, there are several concerns that should be considered, including the fact that there is no on-site parking. An increase to park amenities may result in parking impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, there would need to be a lot of site work beyond the pickleball courts such as the installation of pathways, ensuring ADA compliance; and fencing and sport court lighting.
Perry Allison Playfield
Perry Allison Playfield is located on 190th Street between Cluster and Blossom Lanes. It is a 0.59- acre park that includes a fenced in grass area. The feasibility study provides an option for future pickleball facilities at this location to include a single, stand-alone court. The use of this open space for a future pickleball court is ideal in the fact that it would not impact an existing sport court.
Additionally, the vehicular noise from 190th may be helpful to negate some of the potential noise impacts from the sport to those living adjacent to the playfield. However, this location has a number of concerns including a lack of available on-site or dedicated parking; no existing sport court lighting, which would limit pickleball play to only daylight hours; proximity to houses, and the need for additional site work for ADA enhancements.
38122
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
Dominguez Park
Dominguez Park is located at 200 Flagler Lane and is a 24-acre park that includes grass areas, picnic areas, play equipment, a dog park, Heritage Court, and two Little League fields.
The feasibility study identifies the open grass area between the dog park and the baseball fields as a potential location that could accommodate six pickleball courts. These courts would need to be installed on their own individual concrete pads due to concerns with ground movement and differential settling as a result of this site being on top of an old landfill. While this would not impact game play, it would increase project costs for installation and maintenance. City engineers have expressed concern with the potential effects of the differential settling and, therefore, do not recommend this location for future pickleball courts.
Aviation Park Open Field
Aviation Park is located at 1935 Manhattan Beach Boulevard and includes two indoor gymnasiums, a track and field, and the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center. Located behind the gymnasium facilities is an unused open field area that has been identified as a potential site for pickleball courts.
As noted in the study, up to six pickleball courts could fit within this space.
This is an ideal location as it would not displace any existing recreational sport or amenity. Its location away from residential areas greatly limits noise impacts, although these impacts should be considered for the Child Development Center on the northwest side of the field.
Additional concerns for this location include the added project costs and installation time associated with the construction of pickleball courts from the ground up. Unique to this location is also the fact that parking adjacent to this area is privately owned by Northrup Grumman. If this site were selected for future pickleball courts, staff would need to determine a parking plan that would ensure pickleball players did not use these private parking spaces.
The completion of the pickleball feasibility study is a helpful and critical step in the development of future pickleball courts in Redondo Beach. Although the results of the study did not find a location void of any major concerns or potential issues, there are a number of viable locations that could be workable with creative approaches to noise abatement materials or other infrastructure modifications.
Input received from the commission will be shared with the City Council as part of its determination of the results of the feasibility study and the potential for future pickleball courts in Redondo Beach.
FISCAL IMPACT
The city has allocated $50,000 to initiate construction of a future pickleball facility. Additional funding will likely be needed if a location is formally approved. Each proposed location has varying costs associated with the installation of pickleball court(s). Individual options for each location include the following rough cost estimations:
Alta Vista Park $82,400
Conversion of tennis court: $42,400
New stand-alone court: $40,000
38223
J.1., File # RP21-3357 Meeting Date: 1/12/2022
Anderson Park $222,400
Re-stripe existing tennis court: $6,000
Re-stripe existing basketball court: $1,500
New stand-alone courts: $159,900 ($53,300 per court X 3) Sports court surfacing: $15,000 ($5,000 per court X 3)
Sport court lighting: $40,000
Perry Park $35,000
Re-stripe existing basketball court: $4,500
Sports court surfacing with multi-sport stripes: $30,500 Franklin Park $399,200
Re-stripe basketball court: $6,000 ($3,000 each court X 2) New stand-alone court: $213,200 ($53,500 per court X 4) Sports court surfacing with multi-sport stripes: $20,000 ($5,000 per court X 4) Sport court lighting: $160,000 ($40,000 per court X 4)
Perry Allison Playfield $58,300
New stand-alone court: $53,300
Sport court surfacing: $5,000
Dominguez Park $349,800
New stand-alone court: $319,800 ($53,300 each court X 6) Sport court surfacing: $30,000 ($5,000 each court X 6)
Aviation Park Open Field $599,800
New stand-alone court: $319,800 ($53,500 per court X 6) Sports court surfacing with multi-sport stripes: $30,000 ($5,000 per court X 6) Sport court lighting: $240,000 ($40,000 per court X 6)
Electrical improvements: $10,000
These costs are purely for estimation purposes and don’t include anticipated costs fir site surveys, conceptual drawings, noise abatement needs, and other site-specific needs.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Pickleball Feasibility Study
38324
38425
26 385
27 386
38728
29 388
30 389
31 390
32 391
33 392
34 393
35 394
Agenda Item No.: 16.A
Mtg. Date: 02/14/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
DATE: February 14, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
395