Rolling Hills City Council
February 28, 2022

Chapter 8.30 FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT

8.30.010 Dead or alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds or other plants as public nuisance.

Every person who owns or is in possession of any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City shall, at his or her own expense, maintain the property, place or area free from any dead or alive tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant. Any dead or alive tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant located on any property in the City is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. (Ord. No. 345, § 2, 11-23-2015; Ord. No. 360, § 1, 2-25-2019) Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 360, § 1, adopted Feb. 25, 2019, changed the title of § 8.30.010 from "Dead trees as public nuisance" to read as herein set out.

8.30.015 Applicability.

This chapter shall apply to the entirety of each parcel of property located within the boundaries of the City except for the slope area approximated to be steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (fifty percent slope).
(Ord. No. 360, § 1, 2-25-2019)

8.30.020 Abatement.

Any condition declared to be a public nuisance by this chapter shall be abated or corrected in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.24.
(Ord. No. 345, § 2, 11-23-2015; Ord. No. 360, § 1, 2-25-2019) 277
ORDINANCE NO. 375

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 8.30 (FIRE FUEL

ABATEMENT) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL

CODE TO PROHIBIT NEW PLANTINGS OF HIGH
HAZARDOUS PLANTS AND TREES; AND FINDING THE

ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals
A. Uncontrolled wildfires pose a serious threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the City of Rolling Hills residents and their animals and property.

B. The City is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is almost an entirely residential community of large one+ acre parcels. It is characterized by California ranch style homes and an abundance of equestrian facilities. Early landscaping on these large parcels matured, rendering the City a heavily wooded setting.

C. The City Council has taken action to address the threat of uncontrolled wildfires through the adoption of the Fire Fuel Abatement Ordinance in Chapter 8.30 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which prohibits the maintenance of dead or alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds, or other plants.

D. Despite these efforts, the accumulation of flammable vegetation within the City continues to endanger the lives of the residents, animals, and property.

E. Prohibiting new plantings of high hazardous plants and trees, including pine, pampas grass, palm, juniper, acacia (shrub), eucalyptus, cedar, cypress, and Italian cypress (“High Hazardous Plants”), will increase community safety by decreasing the use of such plants, which can easily ignite and quickly spread fire.

F. This ordinance will allow for public nuisance abatement when property owners plant new High Hazardous Plants in violation of this ordinance.

Section 2. Section 8.30.010 (Dead or alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds or other plants as public nuisance) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) is amended to read as follows:

8.30.010 Dead or alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds or other plants prohibited.
278
A. Every person who owns or is in possession of any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City shall, at his or her own expense, maintain the property, place or area free from any dead or alive tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant.

Any dead or alive tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant located on any property in the City is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.

B. This section shall apply to the entirety of each parcel of property located within the boundaries of the City except for the slope area approximated to be steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (fifty percent slope).

Section 3. Section 8.30.015 (Applicability) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) is amended to read as follows:

8.30.015 New high hazardous plants prohibited.

A. No person shall plant on any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City any of the following plants and trees: pine; pampas grass; palm; juniper; acacia (shrub); eucalyptus; cedar; cypress; and Italian cypress. Any such new planting of pine; pampas grass; palm; juniper; acacia (shrub); eucalyptus; cedar; cypress; and Italian cypress is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.

B. This section shall apply to the entirety of each parcel of property located within the boundaries of the City.

Section 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision hereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance despite any partial invalidity.

Section 5. Environmental Review. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The City Council further finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), that this Ordinance is nonetheless exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity exempt from CEQA. It also finds the ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources.

Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937. 279
Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this __th day of ______ 2022.

BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR
ATTEST:

CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY
CLERK
280
Agenda Item No.: 12.E
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE PRIORITIES/GOALS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022-2023 AND 2023-2024 DEVELOPED AS A PART OF THE 2022 STRATEGIC
PLANNING WORKSHOP; DISCUSS POTENTIAL BUDGET ITEMS TO
SUPPORT THE 2022 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES; AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF.

DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On Saturday, January 22, 2022, the City Council held a bi-annual Strategic Planning Session facilitated by City Manager. Staff summarized the workshop and presented a summary of the priorities and goals the City Council set for the next two fiscal years (FY 2022-2023 and 2023- 2024) at the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting. The City Council reviewed the summary, expressed concurrence with the summarized priorities/goals and directed staff to make the following additions to the summary:

Add "Consider wildfire cameras" to the Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness Evacuation priority.

Add the capital improvement projects discussed at the January 22, 2022 Strategic Planning Workshop. At the workshop, the City Council discussed two capital projects:

Tennis Courts ADA Improvements and City Hall ADA Improvements.

The revised summary of priorities/goals is attached to this report. It was also discussed at the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting that staff will be utilizing the final summary of priorities/goals to develop budget items for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

DISCUSSION:

The following briefly describes the proposed budget items for Fiscal Year 2022-2023:

Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness
Proposed budget items include allocations to the Block Captain Program, fire fuel reduction in the Preserve in the areas closest to the border of Rolling Hills, and consultant to support the enforcement of dead vegetation abatement ordinance and other ordinances relating to fire fuel 281
abatement for a total of $163,000.

Utility Undergrounding
Proposed budget items include allocations for the two CalOES/FEMA grant projects to underground utility lines along Crest Road East and Eastfield Drive. The City's Rule 20A Tariff balance will be used as match funds to the grant projects, totaling $1,041,000. Proposed budget items for this priority also included a budget of $15,000 to support residents that want to form assessment districts to underground utility lines in the community.

Capital Improvement Projects
The estimated construction cost for the Tennis Courts ADA Improvements was $350,000 in 2018. An approximate fifteen percent cost escalation was added to the estimate from 2018 to characterize the anticipated construction cost of the Tennis Courts ADA Improvements at $400,000. The latest estimated construction cost for the City Hall ADA Improvements was $1,000,000. The City Council is still considering layout options for the project and the cost of construction could increase depending on the ultimate layout selection. In total, the proposed budget for this priority is approximately $1,400,000. Staff is inquiring if the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation of $441,000 is eligible for infrastructure improvement at City Hall.

The final ARPA regulations listed water, sewer and broadband infrastructure as eligible expenses. There would be a significant General Fund offset if the ARAP allocation can be used for the City Hall ADA Improvements project.

Drainage
The proposed budget items for this priority include storm water monitoring to demonstrate to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board that the City is retaining the design storm, investigate provisions on the land development side to retain additional storm water on private property, and research ownership/agreements with Los Angeles County on maintenance and operation responsibilities for a total of $54,000.

Communication with residents
The proposed budget items for this priority includes outsourcing the production of the Blue Newsletter, on-going technical support for the Emergency Information System/Trading Post, and on-going subscription to Everbridge (Alert South Bay) and E-Notify for a total of $30,000.

City personnel recruitment/retention plan
The proposed budget items for this priority includes hiring a human resources professional for personnel support, and increase city contribution to employees medical/dental/vision coverage for a total of $26,000.

Expand resident services
The proposed budget items for this priority include summer outdoor movie nights at the City Hall campus and providing a notary at City Hall one day per month to residents for a total of $7,000.

Sewer
The proposed budget item for this priority includes hiring a grant writer to secure construction funds for the 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road for $15,000.

The proposed budget items to support the City Council's priorities/goals for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 total $2,751,000 with Rule 20A Tariff and $1,695,00 without Rule 20A Tariff (General 282
Fund only).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The 2022 strategic planning workshop was facilitated by staff. There was no fiscal impact to conducting the workshop. Depending on the direction to staff, the proposed budget items will be incorporated in the budget preparation for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve priorities and goals; discuss potential budget items and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

CC_SP_2022CouncilPrioritiesGoals.pdf
CC_SP_2020_vs_2022_BriefComparison.pdf
CC_SP_2022FinalPrioritiesGoals_Final.pdf
CC_SP_2022BudgetItemsDraft.pdf
283

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
284

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
285
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 286
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.
287
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.
288
Strategic Plan 2022
for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Priority 2022 Action Notes 2022
1 Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness Evacuation City should continue work in the Preserve by the Conservancy Conduct emergency preparedness drill.

Consider vegetation management in the canyon ordinance.

Consider wildfire cameras.

Apply for additional grants for fuel management in the community Complete the CALOES/FEMA Vegetation Management Grant project Allocate funds to support the above measures including continued support for the Block Captain Program. 2 Utility Undergrounding Complete CALOES/FEMA Utility Undergrounding grant projects.

Support utility undergrounding projects (grant funded, resident initiated assessment districts and or single pole removal). 3 Capital Improvement Projects Prority of projects: (1) Tennis Courts ADA Improvements; (2) City Hall ADA Improvements; and (3) construct 8" sewer main (if grant funds are available. 4 Drainage Eliminate storm water discharge out of the City. Retain as much storm water discharge as much as possible on individual parcels.

Find alternative compliance approaches for the MS4 permit.

Research ownership, and responsible party for maintaining and operating the common drains in the City of Rolling Hills.

Allocate funding to support the above measures.
5 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 South bay to notify residents electronically.

Out source the production of the Blue Newsletter to allow staff time to be spent on services. 6 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.
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 Reinstate View Ordinance Process current view cases per the current ordinance, observe process, and evaluate after cases have concluded. property.

Wait and observe view cases before changing current process. 9 Sewer Complete current design and feasibility studies in progress.

Apply for Federal, State and Local grants for construction of the 8" main line along Rolling Hills Road.

Seek and apply for grant funds to support construction of sewer projects in the community. 289

CITY COUNCIL
2022 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Proposed Budget Items for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness Utility Undergrounding Capital Improvement Projects Drainage Communication with Residents City Personnel Recruitment/Retention Plan Expand resident services Sewer Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost Budget Item Cost 1 Block Captain
Program $50,000
Crest Road East Utility
Undergrounding
Project - funded by
CalOES/FEMA Grant
$381,000 Tennis Courts ADA
Improvement Project $400,000
Parcel based hydro
modification policy
development
$2,000
Outsource production
of the Blue
Newsletter
$10,000
Hire company that
provide professional
Human Resource
Support
$20,000
Summer outdoor
movie nights at the
City Hall campus
$5,000
Hire grant writer to
seek grant funds to
support the
construction of the 8"
sewer main along
Rolling Hills Road
$15,000
2 Fire Fuel Reduction in
the Preserve $83,000
Eastfield Drive
Undergrounding
Project - funded by
CalOES/FEMA Grant
$660,000 City Hall ADA
Improvement Project $1,000,000
Masterplan: eliminate
storm water discharge
from the City
(monitoring)
$50,000
On-going
maintenance for EIS
and Trading Post
$15,000
Increase City
contribution to
employees'
medical/dental/vision
coverage
$6,000
Hire notary - one day
per month to provide
service to residents
$2,000
3 Consultant to support
enforcement of fire
fuel abatement
ordinance, and other
ordinances relating to
fire fuel abatement.
$30,000
Assessment District
Project Support -
workshops for
neighborhood groups
and supply technical
experts for Q/A
$15,000
Research on drainage
ownership/agreement
s with Los Angeles
County Flood Control
District
$2,000
On-going subscription
for Alert South bay
and E-Notify
$5,000
$163,000 $1,056,000 $1,400,000 $54,000 $30,000 $26,000 $7,000 $15,000 GF and Rule 20A General Fund only
Grand Total $2,751,000 $1,695,000
290
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
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: CONSIDER A REQUEST BY RESIDENT AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND

ROAD TO INSTALL NEW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE)
UTILITY POLE ON THE EASEMENT AREA OF 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD TO REROUTE THE POWER SUPPLY TO POLE 567902E
AFFECTING 34, AND 36 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD.

DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On December 8th, 2021, Mr. Steven Wheeler of 38 Portuguese Bend Road send a letter to the City Council requesting attention and support regarding potential Southern California Edison (SCE) utility pole changes related to a removal and undergrounding plan for his property. (Attached to this report.)
Staff sent the Council the letter and Exhibit attachments in an email on December 13, 2021 in advance of his public comment on non-agenda items at the December 14, 2021 City Council meeting.

On Friday, January 21, 2022, City Manager Jeng and Mayor Dieringer held a phone conference call with Mr. Wheeler to further discuss his request. The City Council was apprised of this call and updates were provided by the City Manager on the weeks of January 21st, 28th, and February 4th 2022.

DISCUSSION:

On Thursday, February 3, 2022, the Deputy City Attorney provided her findings on Mr. Wheeler’s request to place a new utility pole on his easement in order to eliminate the electric wires on utility poles running along the backside (away from Portuguese Bend Road) of his property. The Deputy City Attorney reviewed the request against two areas of the Municipal Code: 17.27.040(A)(2) and 17.27.404(D)(7). It was determined that these two code sections do not apply to Mr. Wheeler’s project. Jane also reviewed Municipal Code section 17.27.030 Undergrounding of utilities. The code states the following:
291

17.27.030 – Undergrounding of utilities
All utilities servicing the building in question on any residential parcel shall be installed underground upon:

A. Construction of a new primary or accessory building; B. Remodeling of a primary or accessory building which entails enlargement of the structure or alteration of the building footprint;
C. Lengthening or adding electric lines servicing a building or a parcel; D. Relocating or increasing the electrical panel servicing a building or parcel; or E. Inclusion of a parcel in an underground utility assessment district, in which event new or replacement utility poles are prohibited.

The Deputy City Attorney noted that the only prohibition against new poles is on a parcel within an underground utility assessment district. Mr. Wheeler’s parcel and that of his neighbors at 34 and 36 Portuguese Bend Road are not a part of, or within, an underground utility assessment district. Mr. Wheeler’s proposed project could be considered as lengthening or adding electric lines servicing a building (on his neighbors’ properties).

Evaluating this trigger, Mr. Wheeler’s proposed project would redirect the feed for the proposed service line to his neighbor’s properties from the lines along the backside of Mr. Wheeler’s property to the existing lines on Portuguese Bend Road. The service line to the neighbors’ buildings would not be lengthened nor would additional service lines be added to the neighbors’ buildings as a part of Mr. Wheeler’s proposed project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider and approve.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220228_CC_Wheeler_Letter_12.08.21.pdf
CL_AGN_220228_CC_Wheeler_SCE_Exhibit1.pdf
CL_AGN_220228_CC_Wheeler_SCE_Exhibit2.pdf
CL_AGN_220228_CC_Wheeler_SCE_Exhibit3.pdf
CL_AGN_220228_CC_Wheeler_SCE_Exhibit3_markup.pdf
CL_AGN_220228_CC_13.A_PublicComment01.pdf
292
December 8, 2021
City Council City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese bend road
Rolling Hills CA 90247
Re: Electrical Power lines at 38 Portuguese Bend Road
Dear City Council:

I hope this letter finds you in good health. However, I have an issue that needs your utmost attention and support. Several Southern California Edison (SCE) utility poles and high voltage wires run through my property located at 38 Portuguese Bend Road, presenting a fire hazard to the whole neighborhood.

I have been talking with SCE about removing their facilities from our property.   We have put together an undergrounding plan for the project (Exhibit 1).  We planned to do the undergrounding within the RHCA and grant easement rights to SCE. Unfortunately, the Husnaks at 34 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills prevents us from proceeding.  Pole 567902E is 15 feet outside of the RHCA easement, and the Husnaks will not grant the 15 feet needed to access this pole (Exhibit 2). A down guy installed on this pole might resolve the access problem, but I am unsure if this strip under the down guy would give us undergrounding rights.

We are looking at a backup plan (Exhibit 3) and need your input on its feasibility.  The project would require installing a new pole, and the pole requires your approval.  The plan outlined below would use existing SCE overhead easement rights to interface a new pole with pole 567902E. Because the SCE's overhead easement rights already exist, the Hunsnak's cooperation is not required.

The Wheeler's and SCE will perform the following construction after apportionment of the easement strip. The most critical step is getting electrical power from pole 545651E. This pole would then provide two electrical lines to pole 194452E. Next, a new power pole will be installed on the westside of 38 Portuguese Bend Road in the RHCA easement. Next, SCE will connect the electrical lines, attach 567317E to the new pole, and terminate at pole  567902E. Next, SCE will remove its Facilities from poles A3340Y, 567318E, 567319E, and 4192600E, located in/adjacent to the Georgeff Canyon. Finally, SCE will top these poles.

The best option would be to underground the services to 36/34 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, but a second option, as discussed above, would also work. 293
We appreciate your help with this matter. I look forward to discussing this with you at our next Rolling Hills City Council meeting. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you very much for your assistance.

Kind regards,
Steven Wheeler
38 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills Ca 90274
Phone: 310‐544‐447
294
3” 2-1/0 to 567902E
34 Portuguese Bend Road
36 Portuguese Bend Road
No change to electrical panel
No change to electrical panel
Existting Electrical Eastment
Pole to remain
Wheeler
38 Portuguese Bend Road
25’
25’
295
296
EDISON new installion in esatment
34 Portuguese Bend Road
36 Portuguese Bend Road
New pole
Pole with service to remain
RHCA
Easement
297
298
From: h husnak
To: Christian Horvath
Cc: Rumel Itchon; Christine Evers; Kisu Lam
Subject: 28 Feb Council Agenda
Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:11:31 PM
To: Christian Horvath, City Clerk, Rolling Hills
From: Husnak Family - residents at 34 Portuguese Bend Rd., Rollings Hills Please replace my email dated 27 Feb with this updated one.

Re: Rolling Hills City council Meeting Agenda for Monday 28 Feb - Agenda Item 13A - new power pole on easement between #34 and #38
The Husnak Family - residents at #34 Portuguese Bend Rd. - oppose the proposed new pole. It affects our property and #36 who also opposes it. There is no safety or power necessity for the proposed action. We oppose it as disruptive and unnecessary.

Heidi Husnak
299
Agenda Item No.: 13.B
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
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: APPROVE THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MITIGATION OF SAFETY CONCERNS AT THE CORNER

OF UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD AND PORTUGUESE BEND
ROAD.

DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the July 22, 2021 Traffic Commission meeting, resident Sue Breiholz noted a safety concern at the corner of Upper Blackwater Canyon Road and Portuguese Bend Road. Mrs.

Breiholz discussed that there is a wall in the easement that impairs drivers' visibility at the said corner. The Traffic Commission directed staff to place this item on the September 23, 2021 Traffic Commission agenda for discussion.

At the September 23rd meeting the Traffic Commission received suggested recommendations from Traffic Engineer Vanessa Munoz as well as public comment from Mrs. Breiholz and RHCA Maintenance Supervisor Beckler. The committee discussed and voted unanimously to have home owners review safety concerns before any actions are considered.

On November 16, 2021, a letter from RHCA Manager Kristen Raig was received noting that the RHCA Board conducted a field trip to the subject site along with Mr. and Mrs. Breiholz, and Mrs. Ianitti, owner of 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. The correspondence also noted that the RHCA Board agreed that the subject matter is a safety issue and should be addressed by the City's Traffic Commission. The correspondence listed five recommendations from the RHCA Board as follows:

Widen Upper Blackwater Canyon Road where it intersects Portuguese Bend Road by making the planter smaller (RHCA can't eliminate it completely because there are utility access boxes in the planter).

Ask the City Traffic Engineer to consider a stop sign to slow traffic coming up and down Portuguese Bend Road.

Ask the City Traffic Engineer to consider signage to advise drivers to slow down and that 300
there is an intersection.

Ask to have the Sheriff' at the intersection periodically to monitor traffic speeds on Portuguese Bend Road.

Advise visitors and vendors going to Upper Blackwater Canyon Road to drive slowly because the intersection is on a curve.

RHCA's November 16, 2021 letter was provided to the City Traffic Engineer, Willdan Engineering, Vanessa Munoz. In response to the letter, Willdan Engineering provided a memorandum that supported the following:

Reducing the size of the planter at the intersection to widen Upper Blackwater Canyon Road at Portuguese Bend Road and to restripe the intersection in order to change the roadway alignment.

Install additional signage in advance of the intersection along Portuguese Bend Road to provide advance warning of the upcoming intersection and advise of a reduction in speed.

Request the Sheriff’s Department during routine City patrolling to enforce speed limits along Portuguese Bend Road.

Remind visitors and service providers at the city entrance gates to follow the local speed limits.

The City Traffic Engineer did not support the RHCA Board's recommendation to install a four way stop at the subject intersection.

On February 7, 2022, the Traffic Commission discussed and considered this item and unanimously voted to accept the recommendations from Willdan.

DISCUSSION:

City Traffic Engineer Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE has provided a memorandum (attached) as well as Exhibits A and B.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The service fee for Willdan Engineering to respond to the RHCA Board's recommendations is included in the operating cost for FY2021-2022.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Traffic Commission's recommendations.

ATTACHMENTS:

M03 20 Upper Blackwater RHCA Response Memorandum 02.23.2022.pdf Exhibit A and B Upper Blackwater Canyon and Portuguese Bend Rd 2-23-22 Rev3.pdf CL_AGN_220127_TC_RHCAltr_2021_11-16.pdf
301
Memorandum
TO: Elaine Jeng PE, City Manager
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: February 23, 2022
SUBJECT: Intersection at Upper Blackwater Canyon Road and Portuguese Bend Road This memorandum is in response to a request by the city to review and provide input on the memorandum received from the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) dated November 16, 2021. The memorandum from the RHCA is in response to the intersection of Upper Blackwater Canyon Road and Portuguese Bend improvements previously discussed at the September 2021 Traffic Commission meeting and their recommendations on the subject matter.

The RHCA memorandum provides five (5) recommendations, and as the Traffic Engineer agree with the following:

1. Reducing the size of the planter at the intersection to widen Upper Blackwater Canyon Road at Portuguese Bend Road and to restripe the intersection in order to change the roadway alignment (See Exhibit A)

2. Install additional signage in advance of the intersection along Portuguese Bend Road to provide advance warning of the upcoming intersection and advise of a reduction in speed. (See Exhibit B)

3. Request the Sheriff’s Department during routine City patrolling to enforce speed limits along Portuguese Bend Road.

4. Remind visitors and service providers at the city entrance gates to follow the local speed limits.

Regarding the recommendation of installing a four way stop sign at the intersection, this is not recommended at this time. “Stop” control is intended to assign positive right-of-way at intersections. This control is usually established on the minor street with the lower volume of traffic, which is the case at Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. Additional control, beyond the basic right-of-way assignment, is usually reserved for those locations where the volume of traffic on the minor street exceeds 300 vehicles per hour (vph) for any eight hours of an average day, which we know Upper Blackwater Canyon Road does not currently meet. Intersecting streets that have about the same amount of traffic, lend credibility to the higher level of intersection control. Without credibility, voluntary compliance of stop signs is poor and without voluntary compliance, traffic safety is severely compromised.

In conclusion, I support implementing four out of the five recommendations, as they will improve traffic safety at the intersection.
302
City of Rolling Hills Exhibit A - Median Reduction Portuguese Bend Road at Upper Blackwater Canyon Road UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PINE TREE LANE 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 12' 12' Median Reduction to accommodate 10-foot travel lanes Install Type K Flexible Delineators spaced 10 feet O.C. Install 4-inch white edgeline 303
City of Rolling Hills Exhibit B - Signs Portuguese Bend Road at Upper Blackwater Canyon Road UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PINE TREE LANE 10' 10' 11' 8' 10' 10' 10' 10' 12' 12' Install W1-10 (L) and W13-1P (20) Existing W1-1a (R) (20) sign Install 'Slow Down Vehicles Exiting Driveways' Sign 304
305
Agenda Item No.: 14.A
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO

TAKE THE MANDATORY APPROACH TO MANAGE FIRE FUEL IN THE
CANYONS; APPROVE THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE'S

RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE AVAILABLE COST DATA TO THE
COMMUNITY; AND RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE FIRE FUEL
COMMITTEE ON THE FEBRUARY 8, 2022 FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE

MEETING AND DISCUSS THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT
DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

During the Fire Fuel Committee meeting on February 08, 2022 the Fire Fuel Committee discussed three items, set March 1, 2022 as the next meeting and listed the agenda items for the March 1 meeting.

The Committee discussed the scope of work for Wildland Resource Management. At the January 24, 2022 City Council meeting the Council approved a not to exceed $20,000 contract amount for Wildland Resource Management. The Committee moved to have Wildland Resource Management to review the draft ordinance and provide recommendations to the Committee for $7,500. The Committee also moved to have Wildland Resource Management conduct site visits at private properties at $500 per visit, for 15 site visits.

The Committee also discussed regulatory versus voluntary approaches to management of fire fuel in the canyons, and the cost to comply with an ordinance. At the January 20, 2022 Fire Fuel Committee meeting the Committee categorized the two hour community testimonies received at the November 17, 2022 Fire Fuel Committee meeting. The categories are (1) applicability, (2) environmental, (3) appropriate standards for mitigation, (4) cost, and (5) mandatory versus voluntary approaches to fuel management. The Committee discussed the categories of applicability, environmental, and standards for mitigation at the January 20, 2022 meeting.

DISCUSSION:

The Fire Fuel Committee discussed that the community has been given the option to remove 306
fire fuel on private property voluntarily and given the amount of fire fuel that exist presently in the community as assessed by the Fire Department, the voluntary approach has not been impactful. In consideration of the present condition and the risk that the amount of fire fuel presents in the potential of severe wildfires, the Fire Fuel Committee decided that the best approach would be the mandatory approach to removing fire fuel in the canyons. To ready the community for an ordinance that mandates the reduction of fire fuel, the Fire Fuel Committee suggested to the City Council to delay the effective date of the ordinance by six months upon approval of an ordinance.

In response to public comments about the lack of cost information when considering an ordinance to require residents to remove fire fuel in the canyons, the Fire Fuel Committee discussed the issue of cost at the February 8, 2022 meeting. The Fire Fuel Committee noted that the cost to eliminate the risk for the entire community would be the same regardless of a mandatory or voluntary approach. Discussing the cost at the parcel level, the cost would vary depending on the parcel, the location of the parcel and if the parcel abuts a canyon or has a canyon on the property. The Fire Fuel Committee opined that minimizing the risk of wildfire is a matter of public safety and it is the City Council’s duty to ensure public safety. While there is a cost associated with fire fuel removal, the Committee has strived to balance it with the need to minimize safety risks for the community. The Committee also discussed that the city can be transparent and helpful to the community by sharing cost information as they become available. For example, the city can share the project cost relating to the CalOES/FEMA Vegetation Management grant. Public Comments requested cost relating to the code enforcement officer that would enforce the draft vegetation management in the canyon ordinance. In response the Fire Fuel Committee concluded that the salary of the code enforcement officer should be shared with the community, Lastly, the Committee believed that seeking grant funds to defray cost of mitigation is important and should be prioritized by the city.City staff recommends the Council approve this report and discuss the recommendations of the Committee
FISCAL IMPACT:

The City Council provided the Fire Fuel Committee a cap of $20,000 to hire Wildland Resources Management. The Fire Fuel Committee decided to spend $7,500 to have Wildland Resource Management to review the draft ordinance to manage fire fuel in the canyons and another $7,500 to conduct site visits to provide a scope of work for residents to abate fire fuel in the canyons. The City Attorney’s office will draft an agreement with Wildland Resources Management for a not-to-exceed amount of $15,000. There is available budget in the Emergency Preparedness account for this expenditure.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Fire Fuel Committee’s recommendations, and receive a report on the February 8, 2022 Fire Fuel Committee meeting and discuss the Fire Fuel Committee’s report ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220208_FFC_AgendaPacket_R.pdf
CL_AGN_220228_CC_14.A_PublicComment_01.pdf
CL_AGN_220228_CC_14.A_PublicComment_02.pdf
307

1. PARTICIPANTS

2. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

2.A. DISCUSS SCOPE OF WORK AND APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

RECOMMENDATION: Per the City Council's direction, approve a professional services agreement with Wildland Resource Management.

2.B. DISCUSS APPROACHES TO MANAGING FIRE FUEL IN THE CANYONS:Â REGULATORY VERSUS VOLUNTARY.

RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction to staff.

2.C. DISCUSS COST TO RESIDENTS TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDINANCE TO MANAGE FIRE FUEL IN THE CANYONS.

RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction to staff.

2.D. CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL MEETING AND SET THE NEXT MEETING DATE.

RECOMMENDATION: Consider reviewing the draft ordinance with comments from hired experts and setting Tuesday, March 1, 2022, 6:30pm as the next meeting date and time.
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
AGENDA
Special Fire Fuel Management
Committee Meeting

FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE
Tuesday, February 08, 2022

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
6:30 PM
Executive Order
All Committee members will participate in-person wearing masks per Los Angeles County Health Department's Health Officer Order effective Saturday, July 17, 2021. The meeting agenda and live audio will be available on the City’s website:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php Members of the public may come in to City Hall wearing masks, per the new Health Officer's Order.

Zoom teleconference will not be available for this meeting, but members of the public can submit written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at [email protected]. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published.

Wildland Resource Management-Proposal to City of Rolling Hills UPDATED.pdf 3081

3. COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN BY EMAIL IN REAL TIME - PUBLIC COMMENT

WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda.

Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.

4. ADJOURNMENT
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agendas are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
3092
Agenda Item No.: 2.A
Mtg. Date: 02/08/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

DISCUSS SCOPE OF WORK AND APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILDLAND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT.

DATE: February 08, 2022
BACKGROUND:

The Fire Fuel Committee began the development of a canyon management ordinance at the September 29, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting. The public feedback was that an expert is needed to provide support on the provisions of the ordinance. The Fire Fuel Committee agreed and directed staff to begin searching for expert consultants, particularly retired fire fighters who could assist in the development and review of the ordinance. City staff reached out to multiple consultants who were well versed in vegetation management, fire science, and forestry.

Three organizations submitted proposals. The Fire Fuel Committee recommended hiring Wildland Resource Management, and at the January 24, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Fire Fuel Committee to engage services not to exceed $20,000.

DISCUSSION:

At the December 15, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee, the Committee recommended to engage Wildland Resource Management for services for $14,430. The scope included reviewing the draft ordinance and providing feedback for a fee not to exceed $7,500. The scope also included canyon management education form on site for $13,690 for a total of $14,430.

The December 15, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee was reported out to the City Council at the January 10, 2022 City Council meeting but the item was delayed for discussion to the January 24, 2022 meeting. At 3103
the January 24, 2022 meeting, staff submitted an updated proposal from Wildland Resource Management that eliminated the training of others and include a cost per site visit ($500). In review of the updated proposal from Wildland Resource Management, the City Council suggested to eliminate the canyon management education and instead target available budget to hold site visits by Wildland Resource Management on private properties in the way that the Fire Department provides hardening the home inspection services. The City Council directed the Fire Fuel Committee to consider the suggestion and engage Wildland Resources Management for service not to exceed $20,000.

Staff recommends that the Fire Fuel Committee engage Wildland Resources Management to review the draft ordinance and provide feedback for $7,500 and allocate $7,500 for site visits for an overall contract of $15,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff recommends that the Fire Fuel Committee engage Wildland Resources Management to review the draft ordinance and provide feedback for $7,500 and allocate $7,500 for site visits for an overall contract of $15,000. There is available budget in the Emergency Preparedness account for this expenditure.

RECOMMENDATION:

Per the City Council's direction, approve a professional services agreement with Wildland Resource Management.

ATTACHMENTS:

Wildland Resource Management-Proposal to City of Rolling Hills UPDATED.pdf 3114
1 Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737
316 California Ave. #68, Reno NV 89509 [email protected]

January 20, 2022
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Sent via email to [email protected]
Dear Mr. Ball:

Thank you for this opportunity to submit a combined proposal for consulting services to the City, and to visit canyon properties to provide advice to the owners of those sites so that they can appropriately treat their lands and advance the wildland fire safety of the City of Rolling Hills.

The services will focus on two different types of activities. The first is to guide code and ordinance development, primarily to assist the determination of what constitutes a nuisance. Tasks would include the description of a nuisance in terms of fuel volume, or arrangement of type (include possibly plant species). For this activity we propose an arrangement based on responding to the questions of the city and offering clarification and guidance. The need for clarification regarding CEQA can also be anticipated. Because of the uncertainty involved in this activity, an arrangement based on time and materials (with a set not-to-exceed ceiling of $7,500) makes the most sense.

The second activity would be to offer consultations regarding canyon management.

The overall goals would be to (1) provide guidance to the community about best practices and CEQA, (2) conduct canyon evaluations, and (3) as an optional activity, train staff regarding how to evaluate the compliance and fuel management of canyons.

Based on the tasks associated with site visits, meetings, and consultation, we estimate a cost of $16,750.

An important feature of this second activity is to offer advice to canyon owners. The cost per visit is $500 separate from the total cost listed above, based on the aggregation of three visits in a day.

Because travel time is a significant portion of the cost, we aim to aggregate three site visits in one day.

We look forward to the possibility of working with the City on scheduling these visits; We assume the City will gather the visit requests and facilitate the scheduling. In addition, this proposal is based on having the City staff document the recommendations. This will result in a City record of expectations, and increased knowledge base and expertise of City staff.

We would be pleased to expand the description of services and deliverables in following discussions.

These services would be provided by Carol Rice, with Wildland Res Mgt and J. Lopez, Los Angeles County Fire Department (retired). Both have been working in the wildland urban interface for decades, and are familiar with the environs and community of the City of Rolling Hills. Both J. and Carol are both natural resource managers and wildland fire managers. Our combined experience enables our ability to offer recommendations that minimize wildland fire hazards and environmental impacts.
3125
2 The initial work can begin in as soon as agreements are reached.

Below please find a description of services and costs estimated for each task. Please let me know if adjustments should be made so that we can better support the City of Rolling Hills.

Sincerely,
Carol L. Rice
Task Cost
Guide code development Time and Materials, NTE $7,500
Work aimed at determining what constitutes a nuisance
E.g., fuel volume, fuel arrangement, species
Discussion of CEQA procedure and local regulations
Canyon Management
Identify/select good example of canyon mgt
Site visit to identify/select canyon where lessons can be learned $4,440 Develop BMPs for canyon management, considering local
regulations $1,480
Assumes work done by other entities, per BMP
Develop a checklist for evaluations $2,220
Spot check other inspections next year $1,110
Subtotal (Canyon Management only) $9250
Site Vists/ Traning Staff Services
Consultation services for canyon property owners, at $500/visit, based on 3 properties/day. Estimated 24 site visits $500/site Training of staff, via site visits to inspect 2 canyons (Optional) $3,700 3136
Agenda Item No.: 2.B
Mtg. Date: 02/08/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

DISCUSS APPROACHES TO MANAGING FIRE FUEL IN THE
CANYONS: REGULATORY VERSUS VOLUNTARY.

DATE: February 08, 2022
BACKGROUND:

In response to public comments on the draft fire fuel abatement ordinance, the Fire Fuel Committee identify topics/categories of discussion. One topic/category to be discussed is the approach to minimizing wildfire risks for the community.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee will be deliberating on the regulatory approach vs. the voluntary approach.

FISCAL IMPACT:

NONE
RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:
3147
Agenda Item No.: 2.C
Mtg. Date: 02/08/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

DISCUSS COST TO RESIDENTS TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDINANCE
TO MANAGE FIRE FUEL IN THE CANYONS.

DATE: February 08, 2022
BACKGROUND:

Many members of the community voiced the burden of cost to comply with an ordinance to abate fire fuel in the canyons. Cost of abatement to mitigate wildfire risks was one of the topics/categories that the Fire Fuel Committee wanted to discuss. The topics/categories of discussions were developed by the Fire Fuel Committee stemming from the public comments on the draft ordinance mandating fire fuel abatement in the canyons.

DISCUSSION:

To mitigate wildfire risks, the cost of fire fuel abatement required of the resident by an ordinance or performed voluntarily by the resident, would be the same regardless of approach. This topic/category will be further discussed by the Fire Fuel Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

NONE
RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:
3158
Agenda Item No.: 2.D
Mtg. Date: 02/08/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL MEETING
AND SET THE NEXT MEETING DATE.

DATE: February 08, 2022
BACKGROUND:

NONE
DISCUSSION:

NONE
FISCAL IMPACT:

NONE
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider reviewing the draft ordinance with comments from hired experts and setting Tuesday, March 1, 2022, 6:30pm as the next meeting date and time.

ATTACHMENTS:
3169
February 28, 2022
Dear Honorable Mayor and RH City Councilmembers:

We support the objectives of the Fire Fuel Committee to manage fire fuel in our canyons. We agree that residents need expert assistance from a qualified resource on how best to undertake managing fire fuel on individual properties.

There is a direct correlation between education and communication on fire fuel issues and resident compliance. There was minimal adoption of hardening the homes in Rolling Hills until the availability of “Hardening the Home” videos on the city’s website.

These videos were supported by continual city communication on complimentary and private inspections by the Forestry Division. The result is many residents have hardened their homes throughout 2021.

Other than the Fire Fuel Committee meetings there has not been any recent communications from the City of Rolling Hills on the importance of managing fuel in the canyons. Many green waste activities taken by residents have focused on trees, vegetation on the road easements for improved evacuation, and vegetation within 200 feet from the homes. Some residents have been proactive in managing vegetation in their canyons but we need more residents to take action.

Education and communication by the city are essential to the success of managing fuel in canyons and should precede to any mandatory approach. The release of the educational video series of “Managing Fuel in the Canyons” to residents is expected in the April/May timeframe. The city should complement the release of these videos by ongoing communications to residents emphasizing the importance of viewing. We expect more actions to be taken by residents after ongoing education and supporting city communication.

Respectfully,
Block Captain Leads
Arlene Honbo – 33 Portuguese Bend Road
Gene Honbo – 33 Portuguese Bend Road
317
318
319
Agenda Item No.: 14.B
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL NOTIFICATIONS ON COMMUNITY AND PENINSULA EVENTS. (MAYOR DIERINGER)
DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting, Mayor Bea Dieringer informed the City Council that staff should notify the City Council on events such as the luncheon to celebrate the retirement of several Los Angeles County Sheriff Department Deputies. The luncheon was sponsored by the City and several other adjacent cities. The event was held on February 9, 2022 at the City Hall campus. Mayor Dieringer noted that other cities have staff members provide notifications to their respective City Councils on community events, and regional events. Several members of the City Council did not agree with Mayor Dieringer on notifications to the City Council on events and the City Council decided to discuss the matter at the February 28, 2022 meeting.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation from Mayor Bea Dieringer and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:
320
Agenda Item No.: 14.C
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
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: DISCUSS HOLDING AN ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY EVENT. (MIRSCH)
DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmember Leah Mirsch expanded on the Council's direction for staff to inform the community on the city's accomplishments and activities in the last two years to support the 2020 strategic plan and inquired if the City Council would consider holding a State of the City event annually.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:
321
Agenda Item No.: 14.D
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

DISCUSS SIERRA CLUB'S USE AND PUBLICATION OF THE TRAILS WITHIN THE CITY. (MIRSCH)
DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

At the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmember Leah Mirsch informed the City Council that organizations are promoting hiking activities in the community and that she requested the City Council to consider writing letters to these organizations to not promote trails in Rolling Hills.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation from Councilmember Leah Mirsch and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:
322
Agenda Item No.: 15.A
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JANE ABZUG, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER FILING A COMPLAINT WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC

UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) REGARDING FRONTIER'S REFUSAL

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CREST ROAD EAST UNDERGROUNDING
PROJECT PER CPUCTARIFF 33.

DATE: February 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

The City of Rolling Hills was awarded grant funds from CalOES/FEMA in September of 2020 to undergrounding power line along Crest Road East from 62 Crest Road East to the eastern city limits near 92 Crest Road East. Staff has been working with relevant utility companies to make progress to complete the grant project.

Southern California Edison (SCE), Crown Castle, and Cox Cable reviewed the project scope and determined that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Rule 20 Tariff (SCE) and Rule 33 (communication companies) would be applicable to the project. These tariffs would be paying for the undergrounding of power lines without monetary contribution from the city. Frontier's review of the project concluded that the location of the project does not qualify per their reading of Rule 33. Frontier noted that the entire undergrounding project is within private streets not available to the public. Additionally, Crest Road East serve as access to very small number of residents and is rarely used for through traffic because the Crest Road East gate is locked. Frontier informed city staff that the company can participate in the project, provided that the City pays for the work to be performed by Frontier.

Rule 33 provided by Frontier states the following:

The Utility will, at its expense, replace its existing aerial facilities with undergrounding facilities along public streets and roads, and on public lands and private property across which rightsof-way satisfactory, to the Utility have been obtained, or may be obtained, or may be obtained without cost or condemnation, by the utility, provided that:

A.1.a(1)(a) – given the existing facilities on the aerial portion proposed to underground, there 323
is not an “unusually” heavy concentration of aerial facilities.

A.1.a(1)(b) - The limits of the undergrounding on Crest Rd within a private road not open to the public. Also Crest Rd. ends approximately 600’ East of Eastfield Dr. with only a few driveways entering separate properties. Reasonably, traffic volume cannot be considered “extensively used by the general public and carries a high volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic”.

A.1.a(1)(c) – This segment of Crest Rd does not pass “through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public”.

DISCUSSION:

In light of Frontier's reading of Rule 33, the City Attorney's office contacted Frontier's engineering staff that rendered the finding and Frontier's legal counsel. In early February 2022, the City Attorney's office provided Frontier a letter informing Frontier that there was a previous utility undergrounding project on Crest Road West that Frontier participated under Rule 33. The previous utility undergrounding project on Crest Road West between Buggy Whip Drive and Possum Ridge Road placed underground seven utility poles mimicking the scope of work for the current project on Crest Road East.

The City Attorney opined that Frontier's contention that the city's private road does not qualify under Rule 33 is incorrect; the city only needs to show that the street is an area extensively used by the general public. Rule 33 expressively states that the “Utility will, at its expense, replace its existing aerial facilities with underground facilities. . . on public lands and private property.” The streets within the City are used by the general public as they facilitate the movement of public vehicular traffic through the community. There are other public facilities within the City that the public can access such as Los Angeles County Fire Station 56.

Furthermore, the street is located in an area that is extensively used by the general public.

The City Attorney's letter to Frontier also addressed several other reasons Frontier's basis for denial is erroneous. The letter also requested Frontier to provide a response by February 16, 2022 to confirm paying their share of the undergrounding project but to date they still have yet to respond.

On February 23, 2022 the city's attorney followed up with Frontier informing them of the city's next step to consider filing a complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and that the matter would be heard by the City Council at the February 28, 2022 City Council meeting. Staff recommends that the Council file a complaint with the CPUC.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The attorney fees to file a complaint with the CPUC will be funded from the FY 2021-2022 operation funds.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve filing a complaint with CPUC.
324
ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220228_CC_Item15A_LetterToFrontier_Tariff 33.pdf Frontier Rule 33.pdf
SCE Rule 20 Tariff.pdf
325

Bend
(541) 382-3011
Indian Wells
(760) 568-2611
Irvine
(949) 263-2600
Los Angeles
(213) 617-8100
Ontario
(909) 989-8584
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 263-2600 | Fax: (949) 260-0972 | www.bbklaw.com Riverside
(951) 686-1450
Sacramento
(916) 325-4000
San Diego
(619) 525-1300
Walnut Creek
(925) 977-3300
Washington, DC
(202) 785-0600
Jane F. Abzug
(310) 220-2170
[email protected]
February 7, 2022

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Charles Carrathers, Esq.

FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC.

Vice President, Assoc. General Counsel
[email protected]
Albert Aleman
FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC.

Director Construction and Engineering
[email protected]
RE: City of Rolling Hills Undergrounding Project on Crest Road Dear Mr. Carrathers:

I am writing on behalf of our client, the City of Rolling Hills (“City”), in response to Mr. Albert Aleman’s October 1, 2021 email and November 10, 2021 letter in which your client, Frontier California, Inc. (“Frontier”), has taken the position that (1) Frontier’s Tariff Rule 33 governing the conversion of cable communication facilities is functionally different than Southern California Edison’s Tariff Rule 20A governing the conversion of electric facilities; and (2) Frontier will not pay for its share of the City’s undergrounding project on Crest Road from the eastern limits of the City to Wideloop Road (the “Project”) on the grounds that it does not meet the criteria outlined in Rule 33 (i.e., does not involve an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities, is not used extensively by the general public, and does not pass through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public). (Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Aleman’s October 1, 2021 email and November 10, 2021 letter. Also enclosed is a map of the City with the approximate Project area highlighted in yellow and the underground utility district limits.) As an initial matter, Rule 33 mirrors Rule 20, and Southern California Edison, which is leading and coordinating the construction and undergrounding schedule for the Project, has already agreed to pay its share for the Project under Rule 20A. Further, Verizon, which Frontier acquired, previously paid its share of an undergrounding project within the City on Crest Road West between Buggy Whip Drive and Possum Ridge Road, which is on the same street as the Project at issue, and under the same conditions. Frontier’s refusal to pay its share now on the grounds that the 326
Charles Carrathers,
Albert Aleman
February 7, 2022

Project allegedly does not involve an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities, is not used extensively by the general public, and does not pass through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public—conflicts with a prior, taken position with respect to the same facilities and appears simply motivated to avoid any financial burden.

The plain language of Rule 331 states, “[t]he Utility will, at its expense, replace its existing aerial facilities with underground facilities along public streets and roads, and on public lands and private property across which rights-of-way satisfactory, to the Utility have been obtained, without cost or condemnation, by the Utility,” provided that the project meets one of the following criteria: (1) such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities; (2) said street, or road or right-of-way is in an area extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or (3) said street, road or right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public.
 Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities
As a basis for denial, Frontier contends that “given the existing facilities on the aerial portion proposed to underground, there is not an ‘unusually’ heavy concentration of aerial facilities” and encloses one photo of one pole.

This Project involves undergrounding of roughly 2,000 linear feet of power line and the removal of the associated eight (8) wooden utility poles and related facilities on each pole and therefore involves the elimination of an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities. The prior project on Crest Road involved removal of only seven (7) poles with aerial facilities. (Enclosed with this letter is the engineer’s report from the January 13, 2003 project.) Therefore, the fact that the undergrounding will eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities qualifies the Project for the use of Rule 33 funds.  Said street, or road or right-of-way is in an area extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic As a basis for denial, Frontier contends that “Crest Rd [is] a private road not open to the public.” Frontier misstates the criteria. The City need only show that the street is in an area extensively

1 The criteria outlined in Rule 20A is almost identical: (1) eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead lines; (2) involve a street or road with a high volume of public traffic; (3) benefit a civic or public recreation area or area of unusual interest; and (4) be listed as an arterial street or major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) Guidelines.
327
Charles Carrathers,
Albert Aleman
February 7, 2022

used by the general public. Further, Rule 33 expressly states that the “Utility will, at its expense, replace its existing aerial facilities with underground facilities . . . on public lands and private property.” (Rule 33 (underline emphasis added).) Although the streets in the City of Rolling Hills are private, the California Vehicle Code expressly gives the City the authority to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for the purpose of regulating public vehicular traffic on privately owned and maintained roads. (See California Vehicle Code Section 21107; Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 10.01.020.) The streets within the City are used by the general public as they facilitate the movement of public vehicular traffic. There are other public facilities within the City that the public can access. Further, the street is located in an area that is extensively used by the general public. Crest Road is one of three arterial streets within the City and is one of three streets that has two points of access; members of the public routinely and constantly access the Project area through the Crest Gate and the City Hall Gate. Although the Eastfield Gate generally remains locked, it is a third point of access for members of the public in the event of an emergency, such as wildfire, which is why the City seeks to underground in the Project area. All members of the public must access either Crest Road, Portuguese Bend Road, or Crest Road East to Eastfield Drive to enter and exit the City. Therefore, Crest Road East is one of the most used streets within the City.

As another basis for denial, Frontier contends that “Crest Rd. ends approximately 600’ of Eastfield Dr. with only a few driveways entering separate properties . . . [and therefore] traffic volume cannot be considered ‘extensively used by the general public and carries a high volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.’” Again, Frontier misstates the criteria. The City need only show that the street carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular travel. As stated above, Crest Road East is one of the most used streets within the City by pedestrians and vehicles.

In conclusion, the fact that the private road is in an area extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic qualifies the Project for the use of Rule 33 funds.
 Said street, road or right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public As a basis for denial, Frontier contends “the entire undergrounding project is within private streets not available to the public, that serve as access to very small number of residents and is rarely used for through traffic due to an unattended locked gate.”
As mentioned above, members of the public routinely access the Project area through the Crest Gate and the City Hall Gate. Although the Eastfield Gate generally remains locked, it is a third point of access for members of the public in the event of an emergency, such as wildfire, which is why the City seeks to underground in the Project area. As identified on the enclosed map, the Fire 328
Charles Carrathers,
Albert Aleman
February 7, 2022

Station within the City is located on Quail Ridge between Crest Road West and Crest Road East.

This is an important civic area within the City as it is a public facility that provides emergency services to the City. It is anticipated that fire trucks and other emergency responders will enter the City through the Eastfield Gate in the event of an emergency thereby passing through Crest Road East, in addition to accessing the Project area through the Crest Gate and City Hall Gate.

The City hopes that by providing you this additional factual information this matter can be resolved informally. However, should Frontier continue to refuse to pay its share of undergrounding for the Project, the City will move forward with initiating a complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission.

Please respond to this letter by February 16, 2022 to confirm that Frontier intends to pay its share of the undergrounding Project.

Sincerely,
Jane F. Abzug
for BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CC: Elaine Jeng, City Manager (via email only: [email protected]) Ashford Ball, Senior Management Analyst (via email only: [email protected]) Michael Jenkins, Esq. (via email only: [email protected]) 329
1 From: Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 10:55 AM
To: Ashford Ball <[email protected]>
Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]>; Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>; McDonald, Stephen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA A.1.a(1)(a) – given the existing facilities on the aerial portion proposed to underground, there is not an “unusually” heavy concentration of aerial facilities.
330
2 A.1.a(1)(b) - The limits of the undergrounding on Crest Rd within a private road not open to the public. Also Crest Rd. ends approximately 600’ East of Eastfield Dr. with only a few driveways entering separate properties. Reasonably, traffic volume cannot be considered “extensively used by the general public and carries a high volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic”.

A.1.a(1)(c) – This segment of Crest Rd does not pass “through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public”.

The entire undergrounding project is within private streets not available to the public, that serve as access to very small number of residents and is rarely used for through traffic due to an unattended locked gate. 331
3 Additionally Rule 20A is a Southern California Edison Tariff which may or may not have the same requirements/provisions as Frontier’s Rule 33. I’m not familiar with the previous project you refer to but it should have been approached with the intent of complying with the tariff in place when that project was completed.

Kind Regards,
Albert Aleman | Director Engineering
O 805.388.2219 | M 805.889.2421 | [email protected] http://www.frontier.com
From: Ashford Ball <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:58 PM
To: Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]>
Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]>; Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>; McDonald, Stephen <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA Hello Alberto,
I read through Rule 33, I am not sure I understand why we don’t meet the requirements? The project seems to meet the standards that are set in the document A.1.a. section 1a, 1b, and 1c . Can you please elaborate why we did not meet the requirements? Also to re-iterate what we discussed over the phone. Our City has done a previous project on the same street in which your company provided services at its own expense due to meeting the Rule 20A requirements how is this different than that one? Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst

City of Rolling Hills – City Hall
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
332
4 Phone: 310.377.1521 | Fax: 310.377.7288
E: [email protected]

From: Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:14 PM
To: Ashford Ball <[email protected]>
Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]>; Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>; McDonald, Stephen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA Ashford, as we discussed the proposed undergrounding does not meet the criteria outlined Frontier’s Tariff, Rule 33, Facilities to Provide Replacement of Aerial with Underground Facilities. Specifically A.1. a. Please see the attached.

Frontier is willing to participate contingent upon the City reimbursing the cost to underground its aerial facilities.

Kind Regards,
Albert Aleman | Director Engineering
O 805.388.2219 | M 805.889.2421 | [email protected] http://www.frontier.com
From: Ashford Ball <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:21 PM
To: Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>; McDonald, Stephen <[email protected]>; Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA Importance: High
Hello Dan, Albert, and Asia
333
5 Would someone be able to correspond regarding the project. Please see the many emails I have attempted to follow-up below.

Thanks,
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst

City of Rolling Hills – City Hall
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
Phone: 310.377.1521 | Fax: 310.377.7288
E: [email protected]

From: Ashford Ball
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 11:50 AM
To: Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>; McDonald, Stephen <[email protected]>; Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]> Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA Importance: High
Hello, Dan, Steve, and Albert
We are still attempting to get a response regarding this.

Thank you,
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst

City of Rolling Hills – City Hall
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
334
6 Phone: 310.377.1521 | Fax: 310.377.7288
E: [email protected]

From: Ashford Ball
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 4:08 PM
To: Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>; McDonald, Stephen <[email protected]>; Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]> Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA Hello All,
Again, attempting to follow-up regarding this. Please if you could provide correspondence as soon as possible. The project is moving, and we are nearing toward SCE developing the pre-liminary design. Therefore, we need this confirmation as soon as possible..

Thanks,
From: Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 10:49 AM
To: Ashford Ball <[email protected]>; McDonald, Stephen <[email protected]>; Aleman, Alberto <[email protected]> Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA Steve/Albert,
Can you make a decision as to weather Frontier will pay for this project which is located in a gated (private) community. A decision is desperately needed.

Thx
From: Ashford Ball <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2021 6:31 PM
To: Hayes, Dan <[email protected]>
Cc: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Elaine Jeng <[email protected]> Subject: Utilities Undergrounding Assessment District Rolling Hills, CA WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links. 335
7 Hello Dan,
I have attempted to reach out to you on multiple occasions in an effort to understand your participation in this project and if it still remained. SCE Robert Ciccarelli and Cox Rey Castro as well as Michael Moats from Crown Castle have all confirmed their contribution to pay due to the Rule 20A.

With no response for such a long period of time we now would be assuming you all are also paying for your part in the project as well due to the Rule 20A.

Please respond to confirm. I hope you are safe and are doing well.

Thank you,
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst

City of Rolling Hills – City Hall
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
Phone: 310.377.1521 | Fax: 310.377.7288
E: [email protected]

This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer.
336
337
338
339
340
Overhead Lines to be Removed
Limits of Utility Underground District
B A East City Limits
D
C
E
F
G
H I
J
K
M
L
Exhibit "A"
341

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

ENGINEER'S REPORT
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
No. 2002-1A
JANUARY 2, 2003
IMMO .••••••
Et MuniFinancial
Corporate Office Regional Offices
27368 Via Industria
Suite 110
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: (909) 587-3500
Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864)
Fax: (909) 587-3510
Anaheim, CA Phoenix, AZ
Industry, CA San Diego, CA
Jacksonville, FL Seattle, WA
Lancaster, CA Washington, DC
Oakland, CA
www.muni.corn
342

ENGINEER'S REPORT
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATIONS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY OF ROLLING HIILLS RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-IA 1
DESCRIPTION OF WORK 1
EXHIBIT A - COST ESTIMATE 3
EXHIBIT B- ASSESSMENT ROLL 4
EXHIBIT C - BOUNDARY MAP 5
MuniFinancial City of Rolling Hills
343

ENGINEER'S REPORT
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

CERTIFICATIONS
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council.

Date: , 2001.
00FESSICkai
p 0.16742
•
* • 3o•og *
ts>. p. oFcm0t°
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enc osed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment and Boundary Map thereto attached, was filed with me on the I A.,- A day of , 200 3 .
esignated City Engineer or the
( /7,
Clerk ofjhe City Council,
City of-Rolling Hills, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment and Boundary Map thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council for the City of Rolling Hills, California, on the day of , 2003.

Clerk of the City Council,
City of Rolling Hills, California
NuniFlnancial City of Rolling Hills
344

ENGINEER'S REPORT
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The designated City Engineer of work for City of Rolling Hills Rule 20A Underground Utility District No. 2002-1A (the "Improvement District"), writes this report, as prescribed by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. and pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.

This proposed District is being established to remove existing overhead utilities along a portion of Crest Road West, which is an area of unusual scenic interest to the citizens and visitors to the City of Rolling Hills.

The improvements, which are the subject of this report, are briefly described as follows:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY OF ROLLING HIILLS RULE 20A
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A
City of Rolling Hills Rule 20A Underground Utility District generally includes most of four parcels on the South Side of Crest Road West and two entire parcels and portions of three others located on the North side of Crest Road West between Buggy Whip Drive and Possum Ridge Road. Eight of these properties contain single-family residential homes and one is a municipal property that contains a fire station.

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The following is a description of the planned improvements for the entire district.

A. Undergrounding of Overhead Utility Lines
The undergrounding of eight overhead utility lines along Crest Road West including trenching and backfilling„ installing the new utility vaults needed to receive the conduits and transformers, laying the conduit lines into the trenches, switching service to the underground system and removing seven of the existing overhead poles and lines. The remaining pole will be relocated approximately 300 feet down the hillside on the South side of Crest Road West outside of the underground utility district boundary.

The poles that will be removed and/or relocated support electrical, telephone and cable television services. Southern California Edison owns three of the poles and Verizon owns the other three. Cox Communications has infrastructure on five of the six poles. All three companies have been notified and are in support of the district improvements. Verizon has indicated to City staff that once the underground utility district is established, that they will remove their poles and underground the lines at the same time that Southern California Edison undergrounds its (poles) system.

Under the Public Utility Commission Rules (Rule 20-A), Southern California Edison collects money through rates for undergrounding overhead utilities. SCE has indicated that this project is eligible for the use of Rule-20A funds. The project will also require one property owner to convert their electric service panel to an underground panel. Rule 20-A funds will also be used to pay for this cost.

MuniFinancial Page 1 1 City of Rolling Hills
345

TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE
Each of the utility companies providing overhead service in the District have been contacted to determine the time necessary to complete the undergrounding of their facilities, conversion of any onsite services and removal of existing wires and poles. It has been concluded that June 30, 2004 shall be the date when all proposed work of the District shall be completed.

PROPOSITION 218
Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which added Article XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution provides procedures for the imposition of new or increased taxes, assessments and property related fees or charges. This proposed District will be funded entirely by the affected utilities and the City; therefore, there will be no assessments, taxes or property related fees or charges imposed on any properties within this District. The Right to Vote on Taxes Act is not applicable when no assessments, taxes or property related fees or taxes are imposed.

This report includes the following attached exhibits:

EXHIBIT A - An estimate of the cost of the improvement.

EXHIBIT B — An Assessment Roll, showing each parcel of real property within this City of Rolling Hills Rule 20A Underground Utility District. Each parcel is described by Assessor's Parcel Number or other designation. Each parcel is also assigned a number for the purposes of this proceeding.

EXHIBIT C - A diagram that displays the boundary of the Rule 20A Underground Utility District and the parcels of real property that are affected by the district. The diagram corresponds and is keyed to Exhibit B by the number.

MuniFinancial Page 2 City of Rolling Hills
346

ENGINEER'S REPORT
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

EXHIBIT A - COST ESTIMATE
19 MuniFinancial Page 3 City of Rolling Hills
347
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Exhibit A - Cost Estimate
Cost
Engineering Design & Construction Costs
Southern California Edison Costs
Underground three (3) poles including: trenching and backfilling, installation of sub structures, installation of underground electrical facilities, installation of riser poles, removal of existing poles and panel conversions $115,000.00
Verizon Costs
Undergrounding three (3) poles including the aerial plant $55,000.00 Cox Communications Costs
Removal of Cox facilities from five (5) poles $14,146.17 Undergrounding of services on private property $0.00
Total Construction Costs $184,146.17
General Incidentals
Assessment Engineer $6,100.00
Total General Incidental Costs $6,100.00
Total Project Cost $190,246.17
Contributions
Southern California Edison Rolling Hills Rule 20-A Funds ($115,000.00) Verizon ($55,000.00)
Cox Communications ($14,146.17)
City of Rolling Hills ($6,100.00)
Total Contributions ($190,246.17)
Total Cost Remaining $0.00
348

ENGINEER'S REPORT
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

EXHIBIT B- ASSESSMENT ROLL
A list of the subdivided parcels of land within the City of Rolling Hills Rule 20A Underground Utility District is set forth upon the following Assessment Roll filed with and made part of this Report.

The Assessment Roll includes the assessor's parcel numbers, property owner names and assessment amounts within this City of Rolling Hills Rule 20A Underground Utility District. Each parcel is given a number.

MuniFinancial Page 4 City of Rolling Hills
349
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-IA

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Exhibit B - Assessment Roll
Assessment
ID
Assessor's
Parcel
Number Owner Name
Assessment
Amount
1 7567-017-020 Price Carl F & Family Trust $0.00
2 7567-017-900 LA County Consolidated Fire Pro Dist 0.00 3 7569-022-004 Cathy A Nichols 2001 Trust 0.00
4 7569-022-005 Robert & Julie Nagelhout & Family Trust 0.00 5 7569-025-001 Roseannne Barr 0.00
6 7569-025-002 Richard & Sophia Henke Trust 0.00
7 7569-025-003 Hooshang and Maryam Pak 0.00
8 7569-009-010 Intex Property Corp 0.00
9 7569-009-007 John H. & Maureen D. Nunn & Family Trust 0.00 Total $0.00
I
350

ENGINEER'S REPORT
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

EXHIBIT C - BOUNDARY MAP
A Diagram showing the City of Rolling Hills Rule 20A Underground Utility District, the boundaries, and the dimensions of the subdivisions of land within the City of Rolling Hills Rule 20A Underground Utility District as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention is filed with and made a part of this Report. Each of the subdivisions of land, parcels, or lots will be given a separate number on the Boundary Map, which corresponds with the number shown on the Assessment Roll (Exhibit B).

The Boundary Map in a reduced-scale format follows.

MuniFinancial Page 9 City of Rolling Hills
351
SHEET 1 OF 1

PROPOSED BOUNDARY

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2002-1A

CITY OF ROLUNG HILLS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STATE OF CAUFORNIA
Sr RD.

MAP REF.

NO.

ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO.

I T367-017-030
2 7347-017-9w
2 7SAR-022-oo4
A 73119-022-00S
3 7561-023-001
6 7366-033-002
7 7366-01S-003
6 7360-001-010
9 7340-009-007
ovistephr Mier&
N.C.E. "30000
MuniFinancial
20766 SRN:la O..i Ni..

Sults 200
latea.u)a. CaWanda 92890-3481
Phase (001) 89111..3990 F (909) 199-8410
!Sl
5- JOHN'S CANYON RD.
300' 130' r 300'
1 =t=1 1
SCALE : •. 300'
LEGEND

PROPOSED BOUNDARY
(C .) MAP REFERENCE NUMBER
x
5"
4e
z
N
N
N
N

EXISTING PLUS - (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
0 CD
CD
CD 1, CD
ea'?
2 all
R
S.;
\
ST
/Po
(02-006) OCTOBER 2002 352
353
354

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 31867-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 23018-E

Rule 20 Sheet 1

REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES

(Continued)
(To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 1643-E John R. Fielder Date Filed Jul 26, 2002
Decision 01-12-009 Senior Vice President Effective Sep 4, 2002 1C13 Resolution E-3767
A. SCE will, at its expense, replace its existing overhead electric facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads, and on public lands and private property across which rights-of-way satisfactory to SCE have been obtained by SCE, provided that:

1. The governing body of the city or county in which such electric facilities are and will be located has:
a. Determined, after consultation with SCE and after holding public hearings on the subject, that such undergrounding is in the general public interest for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities;
(2) The street or road or right-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (3) The street or road or right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public; or
(4) The street or road or right-of-way is considered an arterial street or major collector road, as defined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines.
b. Adopted an ordinance creating an underground district in the area in which both the existing and new facilities are and will be located requiring, among other things, (1) that all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities in such district shall be removed, (2) that each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have installed in accordance with SCE’s rules for underground service, all electrical facility changes on the premises necessary to receive service from the underground facilities of SCE as soon as it is available, and (3) authorizing SCE to discontinue its overhead service. (T)
(T)
(N)
|
(N)
355

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 23019-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 12201-E

Rule 20 Sheet 2

REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES

(Continued)
(Continued)
(To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 1268-E-B John R. Fielder Date Filed May 11, 1998 Decision 97-10-087 Senior Vice President Effective Jan 4, 1998 2C2 Resolution
A. (Continued)

2. SCE’s total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding within any city or the unincorporated area of any county shall be allocated as follows:
a. The amount allocated to each city and county in 1990 shall be the highest of:

1. The amount allocated to the city or county in 1989, which amount shall be allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in such city or unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead meters; or

2. The amount the city or county would receive if SCE’s total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding provided in 1989 were allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in each city or the unincorporated area of each county bears to the total system overhead meters based on the latest count of overhead meters available prior to establishing the 1990 allocations; or

3. The amount the city or county would receive if SCE’s total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding provided in 1989 were allocated as follows:
a. Fifty percent of the budgeted amount allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in any city or the unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead meters; and
b. Fifty percent of the budgeted amount allocated in the same ratio that the total number of meters in any city or the unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system meters.

356

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 23020-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 12202-E

Rule 20 Sheet 3

REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES

(Continued)
(Continued)
(To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 1268-E-B John R. Fielder Date Filed May 11, 1998 Decision 97-10-087 Senior Vice President Effective Jan 4, 1998 3C2 Resolution
A. (Continued)

2. (Continued)
b. Except as provided in Section 2.c., the amount allocated for undergrounding within any city or the unincorporated area of any county in 1991 and later years shall use the amount actually allocated to the city or county in 1990 as the base, and any changes from the 1990 level in SCE’s total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding shall be allocated to individual cities and counties as follows:

1. Fifty percent of the change from the 1990 total budgeted amount shall be allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in any city or unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead meters.

2. Fifty percent of the change from the 1990 total budgeted amount shall be allocated in the same ratio that the total number of meters in any city of the unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system meters.
c. When a city incorporates, resulting in a transfer of utility meters from the unincorporated area of a county to the city, there shall be a permanent transfer of a prorata portion of the county's 1990 allocation base referred to in Section

2.b. to the city. The amount transferred shall be determined:

1. Fifty percent based on the ratio that the number of overhead meters in the city bears to the total system overhead meters; and

2. Fifty percent based on the ratio that the total number of meters in the city bears to the total system meters.

When territory is annexed to an existing city, it shall be the responsibility of the city and county affected, in consultation with SCE serving the territory, to agree upon an amount of the 1990 allocation base that will be transferred from the county to the city, and thereafter to jointly notify SCE in writing.

357

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 31868-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 23021-E

Rule 20 Sheet 4

REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES

(Continued)
(Continued)
(To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 1643-E John R. Fielder Date Filed Jul 26, 2002
Decision 01-12-009 Senior Vice President Effective Sep 4, 2002 4C15 Resolution E-3767
A. (Continued)

2. (Continued)
d. However, Section 2.a, b, and c, shall not apply to any utility where the total amount available for allocation under Rule 20-A is equal to or greater than 1.5 times the previous year's statewide average on a per customer basis. In such cases, SCE’s total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding within any city or the unincorporated area of any county shall be allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in the city or unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead meters.
e. Upon request by a city or county, the amounts allocated may be exceeded for each city or county by an amount up to a maximum of five years’ allocation at then-current levels where SCE establishes that participation on a project is warranted and resources are available. Such allocated amount may be carried over for a reasonable period of time in communities with active undergrounding programs. In order to qualify as a community with an active undergrounding program, the governing body must have adopted an ordinance or ordinances creating an underground district and/or districts as set forth in Section A.1.b. of this Rule. Where there is a carry-over or additional requested participation as discussed above, SCE has the right to set, as determined by its capability, reasonable limits on the rate of performance of the work to be financed by the funds carried over. When amounts are not expended or carried over for the community to which they are initially allocated, they shall be assigned when additional participation on a project is warranted or be reallocated to communities with active undergrounding programs.

(C)
|
|
(C)
(C)
(C)
358

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 26177-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 23022-E

Rule 20 Sheet 5

REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES

(Continued)
(Continued)
(To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 1399-E John R. Fielder Date Filed Aug 23, 1999
Decision Senior Vice President Effective Oct 2, 1999
5C3 Resolution
A. (Continued)

3. The undergrounding extends for a minimum distance of one block or 600 feet, whichever is the lesser.

Upon request of the governing body, SCE will pay from the existing allocation of that entity for:
a. The installation of no more than 100 feet of each customer's underground electric service lateral occasioned by the undergrounding, and/or b. The conversion of a customer’s meter panel to accept underground service occasioned by the undergrounding, excluding permit fees.

SCE or the governing body may establish a lesser allowance, or may otherwise limit the amount of money to be expended on a single customer's electric service, or the total amount to be expended on all electric service installations in a particular project.

B. In circumstances other than those covered by A above, SCE will replace its existing overhead electric facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads or other locations mutually agreed upon when requested by an applicant or applicants when all of the following conditions are met:

1. a. All property owners served from the overhead facilities to be removed first agree in writing to have the wiring changes made on their premises so that service may be furnished from the underground distribution system in accordance with SCE’s rules and that SCE may discontinue its overhead service upon completion of the underground facilities, or b. Suitable legislation is in effect requiring such necessary wiring changes to be made and authorizing SCE to discontinue its overhead service.

359

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 31869-E* Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 31093-E

Rule 20 Sheet 6

REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES

(Continued)

(To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Advice 1643-E John R. Fielder Date Filed Jul 26, 2002
Decision 01-12-009 Senior Vice President Effective Sep 4, 2002 6C16 Resolution E-3767
B. (Continued)

2. The applicant has:
a. Furnished and installed the pads and vaults for transformers and associated equipment, conduits, ducts, boxes, pole bases and performed other work related to structures and substructures including breaking of pavement, trenching, backfilling, and repaving required in connection with the installation of the underground system, all in accordance with SCE’s specifications, or, in lieu thereof, paid SCE to do so;
b. Transferred ownership of such facilities, in good condition, to SCE; and c. Paid a nonrefundable sum equal to the excess, if any, of the estimated costs, including transformers, meters, and services, of completing the underground system and building a new equivalent overhead system. The cost of removal of the overhead poles, lines, and facilities are the responsibility of SCE and will be paid by SCE. Such payments shall not operate to reduce Rule 20.A allocations.

3. The area to be undergrounded includes both sides of a street for at least one block or 600 feet, whichever is the lesser, and all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities within the area will be removed.

4. SCE may, when requested and authorized by the city or county and mutually agreed upon by such government entity and SCE, initially fund any required engineering/design costs for conversion projects under this section. In the event such a project proceeds, the requesting city or county shall reimburse SCE for such engineering/design costs before SCE shall be required to commence further work on the project. In the event the project is not approved to proceed within two and onehalf years of SCE’s delivery of such engineering/design study, the requesting city or county shall reimburse SCE for its costs of such engineering/design study within 90 days of a demand by SCE. In the event a city or county does not reimburse SCE within 90 days of its demand for reimbursement, SCE shall be permitted to expense such costs as an operational cost and shall reduce the city or county’s allocations provided under Section A of this Schedule by the like amount.

C. In circumstances other than those covered by A or B above, when mutually agreed upon by SCE and an applicant, overhead electric facilities may be replaced with underground electric facilities, provided the applicant requesting the change pays, in advance, a non-refundable sum equal to the estimated cost of the underground facilities less the estimated net salvage value and depreciation of the replaced overhead facilities. Underground services will be installed and maintained as provided in SCE’s rules applicable thereto.

D. The term "underground electric system" means an electric system with all wires installed underground, except those wires in surface mounted equipment enclosures. (N)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(N)
360
Agenda Item No.: 16.A
Mtg. Date: 02/28/2022
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 28, 2022
BACKGROUND:

None
DISCUSSION:

None
FISCAL IMPACT:

None
RECOMMENDATION:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:
361