• First Responders will use their vehicle PA system and/or go door-to-door to notify residents.
1. Are you fully prepared for a possible evacuation scenario? a. Yes
b. No
c. Somewhat
2. Do you feel confident about your personal evacuation plan? a. Yes
b. No
c. Somewhat
3. If there is loss of power affecting cell phone and internet communications would you support a siren system to notify residents to evacuate? a. Yes
b. No
c. Please explain your answer:
______________________________________
4. If there is no loss of power, how would you prefer to receive emergency notification to evacuate (check all that apply)?
a. Email
b. Text
c. Phone Call
d. Siren
e. Please explain your answer: ______________________________________ Safety
1. What are your concerns that you may not receive a notification during an emergency?
a. Please explain: _________________________________________
2. Do you feel a siren system would improve your safety in the event of an emergency? a. Yes
b. No
3. If there is loss of power, are you comfortable relying solely on the First Responders to use their vehicle PA system and/or going door-to-door to notify you? a. Yes
b. No
Private Property
1. Would you support a siren system if the system required a pole to be placed on your property?
a. Yes
b. No
Miscellaneous
Do you have any suggestions or comments in general?
389
From: Arlene Honbo
To: Bea Dieringer; Jim Black; Jeff Pieper; Patrick Wilson; Leah Mirsch Cc: Elaine Jeng; Christian Horvath
Subject: Block Captain and Resident Support for Outdoor Siren System Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 10:27:30 AM
Attachments: Letter to City Council March 14 2022 final.docx Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Attached is a letter of support to approve the installation of an outdoor siren system for the City of Rolling Hills. The letter includes the names of Block Captains/Support Team and residents in favor of proceeding with this important priority.
The letter and associated approval emails will be dropped off today to Christian Horvath, City Clerk. See you tonight at the City Council meeting.
Arlene and Gene Honbo, Block Captain Leads
390
March 14, 2022
Dear Honorable Mayor and RH City Councilmembers:
An important priority of the Block Captain program since 2019 is Emergency Communications.
How will residents be notified of an emergency evacuation? Will notification be limited to people who pre-register to receive emergency alerts? What happens in the event of no electricity or phone service?
We support the RH City Council to approve the installation of an outdoor siren system by HQE Systems to notify residents in the event of an emergency. This important safety measure will help ensure that all our residents who live in Rolling Hills, a designated high-fire severity zone, can be notified when there is no electricity or internet service. Many residents support the cost investment necessary to install and maintain either three or nine poles necessary for coverage of Rolling Hills; we understand Federal and State grant funds are available for cities, especially those cities designated as high-fire severity zones.
Safety of all our residents is directly dependent on reliable emergency notifications to residents.
LA County Fire Department have stated that given the close proximity to a potential wildfire starting on the peninsula, residents in Rolling Hills would not have the benefit of an evacuation alert or warning; residents would likely be asked to evacuate immediately. Thus, we support having an emergency plan that considers all potential scenarios, including a worst-case one.
Respectfully,
Rolling Hills Block Captains and Support Team
Arlene Honbo – Portuguese Bend Road, Zone 7
Gene Honbo – Portuguese Bend Road, Zone 7
Arun Bhumitra – Buggy Whip Drive, Zone 3
Kelly and Richard Cook – Ringbit Road West, Zone 17
Pam Crane – Caballeros Road, Zone 18
Susan Collida – Ringbit Road West, Zone 17
Judith Haenel – Eastfield Road, Zone 22
Maureen Hill – Cinchring Road, Zone 5
Kathleen Hughes – Caballeros Road, Zone 18
Lisa Kopenhefer – Chuckwagon Road, Zone 21
Kay Lupo – Georgeff Road, Block, Zone 15
Dustin and Melissa McNabb – Quail Ridge South, Zone 4
Tony Mian – Palos Verdes Drive, Zone 24
Michele Mottola – Flying Maine Road, Zone 16
Clint Patterson – Georgeff Road, Zone 15
Debra Shrader – Saddleback Road, Zone 13
391
Letter to Honorable Mayor and RH City Councilmembers March 14, 2022 (page 2) Block Captain and Support Team (continued)
Leslie Stetson – Saddleback Road, Zone 13
Ed and Sally Swart – Meadowlark Lane, Zone 9
Nicole Tangen – John Canyon Road, Zone 1
Dorothy Vinter – Reata Lane, Zone 15
Rae Walker – Wagon Lane, Zone 7
Block Captain and Support Team
Support for Option B – Installation of 3 Poles
Carol Marrone – Southfield Drive, Zone 17
Michael Sherman – Crest Road East, Zone 16
Sandy Sherman – Crest Road East, Zone 16
Residents
Don Crocker – Cinchring Road
Ron Sommer – Poppy Trail
Attachments: Approval emails from Block Captains, Support Team and Residents 392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
From: Constance Turner
To: Elaine Jeng; Kraig; Christian Horvath
Cc: Michael X Glenn; Irma Knight; Jae Lee; Ajay Singh; Robert Brambila Subject: SCE Clarification and Opposition of locations of your suggested facilities: G. O. 95 Safety Violations Date: Sunday, March 13, 2022 5:00:02 PM
Attachments: HQE_Systems_-_City_of_Rolling_Hills_-_Response_Letter_-_Detailed_Installation_Locations.pdf All:
I wanted to share that these locations (identified on your enclosed document) violate G.O. 95, California State Safety Law for distance required for SCE Facilities/Poles & Wires which is State Law.
All proposed locations would have to reviewed by SCE Planning to assure no G.O. 95 violations or any other violations are occurring that are in conflict with SCE Facilities. As a reminder, SCE does not allow any surveillance cameras or surveillance equipment on SCE Poles.
I wanted to let you all know so you will have the information for the Public Hearing on tomorrow, 3/14/2022.
Thanks.
Connie
416
From: Jamie Warner
To: Alan Palermo
Subject: Re: SCE Clarification and Opposition of locations of your suggested facilities: G. O. 95 Safety Violations Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 9:06:25 AM
Dear Mr. Palermo.
This is normal actually. We are very famiar with SCE and other utility companies requirements when it comes to outdoor warning sirens. Bottom line upfront, none of the sirens installed will violate any compliance policies or agreements. At this feasibility phase that information is not detailed out. That level of detail is only clarified and planned out during the "Design Phase" of an outdoor warning siren project.
The proposed outdoor warning sirens locations identified on the sound propagation map and or images are proposed general areas for review. The final install points will take into consideration not just SCE's policies but the City's actual approval of that specified site (may require a slight location change based on the residents' input and the Board's final decision), soil suitability, wind assessment, religious/historic site survey, and general geological studies to ensure the install and maintenance efforts can be performed without significant distrubance of the site. Which are all detailed out in the Design Phase. The key issue to take away is that this outdoor warning sirens report is enable the City to determine the ideal install types of the sirens and the general understanding of the coverage install plan. Based on that final decision for approval for installation, a detailed POA&M will be provided with the design installation plans that will meet all compliance requirements. At this phase of the project, HQE is providing the information that highlights the importance of the outdoor warning sirens for life safety plans for the City and and the options that would be available to the City.
Please let me know if any other questions can be answered.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 11:36 AM Alan Palermo wrote:
Jamie,
The City shared your latest information with SCE. SCE replied, see below.
I let the City know your document is not a final plan but just a more detailed proposed layout/street level views to comply with a request from City Council. Final plans should the city proceed with this project would be required to take into account all existing titles/conflicts.
Is there any other response/information on SCE’s comment I can pass along to the City? Thanks.
Alan
Begin forwarded message:
From: Elaine Jeng
417
Subject: Fw: SCE Clarification and Opposition of locations of your suggested facilities: G. O. 95 Safety Violations
Date: March 14, 2022 at 8:26:54 AM PDT
To: Alan Palermo
Cc: Christian Horvath
From: Constance Turner
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Elaine Jeng ; Kraig ; Christian Horvath
Cc: Michael X Glenn ; Irma Knight
; Jae Lee ; Ajay Singh
; Robert Brambila
Subject: SCE Clarification and Opposition of locations of your suggested facilities: G.
O. 95 Safety Violations
All:
I wanted to share that these locations (identified on your enclosed document) violate G.O. 95, California State Safety Law for distance required for SCE Facilities/Poles & Wires which is State Law. All proposed locations would have to reviewed by SCE Planning to assure no G.O. 95 violations or any other violations are occurring that are in conflict with SCE Facilities. As a reminder, SCE does not allow any surveillance cameras or surveillance equipment on SCE Poles.
I wanted to let you all know so you will have the information for the Public Hearing on tomorrow, 3/14/2022.
Thanks.
Connie
418
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. HQE Systems has performed a self-assessment in accordance with NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology and has submitted the results to the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). 419
From: Elaine Jeng
To: Christian Horvath
Subject: Fwd: Tonight’s meeting
Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 3:40:00 PM
Begin forwarded message:
From: DONALD CROCKER
Date: March 14, 2022 at 2:57:25 PM PDT
To: Elaine Jeng
Subject: Tonight’s meeting
Elaine and City Council:I will be there at 7 but must leave by 7:50 for a zoom mtg at home. I think the issue re new safety equipment blocking views etc. is easily solvable. To start put siren equipment including cameras on top of the flagpoles at the 3 gates plus a giant pole (RPV has a communication tower that is extendable in a disaster) just outside the Crest East gate on property the City owns. It’s camera could see the whole peninsula! There are other locations where no one’s views would be materially affected including on slim neutral color metal poles in canyons or on top of telephone poles like at Crest and PBRd. I would be willing to have a camera on my home eves that would see the entire area facing the Pacific. Plus a siren if requested. Thanks. Don
Sent from my iPhone
420
Agenda Item No.: 14.B
Mtg. Date: 03/14/2022
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: March 14, 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 421
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 $1,695,000 without Rule 20A Tariff (General 422
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
423
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
424
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
425
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 426
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.
427
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.
428
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. 429
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
430
Agenda Item No.: 14.C
Mtg. Date: 03/14/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE LAYOUT OPTION 3 FOR THE CITY HALL ADA
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, AND APPROVE AN AMENDED
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC
ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.
DATE: March 14, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In December 2019, the City released a Request For Proposal for Architectural and Engineering Design Services to prepare ADA Improvement Plans for the Rolling Hills City Hall, excluding building exterior path of travel. At the January 27, 2020 City Council Meeting, City Council considered and approved a Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. (PAE) to prepare Improvement Plans (ADA and Space Planning). A kick off meeting with PAE was held February 27, 2020. At the May 26, 2020 City Council Meeting, City Council received a presentation from staff on the options developed to bring the restrooms up to date and comply with ADA and related codes. At the July 13, 2020 City Council Meeting, City Council received a presentation from staff with additional information to the two preferred options including opinions of probable costs of construction. At the July 13, 2021 City Council Meeting, City Council voted to move forward with the more economic Option 2 which kept the restrooms in the same location. Option 1 and Option 2 layouts presented at the July 13, 2020 City Council meeting are attached to this report.
PAE submitted the 65% plans for City review on March 9, 2021. This submittal incorporated the restroom option selected at the July 13, 2020 City Council Meeting. The City has reviewed the 65% plans with comments. Before City review comments are returned to PAE to further develop the plans to 90% design, Councilmember Jeff Pieper noted that the City considered the options using cost estimate restroom upgrades but not the overall project cost.
Councilmember Pieper recommended that the City Council revisit the layout options. In response to Councilmember Pieper's suggestion, at the April 12, 2021 meeting, the City Council directed staff to provide a comprehensive project cost estimate for restroom layout Options 1 and 2.
431
At 65% design completion, the estimated overall project cost for option 1 was $952,810 and $784,390 for option 2 for a difference of approximately $168,420. At the June 28, 2021 meeting, the City Council directed staff to add measurements to option 1 layout for additional discussion at the July 12, 2021 meeting. Using the measurement shown for option 1 in the City Hall lobby area, staff also taped the floor of the lobby to locate the proposed public counter. At the July 12, 2021 meeting, the City Council delayed to item to the July 26, 2021 meeting. At the September 13, 2021 meeting, staff recommended the inclusion of accordion doors along with the possibility of expanding the lobby area by moving the glass partition wall out. Additional suggestions were made to use French doors and remove an existing interior wall behind the display case to expand the lobby area of City Hall to accommodate the number of residents that attend the annual holiday house event. The City Council directed staff to bring back City Hall ADA Improvements project at the next City Council meeting so that the City Council can provide direction to staff on the next steps.
The iterations of designs, the preparation of cost estimates, investigation into alternative features (partition walls), and the preparation of construction drawings up to 65% complete for Option 2 combined exhausted the budget in the contract with PAE.
At the October 25, 2021 meeting, staff presented a third option prepared by staff for consideration. Option 3 took into consideration the City Council's feedback from the September 13, 2021 meeting. Option 3 proposed by staff includes pushing the existing line of wall at the front door to the City Hall, moving one of the three All Gender restrooms to the newly expanded space and enclosing the hallway to the Council Chambers to allow for a meeting room. The City Council favored Option 3 but decided to hold off on giving staff direction on the next steps until the City Council has an opportunity to consider all the capital improvement projects at the 2022 Strategic Planning Workshop.
DISCUSSION:
At the 2022 Strategic Planning Workshop, the City Council discussed moving forward with two capital improvement projects for Fiscal Year 2022-2023: City Hall ADA improvements project and the Tennis Courts improvements project. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare construction plans based on layout Option 3 and approve an amended agreement with PAE.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Pacific Architecture and Engineering's fee proposal to complete engineering design for Option 3 is $96,485 . The fee includes bid support and construction administration during the bidding and construction phases of the project. There is no funding available in the adopted FY 2021- 2022 budget for the design fee. If the City Council should move forward with an amended agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering to complete construction documents based on layout Option 3, appropriation of general fund reserves to the Capital Improvement Program Fund 40 is necessary to pay for this expense.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve layout Option 3 and direct staff to prepare Amendment No. 3 to the service agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $96,485.
ATTACHMENTS:
432
CL_AGN_220314_CC_CityHall_ADA_Improvements.pdf
CL_AGN_220314_CC_CityHall_ADA_Option01.pdf
CL_AGN_220314_CC_CityHall_ADA_Option01B.pdf
CL_AGN_220314_CC_CityHall_ADA_Option02.pdf
CL_AGN_220314_CC_CityHall_ADA_Option03.pdf
433
Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc.
730 Arizona Ave, Santa Monica CA 90401
(424)330-1721
January 12, 2022
Subject: Proposal for City of Rolling Hills ADA Improvement Design_Additional Services Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc., is pleased to submit this proposal for engineering services for ADA Improvements at City Hall.
Scope of Work:
The current scope of work includes three new restrooms, one being outside of current building perimeter, new required water fountain, new exterior entry door location, new meeting room and relocated coffee area, and relocated Electrical Data room. This requires new structural supports at exterior for new walls, re-routed utilities for water, sewer, power and hvac to new restrooms, and rerouted electrical and data at new Electrical room.
1. Prepare Schematic Design plan for city approval
2. After City approval, prepare Design Development Plans
3. Construction Documents and Cost Estimate
Exclusions: City to provide survey, Geotech report, hazardous materials testing and specifications, Hydrology not included.
Fee
Design Bid CA
$73,000.00 $7,310.00 $16,175.00
Time and Material Not to exceed $96,485.00
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal. If you have any questions please contact me for any further information you may need at (310)405-3878 or [email protected] Sincerely,
Jun Fujita Hall, AIA, LEED AP BD & C, Lic# C 30954
Principal Project Manager, Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. 310-405-3878
[email protected]
434
435
436
437
438
Agenda Item No.: 15.A
Mtg. Date: 03/14/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT.
DATE: March 14, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing and authorized staff to forward the "HCD Draft" 6th Cycle Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. The City sent the Housing Element to HCD for review on January 11, 2022. HCD now has 90 days, or by April 11, 2022, to comment on the Housing Element.
DISCUSSION:
HCD typically meets with the jurisdiction a week before releasing its comments. Once comments from HCD is received, the City must address those comments before it can adopt the Housing Element. Once adopted, the Housing Element will be sent to HCD for certification.
The City Council may recall that a special City Council meeting was scheduled for Saturday, February 12, 2022 to adopt the Housing Element. This was done at the advice of legal counsel to meet the Housing Element certification deadline set by HCD. However, after consulting with HCD and again with legal counsel, adoption of the Housing Element prior to receiving HCD’s comments on the Draft Housing Element was ill-advised as the City would still be out of compliance. The penalty for being out of compliance is the City would have to adopt any proposed rezone by October 2022. However, since the City is not proposing any rezone, there really is no penalty at this time.
Subsequently, the City received a letter from Californians for Homeownership regarding the City's failure to timely adopt a Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The City Attorney's office has prepared a response to this letter as it may lead to litigation. As mentioned earlier, at the advice of HCD and counsel the Housing Element cannot be adopted until the City receives comments from HCD on the Draft Housing Element and addresses those comments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
439
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File.
ATTACHMENTS:
2022-3-3 - Californians Letter to Rolling Hills-c1.pdf
440
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
March 3, 2022
John Signo
City of Rolling Hills
Email: [email protected]
RE: Rolling Hills’ failure to timely adopt a Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
Dear Mr. Signo:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that uses impact litigation to address California’s housing crisis. We are monitoring local compliance with the law governing housing elements. Our understanding is that the City has not adopted a sixth cycle housing element, which it was required to do by October 15, 2021.1 It also missed the second compliance deadline of February 12, 2022, subjecting it to additional penalties.2 We are currently preparing for litigation against cities that have not timely adopted housing elements, like yours.
In light of the City’s failure to timely adopt its housing element, our organization could immediately sue the City under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 to compel it to adopt a compliant housing element.3 As a result of this litigation, in addition to being ordered to adopt a housing element on a short timeline,4 the City could also face a number of serious penalties. For example, the court could suspend all non-residential permitting,5 or could judicially approve housing development projects within the City.6 And the court could impose these penalties while the litigation is pending, even before reaching a final decision.7 Housing element litigation is given priority in the court system,8 and a successful plaintiff can obtain attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. Indeed, in a recent case involving the City of Huntington Beach’s housing element, a court awarded another non-profit organization over $3.5 million in fees.9 The purpose of this letter is to offer the City a pathway to avoid immediate litigation by our organization. Enclosed is an Acknowledgment that sets forth some of the penalties to which the City is currently subject in light of the City’s failure to adopt a housing element. If the City signs and returns the Acknowledgment, we will not initiate litigation against the City at this time. 1 Gov. Code § 65588(e)(3).
2 Gov. Code §§ 65583(c)(1)(A), 65583.2(c), and 65588(e)(4)(C). 3 Gov. Code §§ 65587, 65751.
4 Gov. Code § 65754.
5 Gov. Code § 65755(a)(1).
6 Gov. Code § 65755(a)(4).
7 Gov. Code § 65757.
8 Gov. Code § 65752.
9 https://www.communitylegalsocal.org/kennedy-commission-awarded-3-5-million-in-attorneys-fees-for-advocacyin-huntington-beach-low-income-housing-case/ 441
March 3, 2022
We ask that you return the Acknowledgement by March 11, 2022. If you decline to do so, understand that we may initiate litigation against the City, using the City’s refusal to acknowledge these basic requirements of state housing law to demonstrate the existence of a dispute necessitating judicial intervention. As part of the litigation, we would likely seek a judicial declaration that the City is subject to the same penalties described in the Acknowledgment, among other remedies. We have dedicated in-house resources sufficient to maintain at least 10 simultaneous housing element lawsuits as part of our commitment to enforcing this important aspect of state housing law.
We look forward to receiving the signed Acknowledgment. If you would like to discuss any of this with me, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (213) 739-8206.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Michael Jenkins, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected]) Jane Abzug, Esq., Assistant City Attorney (by email to [email protected]) 442
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The City of Rolling Hills hereby acknowledges that it has not timely adopted a sixth cycle revised housing element of its general plan within the deadline set forth in Government Code Section 65588, and that its housing element is therefore not in substantial compliance with Article
10.6 of the Government Code. As a result, the City is subject to the following:
1. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65583(c)(1)(A), 65583.2(c), and 65588(e)(4)(C), the City will be required to complete any rezoning required under housing element law in connection with the City’s sixth cycle housing element by October 15, 2022.
2. The City is currently prohibited from rejecting housing development projects based on subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(5) of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5. The City acknowledges that this means that, unless another exception within subdivision (d) applies, the City is prohibited from using its general plan and zoning standards to reject a proposal that meets the affordability requirements described in subdivision (h)(3) of the HAA.
The public, including without limitation any applicant to develop any project involving residential units, may rely on this Acknowledgment as the City’s binding commitment to comply with the provisions of state law described above.
DATED: ________________, 2022 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By: _____________________________
[Signature]
_____________________________
[Name]
Its: _____________________________
[Title]
443
Agenda Item No.: 16.A
Mtg. Date: 03/14/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
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: March 14, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
444