Agenda packet — Rolling Hills City Council, June 27, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Flow rates were measured in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document (USEPA-833-B-92-001). Calibration of the equipment was conducted immediately prior to deployment. Periodic maintenance and calibration was scheduled based on site evaluations of the near real-time flow data. Calibrations were conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and equipment was calibrated on-site and field verified for accuracy with a level measurement tape. The flow monitoring equipment was maintained throughout the deployment to ensure functionality. Routine quality assurance/quality control of the level data and flow calculations was conducted and the data were reviewed remotely to prevent data gaps through routine data evaluation. In addition to the remote review of the flow equipment, monthly inspections were conducted from November 2020 through June 2021 and field visits were conducted during storm events throughout the deployment period from October 26, 2020 through April 30, 2022 to confirm the flow measurements and document the site conditions.

Figure 1. Continuous Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge Locations 276
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 3 of 14 ends

Figure 2. Continuous Flow Monitoring Location
Figure 3. Continuous Flow Monitoring Location
277
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 4 of 14 ends

CONTINUOUS FLOW MONITORING RESULTS
Sepulveda Canyon is the largest canyon system within the Machado Lake tributary area of Rolling Hills, and the second largest in Rolling Hills. It extends from the top of the Palos Verdes Peninsula at the drainage divide between the Machado Lake and Santa Monica Bay watersheds, running northward toward the northern boundary of Rolling Hills. Sepulveda Canyon consists of approximately 280 acres lying entirely within Rolling Hills with land use representative of the city as a whole. The 85th and 95th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depths for Sepulveda Canyon are 1.0 and 2.0 inches, respectively, which are estimated based on the isohyetal map obtained from the 2006 LACDPW Hydrology Manual and GIS database.

A summary of the rainfall totals for the storm events during the 2020-2021 wet weather season (October through April) are provided in Table 1. No flow was recorded by the Sepulveda Canyon monitoring equipment throughout the 2020-2021 wet weather season, including the two storm events greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (December 28, 2020 and January 28, 2021). The continuous flow data from October 26, 2020 through June 30, 2021 are provided in Attachment 1.

Table 1. 2020-2021 Storm Event Summary
Storm Start
Date
Storm End
Date
Total Rainfall
(inches)1
11/07/2020 11/07/2020 0.10
12/28/2020 12/28/2020 1.202
01/23/2021 01/23/2021 0.32
01/24/2021 01/25/2021 0.19
01/28/2021 01/29/2021 1.132
03/03/2021 03/03/2021 0.12
03/10/2021 03/11/2021 1.053
03/15/2021 03/15/2021 0.22

1. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Rolling Hills rain gauge

2. Exceeds 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth

3. Does not exceed the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth. Less than 1.0 inches was observed within the first 24 hours.

A summary of the rainfall totals for the storm events during the 2021-2022 wet weather season (October through April) are provided in Table 2, which included two storm events greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (December 23-24, 2021 and December 29-30, 2021). The continuous flow data from July 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022 are provided in Attachment 1. 278
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 5 of 14 ends

Table 2. 2021-2022 Storm Event Summary
Storm Start
Date
Storm End
Date
Total Rainfall
(inches)1
10/25/2021 10/25/2021 0.44
12/14/2021 12/14/2021 0.57
12/16/2021 12/17/2021 0.61
12/23/2021 12/24/2021 1.602
12/25/2021 12/25/2021 0.44
12/27/2021 12/27/2021 0.17
12/29/2021 12/30/2021 3.072
3/28/2022 3/29/2022 0.95

1. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Rolling Hills rain gauge

2. Exceeds 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth Rolling Hills received a total of 6.60 inches of rainfall during December 2021, which included numerous rainfall events during the second half of the month. The cumulative rainfall and flow hydrograph are provided in Figure 5, which include two events with recorded flow on December 23-24, 2021 and December 29-30, 2021.

The first rainfall event that generated flow on December 23-24, 2021 was greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches. The total rainfall for the first 24 hours of the storm was 1.4 inches and the total rainfall for the event was 1.6 inches. The brief period of flow observed during the storm event commenced following 1.2 inches of rainfall within 24 hours, indicating Sepulveda Canyon retained the volume of flow generated up to and past the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. The month to date rainfall total for December at the onset of flow was 2.52 inches (Figure 5). Flow was observed for approximately three hours during the storm event and the total flow volume was approximately 75 cubic feet with a peak flow rate of 0.06 cfs. During the brief period of minimal flows, no inflection point was observed indicating there was likely no connectivity of flow from the entire Sepulveda Canyon drainage area. The onset of flow originated after the event was greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event and the flows likely originated from a small portion of the surrounding drainage area, rather than the entirety of Sepulveda Canyon. The cumulative rainfall and flow hydrograph are provided in Figure 6.

The second rainfall event that generated flow on December 29-30, 2021 was greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches and greater than the 95th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 2.0 inches. The total rainfall for the first 24 hours of the storm was 2.47 inches and the total rainfall for the 32 hour event was 3.07 inches. The first 24 hours of the storm event was calculated based on the rainfall observed from December 29, 2021 at 10:53 a.m. through December 30, 2021 at 10:53 a.m. The ten hours prior to December 29, 2021 at 10:53 a.m. received less than a tenth of an inch (0.03 inches). The onset of flow attributed to 279
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 6 of 14 ends

the entire Sepulveda Canyon drainage area commenced following 1.59 inches of rainfall within 24 hours (Figure 7). An initial period of flow similar in magnitude to the flow observed the December 23-24, 2021 storm event was observed for approximately four hours. Based on the magnitude of initial flow rates observed, the first four hours of flow likely originated from a small portion of the surrounding drainage area, rather than the entirety of Sepulveda Canyon. The total volume of flow recorded in the first four hours prior to the storm event reached the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches was approximately 400 cubic feet with a peak flow rate of 0.18 cfs. This volume represents 0.35 percent of the total storm event volume and indicates the canyon likely retained the volume of flow generated up to the 85th percentile, 24- hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches. Flows of similar magnitude continued for approximately three additional hours until the flow rates increased significantly when event rainfall total reached 1.59 inches, as indicated by the inflection point on the hydrograph (Figure 7). The total volume of flow recorded prior to inflection point (up to 1.59 inches of rainfall within 24 hours) was approximately 2,300 cubic feet with a peak flow rate of 0.37 cfs, which represents

2.0 percent of the total storm event volume. The month to date rainfall total for December at the time the storm flows increased significantly was 5.10 inches (Figure 5). The inflection point likely indicates the point at which the observed flows were due to connectivity from the entire Sepulveda Canyon drainage area. The total volume of the flow recorded following the inflection point at

1.59 inches of rainfall was approximately 115,000 cubic feet with a peak flow rate of 18.04 cfs, which can likely be attributed to the entire Sepulveda Canyon drainage area. Photographs are provided in Figure 4 and the cumulative rainfall and flow hydrograph are provided in Figure 7. 280
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 7 of 14 ends

Figure 4. Continuous Flow Monitoring Location During 12/30/2021 Storm Event 281
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 8 of 14 ends

Figure 5. Cumulative Rainfall and Flow Hydrograph for December 2021 282
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 9 of 14 ends

Figure 6. Cumulative Rainfall and Flow Hydrograph December 23-24, 2021 283
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 10 of 14 ends

Figure 7. Cumulative Rainfall and Flow Hydrograph December 29-30, 2021 284
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 11 of 14 ends

HISTORICAL RAINFALL
A summary of the historical rainfall records for Rolling Hills between October 2016 through April 2022 are summarized in the following figures. Figure 8 provides a summary of all of the storm events greater than or equal to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. A total of 17 storm events greater than or equal to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event have occurred near Sepulveda Canyon since October 2016 and the December 29-30, 2021 event had the second largest 24-hour rainfall total (2.47 inches). Figure 9 provides a summary of the monthly rainfall totals (OctoberApril) for each wet weather season. December 2021 was the wettest December and the third wettest month since October 2016 (over a six-year period).

Figure 8. Storm Events Exceeding 85th Percentile, 24-hour Storm from October 2016 through April 2022
285
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 12 of 14 ends

Figure 9. Monthly Rainfall Totals from October 2016 through April 2022 October November December January February March April
2016-2017 0.69 1.51 2.89 7.47 5.27 0.05 0.04
2017-2018 0.11 0.52 0.06 1.20 0.71 2.34 0.21
2018-2019 0.60 1.30 1.73 7.38 4.90 2.71 0.08
2019-2020 0.03 1.37 3.01 0.58 0.56 3.29 2.94
2020-2021 0.00 0.10 1.21 1.69 0.00 1.39 0.00
2021-2022 0.56 0.04 6.60 0.01 0.08 1.03 0.10

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 Total Rainfall (inches)
286
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 13 of 14 ends

CONCLUSIONS
Continuous flow monitoring was conducted in Sepulveda Canyon over the course of two wet weather seasons from October 26, 2020 through April 30, 2022 to determine if Sepulveda Canyon effectively retains the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. The results of the continuous flow monitoring data demonstrate that Sepulveda Canyon effectively retained all storm events from October 26, 2020 through April 30, 2022 that were less than or equal to the 85th percentile, 24- hour storm event. The following key takeaways are provided below:
• Sepulveda Canyon effectively retained the volume of flow generated by all storm events during the 2020-2021 wet season, including two storm events greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.
• Sepulveda Canyon effectively retained the volume of flow generated by all storm events that occurred during the 2021-2022 wet season less than or equal to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.
• A brief period of flow was observed during the December 23-24, 2021 storm event that was greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches. The onset of flow commenced following 1.2 inches of rainfall within 24 hours and the flows likely originated from a small portion of the surrounding drainage area, rather than the entirety of Sepulveda Canyon. The total rainfall for the first 24 hours of the storm was 1.4 inches and the total rainfall for the event was 1.6 inches. • Flow was observed during the December 29-30, 2021 storm event that was greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches and greater than the 95th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 2.0 inches. The onset of flow from the entire Sepulveda Canyon drainage area commenced following 1.59 inches of rainfall within 24 hours. The total rainfall for the first 24 hours of the storm was 2.47 inches and the total rainfall for the 32 hour event was 3.07 inches.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this Sepulveda Canyon Rainfall and Flow Technical Memorandum.

For and on behalf of NV5,
Garth R. Engelhorn
Water Resources Sr. Consultant/Project Manager
287
Sepulveda Canyon Continuous Flow Technical Memorandum

Page 14 of 14 ends

Attachments
Attachment 1 – Continuous Flow Monitoring Data (Excel)
Funding for this study has been provided in full or in part from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s Safe, Clean Water Program.
288
Attachment 1
Continuous Flow Data (Excel)
289
| Page

3.5.2 85TH PERCENTILE, 24-HOUR RUNOFF RETENTION AREAS
As provided in Order R4-2021-0105 Part IX.A.4.k., Watershed Management Programs may demonstrate that strategies, control measures, and BMPs cumulatively retain the runoff volume from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event for the drainage area tributary to the applicable receiving water and for such areas an RAA is not required. Furthermore, as provided in Order R4-2021-0105 Part X.B.2.b.iii., a Permittee is deemed in compliance with final WQBELs and receiving water limitations if it has retained all conditionally exempt, non-essential non-stormwater and all stormwater runoff up to and including the volume equivalent to the 85th percentile, 24-hour event for the drainage area tributary to the applicable receiving water provided the Permittee is implementing all actions and schedules in an approved Watershed Management Program. Watershed areas that fully retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour runoff volume and were excluded from the RAA analysis are shown in Figure 3.12 and described in the subsequent narrative.

Figure 3-1 85th Percentile, 24-Hour Runoff Retention Areas Excluded from RAA 290
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
| Page

ROLLING HILLS NATURE-BASED RUNOFF RETENTION AREA
The City of Rolling Hills (Rolling Hills) is a small, entirely residential semi-rural community of single-family homes with fewer than 2,000 residents in three square miles. By design, it is a model of low-impact development utilizing nature-based solutions for management of stormwater. Its zoning code includes strict standards for development ratios on each property and limits disturbed area during development.

A substantial area of land in Rolling Hills is constrained from development due to steep hillsides and canyons; the use of these areas as wildlife habitat and for native vegetation is emphasized. Rolling Hills’ zoning code further promotes the preservation and appreciation of open space by requiring easements for equestrian/hiking trails on all lots. There are approximately 30 miles of unpaved equestrian/hiking trails throughout the city.1
Under Rolling Hills municipal code2
, only 40% of the net area of a residential lot may be disturbed during construction and the remaining area of the lot must remain in its natural, pre-development state. Only 35% of the net lot area may be developed with impervious surfaces, including structures, patios, and other paved areas. Given that the minimum lot size in Rolling Hills is 1 acre, with many substantially larger lots, the limitation on lot coverage preserves significant permeable area throughout the city. Additionally, driveways may not cover more than 20% of the area of the yard in which they are located, and uncovered motor courts/parking pads may not cover more than 10% of the yard in which they are located.

Roads within the City have many green street features. They are designed as narrow, two-lane undivided winding roads 20 to 25 feet wide with rolling to steep grades lined with significant naturalized landscaping.

There are no sidewalks or curb-and-gutter systems, and roads are not designed to be stormwater conveyance systems.3
Stormwater run-off that is not contained on properties is conveyed through Rolling Hills via natural, soft bottom, vegetated drainage courses/canyons (see Figure 3-13), providing disconnection of impervious developed areas and ample opportunity for natural bioretention and infiltration as described in Section

2.3.1: Pollutant Fate and Transport Mechanisms within the Watershed. There is limited public infrastructure and no city-owned or maintained storm drains, roads, sidewalks, or curb-and-gutter, though there are some limited, discontinuous drainage improvements owned/operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD).
1 City of Rolling Hills 1990. General Plan – Land Use Element. June 25, 1990. 2 Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Title 17
https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO 3 City of Rolling Hills 1990. General Plan – Circulation Element. June 25, 1990. 291
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
| Page
Figure 3-13 Rolling Hills Nature-Based Stormwater Runoff Retention Area The net effect of Rolling Hills’ planning and land development standards along with its extensive network of natural canyon drainage systems is to promote retention and infiltration, creating a system of naturebased solutions for stormwater management. Along with the Minimum Control Measures, NonStormwater Discharge Measures, and Targeted Non-Structural Control Measures described in Sections

3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, this system of nature-based runoff retention measures effectively retains runoff from the 85%, 24-hr rain event within Rolling Hills as demonstrated through monitoring.

Continuous flow monitoring was conducted in Sepulveda Canyon in Rolling Hills for two completeover the course of the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 wet-weather seasons, from October 26, 2020 through April 2022.

The results of the continuous flow monitoring data demonstrate that Sepulveda Canyon effectively retained runoff from all storm events between October 26, 2020 and April 30, 2022 that were less than or equal to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. Sepulveda Canyon is the largest canyon system within the Machado Lake tributary area of City, and the second largest in the City as a whole. It extends from the top of the Palos Verdes Peninsula at the drainage divide between the Machado Lake and Santa Monica Bay watersheds, running northward to the City’s northern boundary. Sepulveda Canyon consists 292
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
| Page
of approximately 280 acres lying entirely within Rolling Hills with tributary land use representative of the City as a whole.

The continuous flow monitoring was conducted using an ultra-sonic sensor and data logger within a culvert at the Middleridge Road crossing (33.773522, -118.348538), which is an accessible location near the bottom of the canyon suitable for flow monitoring.

The continuous flow monitoring yielded the following key conclusions:
• No dry weather flows were observed.
• Sepulveda Canyon effectively retained the volume of flow generated by all storm events during the 2020-2021 wet season, including two storm events greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.
• Sepulveda Canyon effectively retained the volume of flow generated by all storm events that occurred during the 2021-2022 wet season less than or equal to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.
• A brief period of flow was observed during the December 23-24, 2021 storm event that was greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches. The onset of flow commenced following 1.2 inches of rainfall within 24 hours and the flows likely originated from a small portion of the surrounding drainage area, rather than the entirety of Sepulveda Canyon. The total rainfall for the first 24 hours of the storm was 1.4 inches and the total rainfall for the event was 1.6 inches.
• Flow was observed during the December 29-30, 2021 storm event that was greater than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 1.0 inches and greater than the 95th percentile, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth of 2.0 inches. The onset of flow from the entire Sepulveda Canyon drainage area commenced following 1.59 inches of rainfall within 24 hours. The total rainfall for the first 24 hours of the storm was 2.47 inches and the total rainfall for the 32-hour event was 3.07 inches.

No flow was recorded by the Sepulveda Canyon monitoring equipment during two complete wet seasons except for during one intense rain event that occurred from December 29 - 30, 2021. Monthly visual field inspections conducted between November 2020 and June 2021 confirmed the absence of flows and documented the site conditions during storm events. In Rolling Hills the 85th %, 24-hr rain event ranges from 1.0 - 1.1 inches, depending on location. From October 26, 2020, through April 30, 2022, there were four (4) rainfall events greater than or equal to (≧) the 85th%, 24-hr event with numerous lesser rainfall events occurring. No flow was measured at the Sepulveda Canyon monitoring station during three of the ≧85th%, 24-hr rain events which ranged from 1.13 to 1.38 inches of rainfall, nor was any flow measured during the smaller rain events. The fourth large rain event, which occurred from December 29-30, 2021, was more intense and more than twice the 85th% 24-hour storm depth; the LA County rain gauge at the Rolling Hills Fire Station recorded 2.36 inches in the 24-hour period from 10am on December 29th through 10am on December 30th, 2021, which was in excess of the 95%, 24-hour storm depth. In total, the Rolling Hills Fire Station rain gauge recorded more than 3 inches for that entire rain event which spanned 31 hours and produced flow at the Sepulveda Canyon monitoring station beginning approximately 14 hours after the rain event began. That rainfall event provides an estimate of the upper bound on the retentive capacity of runoff retention in Rolling Hills. The no-flow results observed during the three other ≧85th%, Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
293
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
| Page
24-hr rainfall events as well as the numerous smaller rainfall events that occurred throughout the monitoring period provide evidence that the strategies, control measures and BMPs implemented by Rolling Hills cumulatively retain stormwater runoff up to and including runoff from the 85th percentile, 24- hour storm event, as well as any conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges. 294
| Page

Figure 3-1 85th Percentile, 24-Hour Runoff Retention Areas Excluded from RAA 295
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
| Page

2.3.1: Pollutant Fate and Transport Mechanisms within the Watershed. There is limited public infrastructure and no city-owned or maintained storm drains, roads, sidewalks, or curb-and-gutter, though there are some limited, discontinuous drainage improvements owned/operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD).
1 City of Rolling Hills 1990. General Plan – Land Use Element. June 25, 1990. 2 Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Title 17
https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO 3 City of Rolling Hills 1990. General Plan – Circulation Element. June 25, 1990. 296
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
| Page
Figure 3-13 Rolling Hills Nature-Based Stormwater Runoff Retention Area The net effect of Rolling Hills’ planning and land development standards along with its extensive network of natural canyon drainage systems is to promote retention and infiltration, creating a system of naturebased solutions for stormwater management. Along with the Minimum Control Measures, NonStormwater Discharge Measures, and Targeted Non-Structural Control Measures described in Sections

3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, this system of nature-based runoff retention measures effectively retains runoff from the 85%, 24-hr rain event within Rolling Hills as demonstrated through monitoring.

Continuous flow monitoring was conducted in Sepulveda Canyon in Rolling Hills over the course of the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 wet-weather seasons. The results of the continuous flow monitoring data demonstrate that Sepulveda Canyon effectively retained runoff from all storm events between October 26, 2020 and April 30, 2022 that were less than or equal to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.

Sepulveda Canyon is the largest canyon system within the Machado Lake tributary area of City, and the second largest in the City as a whole. It extends from the top of the Palos Verdes Peninsula at the drainage divide between the Machado Lake and Santa Monica Bay watersheds, running northward to the City’s northern boundary. Sepulveda Canyon consists of approximately 280 acres lying entirely within Rolling Hills with tributary land use representative of the City as a whole. The continuous flow monitoring was conducted using an ultra-sonic sensor and data logger within a culvert at the Middleridge Road crossing 297
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
| Page
(33.773522, -118.348538), which is an accessible location near the bottom of the canyon suitable for flow monitoring.

DATE: June 27, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On May 23, 2022 the City Council held a budget workshop to review the draft proposed 2022/23 budget which was reviewed by the City Council Finance/Budget/Audit committee on May 9, 2021. The Proposed FY 2022/23 Budget was reviewed in detail:

City Council reviewed the General Fund FY 2022/23 draft proposed budget as presented.

City Council reviewed the Other Funds FY 2022/23 draft proposed budget as presented.

The Council directed staff to schedule a follow-up Finance/Budget/Audit Committee meeting for further evaluation, to identify potential savings, and discuss further cuts in the core budget that would bring it closer to balance, including potential one-time capital costs. That meeting was held on May 31, 2022.

The budget serves as the City’s roadmap for allocating resources. The budget is a resource allocation plan for providing city services and achieving the priorities and goals that serve residents and the public. Importantly, the budget also represents the projections necessary for managing and monitoring annual revenue and expenditures in a fiscally responsible manner.

The preparation of the fiscal year (FY) involves numerous steps.

The steps in the budget process, to date, have included:

1. January 10, 2022 – City Council received, reviewed and approved the FY 2022/23 budget calendar.

2. March 14, 2022 – City Council received and reviewed the FY 2020/21 mid-year budget 299
report and approved the recommended budget adjustments.

3. April 11, 2022 – City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee reviewed the audited Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 and personnel cost impacts related to contract services and reclassification of position.

4. April 25, 2022 – City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee reviewed Financial and Investment Policies; and reviewed and discussed the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

5. May 9, 2022 – City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee reviewed the FY 2022/23 staff proposed budget.

6. May 23, 2022 – City Council Budget Workshop reviewed FY 2022/23 staff proposed budget as presented to the Finance/Audit Committee.

7. May 31, 2022 – City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee reviewed revisions to the FY 2021/22 staff proposed budget.

8. June 13, 2022 City Council public hearing, adoption of the FY 2022/23 budget, and approval of GANN Limit.

DISCUSSION:

On Monday, May 9, 2022, staff presented the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget to the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee for their feedback and direction. At that time, the proposed General Fund operating budget was not balanced, requiring the use of General Fund reserves to correct. The Finance Committee directed staff to identify measures to balance the operating budget and to identify any one-time operating costs in order to measure the true ongoing deficit.

On May 23, 2022, staff presented to the City Council the same proposed General Fund operating budget, with one-time costs separated from the ongoing core operational budget. As a result, the ongoing operating deficit was reduced to $480,984. In addition, staff identified potential balancing options for Council to consider that, if implemented, would eliminate the projected deficit.

Council considered the proposed budget as presented and directed staff to bring the information back to the Finance Committee for further review and direction. In addition, Council provided the following feedback:

1. Staff should recommend which balancing measures to implement that either entirely close the deficit or comes reasonably close;

2. Do not include any operational cost recovery balancing measures that increase fees; or

3. Consider increasing the assumed growth rates for property taxes and real property tax revenues
Based on the feedback and direction received from Council, staff has developed a proposed General Fund budget that is balanced through a combination of increased revenues and the prudent use of reserves.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO REVENUE ESTIMATES
Staff is recommending increasing the fiscal year 2022-23 projections for property taxes and real property taxes as described below.

Property Taxes - Based on the amounts recently received in April and May, we have a better estimate of fiscal year 2021/22 revenues, which staff has adjusted (increased) by 300
$62,750 to $1,344,535. This represents a 9.9% growth from fiscal year 2020/21. In addition, based on Council's feedback that the fiscal year 2022/23 growth rate assumption may be too conservative, staff has increased the growth rate assumption from 4% to 6%. While this growth assumption is more aggressive, staff is comfortable with this assumed growth rate. As a result, the revised fiscal year 2022/23 projected revenue has been increased by a total of $92,207.

Real Property Transfer Tax - Staff has not received any additional information to warrant adjusting the current year estimate; however, staff recommends increasing the fiscal year 2022/23 growth rate from 2% to 4%. This increases the projected fiscal year 2022/23 projection by $1,205, from $121,500 to $122,705.

RECOMMENDED BALANCING MEASURES
The ongoing General Fund operating deficit presented to the Budget Committee and City Council of $480,984. Based on the revised revenue estimates, which have provided additional estimated revenues of $93,412, the operating deficit has been reduced to $387,571.

Staff has identified two revenues totaling $235,682 to address a portion of the deficit.

ARPA revenues of $220,682
Recovering publication costs associated with development projects, estimated at $15,000
Staff recommends using $151,889 of reserves to address the remaining deficit.

PROPOSED CAPITAL PROGRAM AND ONE-TIME COSTS
Staff recommends the following capital program elements totaling $396,000:

1. City Hall ADA Improvements ($96,000) - City Council already approved contract with Pacific Architecture and Engineers to perform the work. This is a priority established by the City Council at the 2022 strategic planning session.

2. Outdoor Siren System - Design ($25,000) - This project is intended to notify the community of emergencies, in the event of complete power failure. Emergency preparedness is a priority established by the City Council at the 2020 and 2022 strategic planning session. Block Captains are advocating for this project. The design fee estimate is from HQE System.

3. Outdoor Siren System - Construction ($275,000) - This project is intended to notify the community of emergencies, in the event of complete power failure. Emergency preparedness is a priority established by the City Council at the 2020 and 2022 strategic planning session. Block Captains are advocating for this project. The estimated construction cost is from the feasibility study from HQE System.

Staff recommends deferring the City Hall Improvements Project ($1,000,000) and the Tennis Courts ADA Improvements Project ($300,000) until fiscal year 2023/24.

In addition to the capital program, staff recommends two one-time costs totaling $90,000 that would also be funded from available General Fund reserves. 301

1. Contract Management ($45,000) - These budgeted funds would cover the cost of a hired consultant to manage the various capital projects underway and proposed for next fiscal year.

2. Housing Element ($45,000) - In May 2022, Council directed staff to redo the environmental document that supports the Housing Element and send the Housing Element to HCD for a second round of review. Initially, both documents were expected to be adopted in FY2021-22.

OVERALL GENERAL FUND BUDGET
The proposed General Fund includes a total of $2,880,273 in ongoing operating expenditures, funded from $2,7,28,384 in revenues, leaving a deficit of $151,889 to be funded from available reserves. An additional $90,000 in one-time operating costs and $396,000 in capital costs are proposed, both of which would be funded from one-time reserves.

Estimated General Fund reserve balances at June 30, 2022 are $4,988,486. Based on the proposed budget, General Fund reserves would drop to $4,350,597, representing a healthy 151% of the operating budget.

OTHER FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Majority of the restricted funds such as Proposition C, Measure R, Measure M, and Measure A are expected to roll the revenue to future years to save up for eligible projects. The following summarizes the anticipated activities of the other restricted funds for next fiscal year:

Measure W's expenditure plan for FY 2022-2023 was previously approved by the City Council in March 2022 and submitted to the Los Angeles County for approval. It is anticipated that $80,000 of Measure W would be spent on eligible storm water compliance measures.

The City of Beverly Hills expressed interest in $58,400 of Prop A exchange.

The Capital Projects Fund includes $96,000 for Pacific Architecture Engineers' design fee recently approved by the City Council for the development of layout Option 3, $300,000 for an Outdoor Siren System including design and construction.

The Refuse Fund anticipates absorbing the expected refuse rate increase for residents funded from a General Fund transfer of $168,500.

The City anticipates receiving $165,000 in COPs revenue from the state which will be used for supplemental law enforcement services.

As required by law, notice of this public hearing was posted and advertised. In addition, as is the City’s practice, this hearing was referenced in the draft agenda included in the City newsletter published prior to this meeting and the agenda was emailed to residents who subscribe to the City’s list serve.

The overall financial position of the City’s General Fund remains strong with a projected yearend Unassigned Fund Balance of $4,988,486 at June 30, 2022. The City staff works diligently on providing outstanding government services that will keep the quality of life good for the residents of Rolling Hills. It is now recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the budget and appropriations limit as proposed. If changes in the budget are necessary during the fiscal year, staff will return to the City Council for consideration and approval of the modifications.
302
FISCAL IMPACT:

The budget is a resource allocation plan for providing city services and achieving the priorities and goals that serve residents and the public funded from a variety of revenues. The provision of these services involves the expenditure of resources derived a variety of revenue streams.

A summary of the proposed revenues and expenditures are summarized in the attachments to this report.

RECOMMENDATION:

Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget for all the City’s Funds and the Annual Appropriations Limit.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220613_General Fund Revenues.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_General Fund Expenditures.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_One-Time Costs.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_Balancing Measures.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_GF Sources and Uses of Funds.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_Other Funds.pdf
ResolutionNo1300_FY2022-23_AdoptedBudget.pdf
ResolutionNo1301_FY2022-23_AppropLimit.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_CC_Item12A_PublicComment_01.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_CC_Item12A_PublicComment_02.pdf
CL_AGN_220627_CC_Budget_StaffPresentation.pdf
303
FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 Adopted Year-End FY 2023 Projected
Revenues Budget Projection Proposed Growth
Property Taxes $ 1,222,947 $ 1,249,800 $ 1,344,535 $ 1,425,207 6.0% Sales Taxes 23,262 4,800 18,550 19,300 3.0%
Property Transfer Tax 93,449 40,200 117,986 122,706 4.0% Disaster Grants 50,000 20,000 13,040 - N/A
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 236,725 246,100 246,694 252,000 2.0% Building & Other Permits 183,378 300,000 472,969 475,000 Flat Variance, Planning & Zoning 49,158 22,000 19,461 20,000 Flat Cost Recoivery - Publications - - - 15,000 N/A
Animal Control Fees 472 1,000 213 250 Flat
Franchise Fees 10,753 14,900 13,699 14,000 Flat
Fines & Traffic Violations 4,293 14,300 4,950 4,500 Flat RHCA Lease Revenue 68,988 68,000 68,991 69,000 Flat
Interest on Investments 90,251 80,000 30,227 60,239 N/A Public Safety Aug Fund 1,003 800 1,193 1,000 Flat
Burglar Alarm Response 500 600 - 500 Flat
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,275 37,800 36,000 5,000 Flat
Transfer In - ARPA Fund - - 220,682 220,682 N/A
Transfers In - Refuse Fund 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 Flat TOTALS $ 2,062,454 $ 2,124,300 $ 2,633,189 $ 2,728,384

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Revenues
304
305
Adopted Year-End
Budget Projections Ongoing One-Time Total
01 - CITY ADMINISTRATOR
702 Salaries -Full Time $ 429,100 $ 408,639 $ 474,258 $ - $ 474,258 710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 29,000 36,431 39,769 - 39,769 712 CalPERS Unfunded Liability 59,026 57,063 65,095 - 65,095 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 7,700 7,271 8,100 - 8,100 716 Group Insurance 55,000 76,111 71,316 - 71,316
717 Retiree Medical 30,300 37,159 35,231 - 35,231
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 28,400 25,071 36,997 - 36,997 719 Deferred Compensation 4,300 3,732 4,559 - 4,559
720 Auto Allowance 4,800 5,067 4,800 - 4,800
XXX Phone Allowance 1,300 - 1,970 - 1,970
740 Office Supplies 38,040 25,184 11,000 - 11,000
745 Equipment Leasing Costs 14,850 11,048 11,450 - 11,450 750 Dues & Subscriptions 15,240 4,596 16,240 - 16,240
755 Conference Expense 10,000 9,052 10,000 - 10,000
757 Meetings Expense 2,000 3,357 2,000 - 2,000
759 Training & Education 5,000 - 5,000 - 5,000
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures
Department/Object Account
FY 2021-22
1 Page: 1306
Adopted Year-End
Budget Projections Ongoing One-Time Total
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures
Department/Object Account
FY 2021-22
761 Auto Mileage 500 - 500 - 500
765 Postage 20,000 12,468 21,000 - 21,000
770 Telephone 5,700 5,959 - - -
775 City Council Expense 10,000 2,440 10,000 - 10,000
776 Miscellaneous Expenses - 564 6,200 - 6,200
780 Communications/Newsletters and Outreach 6,000 3,007 5,000 - 5,000 785 Codification 5,000 3,749 5,000 - 5,000
790 Advertising 1,000 - 2,400 - 2,400
795 Other Gen Admin Expense 4,900 2,422 1,050 - 1,050
801 City Attorney 91,000 119,887 120,000 - 120,000
802 Legal Expense - Other 3,000 - 3,000 - 3,000
820 Website 6,000 12,179 6,000 - 6,000
850 Election Expense City Council - 222 15,000 - 15,000 890 Consulting Fees 161,400 69,903 - 45,000 45,000
XXX Records Management 1,700 - 1,700
955 Disaster Emergency Equipment - 2,784 - - -
Total City Administrator 1,048,556 945,366 994,635 45,000 1,039,635 2 Page: 2307
Adopted Year-End
Budget Projections Ongoing One-Time Total
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures
Department/Object Account
FY 2021-22
05 - Finance
750 Dues & Subscriptions 200 - 2,000 2,000
810 Annual Audit 17,630 17,110 18,500 18,500
890 Consulting Fees 99,500 116,167 120,000 - 120,000
Total Finance 117,330 133,277 140,500 - 140,500
15- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
702 Salaries 237,200 189,687 236,748 - 236,748
703 Salaries - Part-Time 26,587 - 26,587
710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 17,750 14,345 18,100 - 18,100 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 3,800 3,581 4,000 - 4,000 716 Group Insurance 30,900 23,162 44,275 - 44,275
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 18,790 14,663 20,237 - 20,237 719 Deferred Compensation 1,200 - - - -
720 Auto Allowance 2,400 1,467 1,200 - 1,200
XXX Phone Allowance 600 - 600 - 600
3 Page: 3308
Adopted Year-End
Budget Projections Ongoing One-Time Total
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures
Department/Object Account
FY 2021-22
758 Planning Commission Meetting - 1,415 - - -
761 Auto Mileage - 50 300 - 300
770 Telephone - 1,281 - - -
776 Miscellaneous Expense 2,000 1,301 - - -
750 Dues & Subscription 850 - 1,000 - 1,000
755 Conference Expense 5,000 - 5,000 - 5,000
759 Training & Education 1,000 - 1,000 - 1,000
790 Publication - 3,208 15,000 - 15,000
801 City Attorney - 811 - - -
802 Legal Expenses-Other - 23,169 20,000 - 20,000
872 Property Development-Legal Exp 100,000 33,336 80,000 - 80,000 878 Build Inspect. LA County 150,000 191,785 150,000 - 150,000 xxx Willdan Building 50,000 - 50,000
881 Storm Water Management 275,800 231,435 97,142 - 97,142 882 Variance & CUP Expense 7,000 10,613 - - -
884 Special Project Study & Consulting 180,000 79,584 20,000 45,000 65,000 886 Consulting Fees - - 87,880 - 87,880
4 Page: 4309
Adopted Year-End
Budget Projections Ongoing One-Time Total
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures
Department/Object Account
FY 2021-22
950 Capital Outlay 26,400 - - - -
Total Planning & Development 1,060,690 824,891 879,069 45,000 924,069 25 - Public Safety
830 Law Enforcement 220,380 181,251 225,000 - 225,000
833 Other Law Enforcement Expenses 3,000 3,651 4,000 - 4,000 837 Wild Life Mgmt & Pest Control 50,000 1,883 10,000 - 10,000 838 Animal Control Expense 6,000 4,398 6,000 - 6,000
Total Public Safety 279,380 191,183 245,000 - 245,000
65 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL
895 Insurance & Bond Expense 30,260 21,816 29,657 - 29,657 901 South Bay Comm. Organization 20,100 4,017 15,000 - 15,000 915 Community Recognition 16,000 5,624 20,000 - 20,000
916 Civil Defense Expense 650 - - - -
917 Emergency Preparedness 137,360 195,894 188,200 - 188,200 985 Contingency 25,000 - - - -
5 Page: 5310
Adopted Year-End
Budget Projections Ongoing One-Time Total
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures
Department/Object Account
FY 2021-22
Total Non-Departmental 229,370 227,351 252,857 - 252,857 75 - CITY PROPERTIES
925 Utilities 33,810 35,493 85,212 - 85,212
930 Repairs & Maintenance 36,963 26,793 35,000 - 35,000 932 Area Landscaping 28,500 12,760 12,500 - 12,500
XXX Capital Outlay - Buildings & Equip 250,000 - - - -
XXX IT Services - - 54,000 - 54,000
XXX Granicus Services - - 8,000 - 8,000
XXX Computer Hardware Fund - - 5,000 - 5,000
Total City Properties 349,273 75,046 199,712 - 199,712
TOTALS BEFORE TRANSFERS 3,084,599 2,397,113 2,711,773 90,000 2,801,773

OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT
699 Traffic Safety Fund 10,000 10,000 - - -
CalOES Fund 80,875 82,152 - - -
6 Page: 6311
Adopted Year-End
Budget Projections Ongoing One-Time Total
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures
Department/Object Account
FY 2021-22
Capital Improvement Fund 88,000 87,238 - 396,000 396,000 Refuse Collection Fund 159,200 159,200 168,500 - 168,500 Total Transfers Out 338,075 338,590 168,500 396,000 564,500 GENERAL FUND TOTALS $ 3,422,674 $ 2,735,703 $ 2,880,273 $ 486,000 $ 3,366,273 7 Page: 7312
Description Recomm'd Not Recomm'd Expected Impacts
Records Management (Ref Acct: 01-xxx) - 45,000 City Hall is overcrowded with hardcopy files, and records from years of accumulation. There are insufficient space to house all the records and personnel. Aside from space constraints, files are not easily accessible, and filing convention are not consistent rendering tremendous inefficiencies when searching for documents. While solid efforts have been made toward digitizing the Planning Department in the last two years, there remains considerable files in other departments that need the same treatment to gain efficiency at City Hall. Without funds for records managment in FY 22-23, space constraints
continue to be an issue, and the inability to pull necessary historical records to meet business needs.

Project Management, Capital Projects (Ref
Acct: 01-890)
45,000 - Expense is related to project management for captial improvement projects by Alan Palermo Consulting Inc. If the services of APC is not used in FY 22-23, progress of the two utility undergrounding projects could be adversely impacted with added workload distributed among the existing staff.

Grant writer to pursue construction funds for
8" sewer main project (Ref Acct: 01-890
- 17,000 Expense related to a grant writing contract to pursue construction funding for 8" sewer main project. The 8" sewer main project has been designed in its entire length. Without the pursuit of grant funds for contruction, the investment in the the design plans will not be leveraged, and additional funds are needed to update design plans. Additionally,
potentially the capacity in the downstream sewer lines
secured through the Will Serve letters from the County could be taken by other developments.

Fiscal Year 2022-23

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of One-Time Costs
313
Description Recomm'd Not Recomm'd Expected Impacts
Fiscal Year 2022-23
General Plan Update (Ref Acct: 15-884) - 105,000 The City's General Plan is dated 1990. The safety and land use elements have recently been updated and the housing element is in the process of being updated. Updating the remaining elements is advised since all elements must be internally consistent. This was a point made by the City's consultants. Delay in updating the General Plan could
potential cause third party lawsuits.

Housing Element and Environmental Review
Ref (Acct: 15-XXX)
45,000 In May 2022, Council directed staff to redo the environmental document that supports the Housing Element and send the Housing Element to HCD for a second round of review.

Initially, both documents were expected to be adopted in FY2021-22.

Expanded Information Technology (IT)
Services (Ref Acct: 75-xxx)
- 8,866 Covers upgraded hardware including New Switch, Wireless Access Points, and firewall improvements. Certain offices in City Hall do have strong internet connections as the current set up is a hodgepodge of equipment strung together to
respond to immediate needs. Without the upgrades,
inefficiencies in the workflow for certain staff will continue.

Agenda management system - Granicus -
Upgrade (Acct Ref: 75-xxx)
- 19,400 This amount covers hardware upgrades as part of our current renewal and possibility of hiring them to design a new
website.
$ 90,000 $ 195,266
314
Description Amount Impact
Use of one-time ARPA revenues $ 220,682 No impact
Cost recover publication expenses associated with
development projects.
15,000 Financial burden on development
applicants.

Fund deficit using reserves 151,889 Short term solution, reducing rainy day fund.
$ 387,571
Eliminate funding of contracted part-time Code
Enforcement services
$ 87,880 Workload will be spread among the current
positions, prolonging the processing of
cases, reducing productivity on all other
positions, and reducing the overall service
level to residents.

Delay fire fuel abatement in the Preserve slated for
FY 22-23 to future years when projected revenue is
more aligned with projected expenditures.
82,000 Not leverage the fire fuel abatement work
performed to date and will not diminish risk
of wildfires originating from the Preserve.

Reduce Block Captain Program 25,000 Block captains
Reinstate building permit multiplier to 2.5% pre FY18-
19 level. Multiplier was reduced to 2.25%
commencing in FY 2018-2019.
20,000 - 75,000 Financial burden on development
applicants. Revenue level depends on the
level of building activities.

Cost recover staff time on processing development
applications.
30,000 - 50,000 Financial burden on development
applicants. Could deter development
activities and or improve submittal quality
and ultimately improve efficiency on the
developers' activities.

Eliminate funding for Community Recognition 20,000 Impact to community.

Eliminate Repairs & Maint 35,000 Deferring capital that may result in increased costs in the future.
$299,880 - $374,880

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Schedule of Proposed Options for Balancing the General Fund Ongoing Budget Fiscal Year 2022-23
Proposed for Adoption
Not Recommended
315
Operations
Operating Revenues - Ongoing $ 2,728,384
Operating Expenditures - Ongoing (2,880,273)
Operating Deficit - Use of Reserves (151,889)
Capital Program
Outdoor Siren System - Design (25,000)
Outdoor Siren System - Construction (275,000)
City Hall ADA Improvements - Design (96,000)
Total Capital Program (Funded from Reserves) (396,000)
One-Time Costs
Capital Project Contract Management (45,000)
Completing the Housing Element (45,000)
Total One-Time Costs (90,000)
TOTAL ESTIMATED USE OF RESERVES - FY 2023 (637,889)
Estimated Reserves at June 30, 2022 4,988,486
Estimated Reserves at June 30, 2023 $ 4,350,597

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Sources and Uses of Funds

GENERAL FUND
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Adopted
316
317
FY 2022
Adopted Amended Year-End FY 2023
Budget Budget Projection Proposed
10 - COPS FUND
Revenues
COPS Allocation $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 165,000 $ 165,000 Expenditures
COPS Program Expenditures 160,000 160,000 165,000 165,000 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ -
11 - CLEEP FUND
Revenues
Interest Earned $ 50 $ 50 $ 40 $ 25
Expenditures
CLEEP Technology Program 1,100 1,100 2,000 1,200
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (1,050) $ (1,050) $ (1,960) $ (1,175) 13 - TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
Revenues
Transfers In - General Fund $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 4,390 $ - Expenditures
Road Striping - Delineators 10,000 10,000 4,390 -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ -

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Proposed Revenues and Expenditures
Other Funds
1 318
FY 2022
Adopted Amended Year-End FY 2023
Budget Budget Projection Proposed
15 - ARPA FUND
Revenues
American Rescue Plan Act $ - $ 220,682 $ 220,682
Expenditures
Transfers Out to General Fund - - 220,682 220,682
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ -
16 - CAL OES FUND
Revenues
Crest Road FEMA Grant - 4434-526-112R $ - $ 1,145,487 $ 7,500 $ - Veg. Mgmnt FEMA Grant - HMGP-4382-175-13R - 242,625 82,500 - Eastfield U/Grounding FEMA DR-4382-177-7R-CA - 1,971,882 - - Safety Element Disaster Grants - DR 4344 PL0521 - - 17,091 - Transfers In - General Fund - Safety Element - - 5,697 - Transfers In - Utility Fund - 4434-526-112R - 381,819 2,500 - Transfers In - Utility Fund - DR4382-177-7R - 657,294 - Transfers In - General Fund - HMGP-4382-175-13R - 80,875 80,875 - Total Revenues - 4,479,982 196,163 -
Expenditures
Crest Road East Project - 4434-526-112R - 1,527,306 10,000 - Eastfield Drive Utility U.G. - 4382-177-7R - 2,629,176 - - Safety Element DR4344-PL0521 - - 22,788 -
Veg. Mgmt Mitig. Proj. - HMGP-4382-175-13R - 323,500 110,000 Total Expenditures - 4,479,982 142,788 -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 53,375 $ -
2 319
FY 2022
Adopted Amended Year-End FY 2023
Budget Budget Projection Proposed
25 - PROPOSITION A FUND
Revenues
Grant Revenues $ 38,000 $ 38,000 $ 47,283 $ 45,000
Interest Earned 600 600 200 200
Total Revenues 38,600 38,600 47,483 45,200
Expenditures
Prop A Exchange - - - 58,400
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 38,600 $ 38,600 $ 47,483 $ (13,200) 26 - PROPOSITION C
Revenues
Grant Revenue-Prop C $ 31,500 $ 31,500 $ 39,221 $ 37,000 Interest Earned 650 650 200 200
Total Revenues 32,150 32,150 39,421 37,200
Expenditures
Prop C Gifted - - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 32,150 $ 32,150 $ 39,421 $ 37,200 27- MEASURE R TRANSIT
Revenues
Measure R Grant Revenues $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 29,414 $ 28,000 Interest Earned 1,000 1,000 200 200
Total Revenues 25,000 25,000 29,614 28,200
Expenditures
Measure R Gifted - - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 29,614 $ 28,200 3 320
FY 2022
Adopted Amended Year-End FY 2023
Budget Budget Projection Proposed
29 - MEASURE M
Revenues
Measure M Local Return $ 26,500 $ 26,500 $ 33,288 $ 31,000 Interest Earned 1,100 1,100 200 200
Total Revenues 27,600 27,600 33,488 31,200
Expenditures
Measure M Gifted - - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 27,600 $ 27,600 $ 33,488 $ 31,200 30 - MEASURE W
Revenues
Grant Revenues $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 104,742 $ 105,000
Interest Earned 900 900 -
Total Revenues 110,900 110,900 104,742 105,000
Expenditures
Storm Water Management 38,750 38,750 80,000 80,000
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 72,150 72,150 24,742 25,000 35 - MEASURE A
Revenues
Grant Revenue $ 26,100 $ 26,100 $ - $ -
Interest Earned 900 900 - -
Total Revenues 27,000 27,000 - -
4 321
FY 2022
Adopted Amended Year-End FY 2023
Budget Budget Projection Proposed
40 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Transfers from General Fund $ 88,000 $ 121,235 $ 121,235 $ 396,000 Expenditures
Consulting Fees - - - 96,000
1 Middleridge Lane South Storm Drain - 33,235 35,506 -
1 Middleridge Lane North Storm Drain - 48,645 51,732 -
Outdoor Siren System - Design - - - 300,000
Outdoor Siren System - Construction
Non-Building Improvements 300,000 300,000 - -
City Hall Improvements - - - -
Total Expenditures 300,000 381,880 87,238 396,000
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (212,000) (260,645) 33,997 - 41- UTILITY FUND
Revenues
Rule 20A Power Utility Credits $ 763,638 $ 1,039,113 $ 2,500 $ - Expenditures
Legal & Other Outside Counsel - - 1,452
Sewer Feasibility Study - - -
Underground Utility Project 763,638 - -
Sewer Feasibility Project - - 40,321 -
Transfers Out - Cal OES Fund - 1,039,113 2,500 -
Total Expenditures 763,638 1,039,113 41,773 -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ - (39,273) $ - 5 322
FY 2022
Adopted Amended Year-End FY 2023
Budget Budget Projection Proposed
50 - REFUSE FUND
Revenues
Construction & Demo Permits $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ 15,400 $ 20,000 Service Charges 753,500 753,500 753,504 780,000
Transfers In - General Fund 159,200 159,200 159,200 168,500 Total Revenues 936,700 936,700 928,104 968,500
Expenditures
Misc Expense - - -
Refuse Service Contract 912,700 912,700 912,700 944,500 Transfers Out 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Total Expenditures 936,700 936,700 936,700 968,500
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures - - (8,596) -
6 323
Resolution No. 1300 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 1300

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE FY 2022-
23 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BUDGET

RECITALS
A. Members of the Rolling Hills City Council opened a public hearing on Monday, June 27, 2022 to consider the recommended Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Rolling Hills Proposed Budget; and
B. Following the public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Rolling Hills Proposed Budget, members of the Rolling Hills City Council desire to adopt said document.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY MEMBERS OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Members of the City Council hereby adopt the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Rolling Hills Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Appropriations in the amount not to exceed $3,366,273.00 (budget and budget contingency) are authorized in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 General Fund Budget for the purpose of carrying on the business of the City for general government, public safety, public service, and other items.

Section 3. Appropriations in the amount not to exceed $1,889,782.00 are authorized in the various funds for carrying on the business of the City: COPs Fund, CLEEP Fund, American Rescue Plan Act Funds, Proposition A Fund, Measure W Fund, Capital Project Fund, and Refuse Funds.

Section 4. The City Manager may transfer appropriations between and among all departments, as defined in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget in order to ensure revenue and expenditures correspond to the intent of the City Council. The legal level of appropriated budgetary control, that is the level at which expenditures may not exceed appropriations, is at the department level for the General Fund and at the fund level for all other funds. Supplemental appropriations during the year must be approved by the City Council. All unexpended budgetary appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year.

Section 5. The Mayor is hereby directed to sign this Resolution, and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 2022. ____________________________________
James Black, M.D.

Mayor
324
Resolution No. 1300 -2-
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
325
Resolution No. 1300 -3-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1300 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE FY 2022-23 CITY OF ROLLING

HILLS BUDGET
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
326
Resolution No. 1300 -4-

EXHIBIT A
01 -General Fund
City Administrator $ 1,039,635
Finance 140,500
Planning & Development 924,069
Public Safety 245,000
Non-Departmental 252,857
City Properties 199,712
Transfers Out 564,500
Total General Fund $ 3,366,273
Other Funds
10 - COPs Fund $ 165,000
11 - CLEEP Fund 1,200
13 - Traffic Safety Fund -
15 - American Rescue Plan Act Fund 220,682
16 - CA Office of Emergency Fund -
25 - Proposition A Fund 58,400
26 - Proposition C Fund -
27 - Measure R Fund -
29 - Measure M Fund -
30 - Measure W Fund 80,000
35 - Measure A Fund -
40 - Capital Projects Fund 396,000
41 - Utility Fund -
50 - Refuse Fund 968,500
Total Other Funds $ 1,889,782

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget
327
Resolution No. 1301 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 1301

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING THE 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR

GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS

RECITALS
A. the City of Rolling Hills has heretofore established its Base Year Appropriations Limit as $256,941; and
B. To the best of this City's knowledge and belief, the State Department of Finance figures reflect the following statistics relevant to the calculation of the 2022-23 Fiscal Year Appropriations Limit:

California per capita personal income, 7.75% (seven point seven five percent).

Population Adjustments for City of Rolling Hills for FY 2022-23, -1.12% (negative one point twelve percent).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the foregoing figures and the provision of Article XIII B of the Constitution of the State of California, the following figure accurately represents the 2022-23 Fiscal Year Appropriation Limit of the City of Rolling Hills: $1,998,794 Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of Resolution No. 1301.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 2022. ____________________________________
James Black, M.D.

Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
328
Resolution No. 1301 -2-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1301 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING THE 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR

GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
329
From: Louis H. Altman
To: City Clerk
Subject: REVISED Letter I request be presented or read to City Council members before 6/13 meeting Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 6:46:12 AM
Members of the City Council:

I note that the proposed budget for next year includes a reduction for fire fuel of $85,000. I oppose any reduction for reducing fire fuel. If there must be a reduction, I’d prefer to see $85,000 cut from the subsidy of solid waste collection fee.

According to Orange County Fire Authority Chief Brian Fennessy, the Coastal Fire in Orange County earlier this year destroyed 20 homes. Chief Fennessy noted that humidity was over 70%, and temperatures were in the mid 70’s on the day those homes were destroyed.

Fire official from state and county agencies have emphasized the need for measures such as brush clearance and removal of flammable materials around homes.

Three days ago, the LA Times warned that residents in Southern California are facing a treacherous wildfire season this year. "Given the fuel conditions...a very tough four, five, six months in front of us." Our own Assistant Chief Brian Bennett is in the picture in the link below, far left. http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=f2f163ea-446d-40d7-b6f2- 22a7f4588e0b
I understand that some residents may not “want to be told” to clear brush and other flammable material from their properties. I also think those same residents aren’t worried that the risk of a fire that begins on their property, but spreads to other properties, could mean lawsuits that result in judgments against the homeowners who didn’t clear brush on their properties, meaning that those homeowners might lose any equity in their homes and be forced into bankruptcy.

I don’t want to see homeowners who live in my city forced into bankruptcy and lose all of the equity in their homes because a fire started from brush or flammable material that could have been easily removed from their property. But there is a huge risk to everyone in our wonderful City, especially this season, from fire.

My insurance company (Marsh/AIG) recently cancelled my homeowner’s insurance because of fire risk. I was able to get coverage from USAA, but for others, they may have to use the California FAIR Plan, a decidedly inferior and more costly option.

Lou Altman
17 Caballeros
330
331

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 13, 2022
332

INTRODUCTION
 Today we are holding a public hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget – Provides an opportunity for the public to provide input into the proposed budget
 At the end of the hearing, staff is asking Council to adopt two resolutions:
 Budget Resolution - Officially adopts the estimated revenues and appropriations for each City fund
 Gann Appropriation Limit Resolution – State law (Prop 4 and Prop 111) requires calculate our annual appropriation limit and adopt it by resolution.
 If necessary, staff can continue the public hearing to June 27th. 333

BACKGROUND
(How We Got Here)
 May 9, 2022 – City Council Finance/Budget/Audit
Committee reviewed the FY 2022/23 staff proposed
budget.
 May 23, 2022 – City Council Budget Workshop reviewed
FY 2022/23 staff proposed budget as presented to the
Finance/Audit Committee
 May 31, 2022 – City Council Finance/Budget/Audit
Committee reviewed revisions to the FY 2022/23 staff
proposed budget.
334
Directions Received from Budget
Committee and City Council
 Separate out General Fund one-time vs ongoing costs
 Bring back a budget that is balanced (or close to being balanced) for its ongoing expenditures
 Develop proposed capital program based on what can
realistically be started next fiscal year
 Revisit revenue estimates for opportunities to increase those that may be too conservative
 Minimize impacts to residents (fee increases)
335
Where We Were (on May 23rd)
FY 2022-23
Recommended

ONGOING
Operating Revenues - Ongoing $ 2,399,289
Operating Expenditures - Ongoing 2,880,273
Net Operating Surplus (Deficit) (480,984)

ONE-TIME
One-time Revenues
ARPA Grant 220,682
One-Time Costs
Operating Expenditures 290,266
Capital Improvements 1,096,000
Total One-Time Costs 1,386,266
Net Use of Reserves for One-Time Costs (1,165,584)
TOTAL USE OF RESERVES $ (1,646,568)
336
Balancing Strategy
 Eliminated all non-essential one-time costs
 Utilized American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) revenues of
$220,682 (2nd of two equal payments)
 Included $15,000 in revenues for recovery of publication expenses tied to development projects
 Increased projected Property Tax and Real Property Tax revenues based on recent payments and increased growth
assumptions
 Proposed a modest use of reserves to balance the operating budget
337
Changes to General Fund Revenues
Real
Property Prop Transf
Taxes Taxes Total
Previous FY 2021/22 Projection $ 1,281,785 $ 117,986 $ 1,399,771 Revised Year-End Projection 1,344,535 117,986 1,462,521 $ 62,750 $ - $ 62,750
Previous FY 2022/23 Proposed $ 1,333,000 $ 121,500 $ 1,454,500 Revised FY 2022/23 Proposed 1,425,207 122,705 1,547,912 Increase from Previous Proposed $ 92,207 $ 1,205 $ 93,412 Previous Assumed Growth FY 2022/23 4% 2%
Revised Assumed Growth FY 2022/23 6% 4%
338
Summary of Proposed Balancing
Measures
Description Amount Impact
Use of one-time ARPA revenues $ 220,682 No impact
Cost recover publication expenses associated with
development projects.
15,000 Financial burden on development applicants.

Fund deficit using reserves 151,889 Short term solution, reducing rainy day fund. $ 387,571
Proposed for Adoption
Entire list of balancing measures not recommended included as attachment 339
One-Time Costs
Recomm’d vs Not Recomm’d
Description Recomm'd
Not
Recomm'd
Records Management (Ref Acct: 01-xxx) - 45,000
Project Management, Capital Projects (Ref Acct: 01-890) 45,000 - Grant writer to pursue grant funds for 8" sewer main project - 17,000 General Plan Update (Ref Acct: 15-884) - 105,000
Housing Element and Environmental Review 45,000
Expanded Information Technology (IT) Services - 8,866
Agenda management system - Granicus - Upgrade - 19,400
$ 90,000 $ 195,266
340
Long-Term CIP Plan
Description 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
Tennis Courts ADA Improvements $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ 300,000 City ADA Hall Improvements - Design - 96,000 - - 96,000 City ADA Hall Improvements - Constr. - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Crest Road East Utility U/G Grant Project 1,527,306 - - - 1,527,306 Veg./Fire Fuel Management Grant Project 323,500 - - - 323,500 City Hall Campus Parking Lot Impr. - - - 400,000 400,000 Eastfield Drive Utility U/G Grant Project 2,629,176 - - - 2,629,176 1 Middleridge Lane South Storm Drain 33,235 - - - 33,235 1 Middleridge Lane North Storm Drain 48,645 - - - 48,645 Outdoor Siren System - Design - 25,000 - - 25,000
Outdoor Siren System - Installation - 275,000 - - 275,000 $ 4,561,862 $ 396,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 400,000 $ 6,357,862 Fiscal Year
341
General Fund Recap
Operations
Operating Revenues - Ongoing $ 2,728,384
Operating Expenditures - Ongoing (2,880,273)
Operating Deficit - Use of Reserves (151,889)
Capital Program
Outdoor Siren System - Design (25,000)
Outdoor Siren System - Construction (275,000)
City Hall ADA Improvements - Design (96,000)
Total Capital Program (Funded from Reserves) (396,000)
One-Time Costs
Capital Project Contract Management (45,000)
Completing the Housing Element (45,000)
Total One-Time Costs (90,000)
TOTAL ESTIMATED USE OF RESERVES - FY 2023 (637,889)
Estimated Reserves at June 30, 2022 4,988,486
Estimated Reserves at June 30, 2023 $ 4,350,597
342
Recommendations
 Take public comment
 Consider the proposed budget as presented and
included in the attached schedules and resolutions
 Adopt the budget and Gann Limit resolutions, or
 Provide staff with directions on what changes to make and bring back revised resolutions on June 27th.
343
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 06/27/2022
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: REQUEST FOR ACTION ON SB1186 (WIENER) MEDICINAL CANNABIS

PATIENTS RIGHT OF ACCESS ACT (DIERINGER)
DATE: June 27, 2022
BACKGROUND:

Councilmember Dieringer attended a League of California Cities(LCC) meeting on May 25, 2022 and was made aware of an Action Alert regarding bill SB 1186, which would override local ordinances and remove any restrictions placed on cannabis deliveries within a respective city. The LCC had previously worked out a bill related to cannabis that allowed each city to regulate cannabis in their respective cities. SB 1186 would potentially overrule that previous compromise.

Information provided by the LCC:

Background: The ability of local jurisdictions to regulate cannabis retailers was central to the passage of both the original Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) and Proposition 64 and is integral to the combined Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA).

The Legislature worked closely with stakeholders to create a regulatory framework for medical cannabis more than a year before Proposition 64 was enacted. That legislatively-enacted framework serves as the foundation for the regulatory structure provided in the adult-use scheme. In the construction of both frameworks, the crafters recognized the critical need for local control, primarily as part of cities' and counties' land-use authority.

What does SB 1186 specifically do?
SB 1186 would undermine the intent of MAUCRSA by:

Eliminating a local jurisdiction's ability to prohibit medical cannabis retail activities, regardless of the needs or conditions in the jurisdiction.

Restricting the ability for the large number of jurisdictions that permit and regulate cannabis retailers to set appropriate local regulations which are developed in a public 344
process.

Talking Points:

We ask you to oppose SB 1186 as it would undermine the framework carefully negotiated between the Legislature and local governments to ensure counties and cities can set regulatory standards associated with local land-use authority.

SB 1186 would require every jurisdiction to prepare regulatory ordinances in anticipation of retail delivery applicants, and the initial costs for jurisdictions may never be fully recouped.

Changing the local authorization rules while the state is still in the implementation phase of the regulatory framework will impede the gradual, but consistent, progress that local jurisdictions have made toward expanding cannabis retail permitting throughout the state.

DISCUSSION:

Staff reviewed the bill (attached) as well as the adopted municipal code below and concluded that this bill would only have a direct effect on cities that are currently prohibiting medicinal cannabis delivery. In reading the sections of the city code below, it appears that the City of Rolling Hills already allows for medicinal cannabis delivery. It is NOT a prohibited use.

17.16.020 - Permitted and prohibited uses.

The following uses are prohibited in the RA-S zone:

1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for occupancy of less than thirty days.

2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation.

3. Dispensing of cannabis and non-medicinal cannabis delivery by any mobile marijuana dispensary (as those terms are defined in Section 17.29.020).

4. Commercial cannabis activity, (as those terms are defined in Section 17.29.020).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does not apply to the delivery of medical marijuana to qualified patients or their primary caregivers, (as those terms are defined in Section

17.29.020).

17.29.020 - Definitions.
"Delivery" means the commercial transfer of cannabis or cannabis products to a customer. "Delivery" also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled by the retailer. The term "delivery" does not include the distribution of cannabis from a mobile marijuana dispensary.
"Mobile marijuana dispensaries" means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business, collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of cannabis to a person.
345

17.29.030 - Prohibited uses and activities.

To the extent not already prohibited by subsection (A), above, all deliveries of cannabis or cannabis products for non-medicinal purposes, to or from any location are expressly prohibited. No person shall conduct or perform any delivery of any cannabis or cannabis products for a non-medical purpose, which delivery either originates or terminates within the City. This subsection shall not prohibit any person from transporting cannabis through the jurisdictional limits of the City for delivery or distribution to a person located outside the City, where such transport does not involve delivery or distribution within the jurisdictional limits of the City. This subsection shall also not prohibit a delivery of cannabis or cannabis products for medicinal purposes as set forth in Section 17.29.040(A).

17.29.040 - Exceptions.

Notwithstanding Section 17.29.030, above, the delivery of medical cannabis to qualified patients with valid identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for medical cannabis, and primary caregivers with a valid identification card, is permitted from a dispensary (licensed under the MAUCRSA) with a fixed location operating outside of the City or a primary caregiver cultivating within the boundaries of the City. This exception does not include deliveries made by mobile marijuana dispensaries, as the term is defined in Section

17.29.020.

Any commercial cannabis activity that the City is required by State law to permit within its jurisdiction shall not be prohibited by the provisions of this chapter.

A qualified patient or primary caregiver, who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures, or transports cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use, or the personal use of the caregiver's qualified patient, but who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any other person is not thereby engaged in commercial cannabis activity. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to prohibit a qualified patient or primary caregiver from using, possessing, purchasing, obtaining, cultivating or receiving delivery of cannabis for medicinal purposes as allowed under State law.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220613_CC_SB1186.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_CC_SB1186_AsAmends.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_CC_SB1186_SenateFloorAnalyses.pdf
346
347
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 29, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 10, 2022
SENATE BILL No. 1186
Introduced by Senator Wiener
February 17, 2022
An act to amend Section 26200 of, and to add Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 26300) to Division 10 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to cannabis.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1186, as amended, Wiener. Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act.

Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, declares that its purpose is, among other things, to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes, as specified, and exempts from state criminal liability certain patients and their primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient. Existing law, known as the Medical Marijuana Program, establishes a voluntary registration program for qualified medicinal cannabis patients and their primary caregivers through a statewide identification card system maintained by the State Department of Public Health and sets forth guidelines for the possession of medicinal cannabis.

The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult-Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA), an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, established a

96 348
comprehensive system to legalize, control, and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana. AUMA reserved to a local jurisdiction specified powers regarding commercial adult-use cannabis activity, including adopting and enforcing local ordinances regulating commercial adult-use cannabis activity. The Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities, including the retail sale of medicinal cannabis.

This bill would enact the Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act, which, on and after January 1, 2024, would prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing any regulation that prohibits the sale of, or otherwise imposes unreasonable restrictions on the safe and affordable sale of, retail sale by delivery within the local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers by medicinal cannabis businesses, as defined. The bill would prohibit regulations that unreasonably restrict, among other things, the operating hours or the number or frequency of sales of medicinal cannabis businesses. This bill would authorize a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce regulations limiting the sale of medicinal cannabis to delivery only. defined, or that has the effect of prohibiting the retail sale by delivery within the local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers in a timely and readily accessible manner and in types and quantities that are sufficient to meet demand from medicinal cannabis patients within the local jurisdiction, as specified. The bill bill, on and after January 1, 2024, would provide that the act may be enforced by an action for writ of mandate brought by a medical medicinal cannabis patient or their primary caregiver, a medicinal cannabis business, the Attorney General, or any other party otherwise authorized by law.

Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.

This bill would provide that CEQA does not apply to specified actions taken by a local jurisdiction to comply with the bill’s provisions, jurisdiction relating to medicinal cannabis businesses, including the 96 SB 1186 — 2 —
349
repeal of any local regulation prohibiting the operation of medicinal cannabis businesses.

To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local jurisdictions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 26200 of the Business and Professions line 2 Code is amended to read:
line 3 26200. (a)  (1)  Except as set forth in the Medicinal Cannabis line 4 Patients’ Right of Access Act (Chapter 25 (commencing with line 5 Section 26300)), this division shall not be interpreted to supersede line 6 or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce line 7 local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, line 8 including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use line 9 requirements, business license requirements, and requirements line 10 related to reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, or to completely line 11 prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of line 12 businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction. line 13 (2)  Except as set forth in the Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right line 14 of Access Act (Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 26300)), line 15 this division shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit existing line 16 local authority for law enforcement activity, enforcement of local line 17 zoning requirements or local ordinances, or enforcement of local line 18 license, permit, or other authorization requirements. line 19 (b)  This division shall not be interpreted to require the line 20 department to undertake local law enforcement responsibilities, line 21 enforce local zoning requirements, or enforce local licensing, line 22 permitting, or other authorization requirements. line 23 (c)  A local jurisdiction shall notify the department upon line 24 revocation of any local license, permit, or authorization for a 96 — 3 — SB 1186
350
line 1 licensee to engage in commercial cannabis activity within the local line 2 jurisdiction. Within 60 days of being so informed, the department line 3 shall begin the process to determine whether a license issued to line 4 the licensee should be suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter line 5 3 (commencing with Section 26030).
line 6 (d)  For facilities issued a state license that are located within line 7 the incorporated area of a city, the city shall have full power and line 8 authority to enforce this division and the regulations promulgated line 9 by the department, if delegated by the state. Notwithstanding line 10 Sections 101375, 101400, and 101405 of the Health and Safety line 11 Code or any contract entered into pursuant thereto, or any other line 12 law, the city shall assume complete responsibility for any line 13 regulatory function pursuant to this division within the city limits line 14 that would otherwise be performed by the county or any county line 15 officer or employee, including a county health officer, without line 16 liability, cost, or expense to the county.
line 17 (e)  (1)  This division does not prohibit the issuance of a state line 18 temporary event license to a licensee authorizing onsite cannabis line 19 sales to, and consumption by, persons 21 years of age or older at line 20 a county fair event, district agricultural association event, or at line 21 another venue expressly approved by a local jurisdiction for the line 22 purpose of holding temporary events of this nature, provided that line 23 the activities, at a minimum, comply with all the following:
line 24 (A)  The requirements of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of line 25 subdivision (g).
line 26 (B)  All participants who are engaged in the onsite retail sale of line 27 cannabis or cannabis products at the event are licensed under this line 28 division to engage in that activity.
line 29 (C)  The activities are otherwise consistent with regulations line 30 promulgated and adopted by the department governing state line 31 temporary event licenses.
line 32 (D)  A state temporary event license shall only be issued in local line 33 jurisdictions that authorize such events.
line 34 (E)  A licensee who submits an application for a state temporary line 35 event license shall, 60 days before the event, provide to the line 36 department a list of all licensees that will be providing onsite sales line 37 of cannabis or cannabis products at the event. If any changes occur line 38 in that list, the licensee shall provide the department with a final line 39 updated list to reflect those changes. A person shall not engage in line 40 the onsite retail sale of cannabis or cannabis products, or in any 96 SB 1186 — 4 —
351
line 1 way participate in the event, who is not included in the list, line 2 including any updates, provided to the department. line 3 (2)  The department may impose a civil penalty on any person line 4 who violates this subdivision, or any regulations adopted by the line 5 department governing state temporary event licenses, in an amount line 6 up to three times the amount of the license fee for each violation, line 7 consistent with Sections 26018 and 26038.
line 8 (3)  The department may require the event and all participants line 9 to cease operations without delay if in the opinion of the line 10 department or local law enforcement it is necessary to protect the line 11 immediate public health and safety of the people of the state. The line 12 department may also require the event organizer to immediately line 13 expel from the event any participant selling cannabis or cannabis line 14 products without a license from the department that authorizes the line 15 participant to sell cannabis or cannabis products. If the unlicensed line 16 participant does not leave the event, the department may require line 17 the event and all participants to cease operations immediately. line 18 (4)  The order by the department for the event to cease operations line 19 pursuant to paragraph (3) does not entitle the event organizer or line 20 any participant in the event to a hearing or an appeal of the line 21 decision. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 490) of Division line 22 1.5 and Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26040) of this line 23 division shall not apply to the order by the department for the event line 24 to cease operations pursuant to paragraph (3).
line 25 (5)  The smoking of cannabis or cannabis products at temporary line 26 events authorized pursuant to this subdivision is prohibited in line 27 locations where smoking is prohibited. For purposes of this section, line 28 “smoking” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (c) of line 29 Section 22950.5.
line 30 (f)  This division, or any regulations promulgated thereunder, line 31 shall not be deemed to limit the authority or remedies of a city, line 32 county, or city and county under any provision of law, including, line 33 but not limited to, Section 7 of Article XI of the California line 34 Constitution.
line 35 (g)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section line 36 11362.3 of the Health and Safety Code, a local jurisdiction may line 37 allow for the smoking, vaporizing, and ingesting of cannabis or line 38 cannabis products on the premises of a retailer or microbusiness line 39 licensed under this division if all of the following are met:
96 — 5 — SB 1186
352
line 1 (1)  Access to the area where cannabis consumption is allowed line 2 is restricted to persons 21 years of age or older. line 3 (2)  Cannabis consumption is not visible from any public place line 4 or nonage-restricted area.
line 5 (3)  Sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco is not allowed line 6 on the premises.
line 7 (h)  This division shall not be interpreted to supersede Section line 8 6404.5 of the Labor Code.
line 9 SEC. 2. Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 26300) is added line 10 to Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:
line 11
line 12 Chapter 25. Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of line 13 Access Act
line 14
line 15 26300. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
line 16 (a)  Access to medicinal cannabis is an integral aspect of access line 17 to health care, and eliminating barriers to medicinal cannabis access line 18 is essential to promoting and preserving the health of Californians line 19 for whom physicians have recommended the use of cannabis or line 20 cannabis products.
line 21 (b)  It is the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature line 22 to ensure that Californians throughout the state have timely and line 23 convenient access to safe, effective, and affordable medicinal line 24 cannabis.
line 25 26301. (a)  This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 26 Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act. line 27 (b)  For purposes of this section: chapter:
line 28 (1)  “Medicinal cannabis” means medicinal cannabis or medicinal line 29 cannabis products, as those terms are defined in paragraph (1) of line 30 subdivision (ai) of Section 26001.
line 31 (2)  “Medicinal cannabis business” means a business retailer line 32 authorized to engage in the retail sale by delivery of medicinal line 33 cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients pursuant to a medicinal line 34 cannabis retail license or microbusiness license. an M-license. line 35 (3)  “Medicinal cannabis patient” means a qualified patient, as line 36 defined in Section 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code, who line 37 possesses a physician’s recommendation that complies with Article line 38 25 (commencing with Section 2525) of Chapter 5 of Division 2, line 39 or a qualified patient or primary caregiver for a qualified patient 96 SB 1186 — 6 —
353
line 1 issued a valid identification card pursuant to Section 11362.71 of line 2 the Health and Safety Code.
line 3 (4)  “Regulation” means a local ordinance, regulation, policy, line 4 or practice.
line 5 26302. (a)  A local jurisdiction shall not adopt or enforce any line 6 regulation that prohibits the sale retail sale by delivery within the line 7 local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis line 8 patients or their primary caregivers, or that otherwise imposes line 9 unreasonable restrictions on the safe and affordable sale has the line 10 effect of prohibiting the retail sale by delivery within the local line 11 jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients line 12 or their primary caregivers by medicinal cannabis businesses, line 13 businesses in a timely and readily accessible manner, and in types line 14 and quantities that are sufficient to meet demand from medicinal line 15 cannabis patients within the local jurisdiction, including, but not line 16 limited to, regulations that unreasonably restrict any of the line 17 following: regulation of any of the following that has the effect of line 18 prohibiting the retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis:
line 19 (a)
line 20 (1)  The number of medicinal cannabis businesses authorized to line 21 operate in the local jurisdiction.
line 22 (b)
line 23 (2)  The operating hours of medicinal cannabis businesses. line 24 (c)
line 25 (3)  The number or frequency of sales by delivery of medicinal line 26 cannabis.
line 27 (d)
line 28 (4)  The types or quantities of medicinal cannabis authorized to line 29 be sold. sold by delivery.
line 30 (e)  Any other aspect of the operation of a medicinal cannabis line 31 business that is essential to its ability to offer medicinal cannabis line 32 products for sale to medicinal cannabis patients and their primary line 33 caregivers within the local jurisdiction in a timely and readily line 34 accessible manner, and in types and quantities that are sufficient line 35 to meet demand from medicinal cannabis patients within the local line 36 jurisdiction.
line 37 (5)  The establishment of physical premises from which retail line 38 sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis within the jurisdiction is line 39 conducted.
96 — 7 — SB 1186
354
line 1 (b)  Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the line 2 adoption or enforcement of reasonable regulations on retail sale line 3 by delivery of medicinal cannabis, including, but not limited to, line 4 reasonable regulations related to:
line 5 (1)  Zoning requirements that are not inconsistent with line 6 subdivision (a). If compliance with subdivision (a) would otherwise line 7 require a local jurisdiction to authorize a physical premises from line 8 which retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis within the line 9 jurisdiction is conducted, this paragraph shall not be construed line 10 to alter that requirement.
line 11 (2)  Security or public health and safety requirements. line 12 (3)  Licensing requirements.
line 13 (4)  The imposition, collection, and remittance of any applicable line 14 state or local taxes upon retail sales occurring within the local line 15 jurisdiction.
line 16 (c)  Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or line 17 otherwise affect the ability of a local jurisdiction to adopt or line 18 enforce any regulations on commercial cannabis operations other line 19 than retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis in the local line 20 jurisdiction.
line 21 (d)  This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024. line 22 26303. A local jurisdiction may adopt and enforce regulations line 23 that limit the sale of medicinal cannabis to delivery only, which line 24 shall not be deemed to be an unreasonable restriction. line 25 26304.
line 26 26303. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) line 27 (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public line 28 Resources Code) does not apply to any of the following:
line 29 (a)  The repeal of any local ordinance, regulation, or rule line 30 prohibiting the operation of medicinal cannabis businesses. line 31 (b)  The adoption of any local ordinance, regulation, or rule line 32 providing for discretionary review and approval of any local line 33 permits, licenses, or other local authorizations, consistent with line 34 Sections 26302 and 26303, Section 26302, to engage in retail sales line 35 by delivery of medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products line 36 conducted by businesses engaged in delivery from premises within line 37 the local jurisdiction, or by storefront retailers within the local line 38 jurisdiction, or both, on the condition that the discretionary review line 39 provided for by that local ordinance, regulation, or rule includes line 40 any applicable environmental review required by CEQA. 96 SB 1186 — 8 —
355
line 1 (c)  The adoption of any local ordinance, regulation, or rule line 2 otherwise establishing a local jurisdiction’s compliance with this line 3 chapter.
line 4 26305.
line 5 26304. (a)  This chapter may be enforced by an action brought line 6 pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 line 7 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure by any of the following line 8 parties, who shall be beneficially interested within the meaning of line 9 Section 1086 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
line 10 (1)  A medicinal cannabis patient or their primary caregiver who line 11 seeks to purchase medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis line 12 products within the local jurisdiction.
line 13 (2)  A medicinal cannabis business that seeks to offer medicinal line 14 cannabis for sale within the local jurisdiction. line 15 (3)  The Attorney General.
line 16 (4)  Any other party otherwise authorized by law. line 17 (b)  This section shall not be construed to limit the availability line 18 of any other remedy otherwise available to enforce this chapter. line 19 The existence of any other remedy shall not restrict the availability line 20 of relief to enforce this chapter under Chapter 2 (commencing with line 21 Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. line 22 (c)  This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024. line 23 26306.
line 24 26305. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or line 25 otherwise affect the ability or right of a local jurisdiction to regulate line 26 adult-use cannabis pursuant to Section 26200.
line 27 26307.
line 28 26306. This chapter addresses a matter of statewide concern line 29 and not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of line 30 Article XI of the California Constitution.
line 31 SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 32 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to line 33 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made line 34 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 35 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

O
96 — 9 — SB 1186
356
357
358
359

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 1186

THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1186
Author: Wiener (D)
Amended: 4/25/22
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 8-4, 4/4/22
AYES: Roth, Becker, Dodd, Eggman, Leyva, Min, Newman, Pan NOES: Melendez, Bates, Jones, Ochoa Bogh
NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta, Hurtado
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/20/22
AYES: Caballero, Durazo, Hertzberg, Wiener
NOES: Nielsen
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act SOURCE: California Cannabis Industry Association
DIGEST: This bill prohibits, beginning January 1, 2024, local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing regulations that prohibit retail delivery of medicinal cannabis, or any regulation that has the effect of prohibiting the retail delivery of medicinal cannabis in a timely and readily accessible manner. This bill permits the provisions be enforced by a writ of mandate beginning January 1, 2024. This bill includes exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to medicinal cannabis businesses.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:
1) Enacts the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“the Act”) to establish a comprehensive system to control and regulate the 360
SB 1186

Page 2 ends

cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing, and sale of both medicinal cannabis and cannabis products, and adult-use cannabis and cannabis products for adults 21 years of age and over. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 26000, et seq.)
2) Permits local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate licensed cannabis businesses. (BPC § 26200)
3) Establishes the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) of 1996, also known as Proposition 215, which protects patients and their primary caregivers from criminal prosecution or sanction for obtaining and using marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician. Also protects physicians who recommends marijuana to a patient for medical purposes from being punished or denied any right or privilege. States that the purpose of CUA is to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana if a physician has determined that the person’s health would benefit from its use in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §11362.5)
4) Establishes the Compassionate Access to Medical Cannabis Act or Ryan’s Law which requires a health care facility to permit a terminally ill patient, defined as a prognosis of one year or less to live, to use medical cannabis within the health care facility. (HSC §§ 1649 – 1649.6)
5) Clarifies the Compassionate Access to Medical Cannabis Act or Ryan’s Law does deem to reduce, expand, or otherwise modify the laws restricting the cultivation, possession, distribution, or use of cannabis that may be otherwise applicable, including, but not limited to, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. (HSC § 1649.5)
6) Requires, under CEQA, lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21000 et seq.) 361
SB 1186

Page 3 ends

7) Permits civil remedies via the California Code of Civil Procedure in the enforcement actions taken against a licensee or unlicensed person for a violation this Act. (BPC § 26031.5)
This bill:
1) Establishes the “Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act”. 2) Restricts, beginning January 1, 2024, local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing any regulation that prohibits the sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers, or that has the effect of prohibiting the retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers by medicinal cannabis businesses in a timely and readily accessible manner, and in types and quantities that are sufficient to meet demand from medicinal cannabis patients, including, but not limited to, regulations that unreasonably restrict any of the following:
a) The number of medicinal cannabis businesses authorized to operate in the local jurisdiction.
b) The operating hours of medicinal cannabis businesses. c) The number or frequency of sales by delivery of medicinal cannabis. d) The types or quantities of medicinal cannabis authorized to be sold. e) The establishment of physical premises from which retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis within the jurisdiction is conducted. 3) Clarifies that nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the adoption or enforcement of reasonable regulations on retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis.
4) Provides an act may be enforced for writ of mandate brought by a medicinal cannabis patient or their primary caregiver, a medicinal cannabis business, the Attorney General, or any other party otherwise authorized by law. 5) Prohibits the application of CEQA requirements from applying to the following:
362
SB 1186

Page 4 ends

a) The repeal of any local ordinance, regulation, or rule prohibiting the operation of medicinal cannabis businesses.
b) The adoption of any local ordinance, regulation, or rule providing for discretionary review and approval of any local permits, licenses, or other local authorizations to engage in retail sales by delivery of medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products conducted by businesses engaged in delivery from premises within the local jurisdiction, on the condition that the discretionary review provided for by that local ordinance, regulation, or rule includes any applicable environmental review required by CEQA.

Background
History of Medicinal Cannabis. California was the first state in the nation to allow for the medical use of marijuana with the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996.

Proposition 215 protected qualified patients and primary caregivers from prosecution related to the possession and cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Since then, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 more states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted similar laws.

In 2003, the Legislature authorized the formation of medical marijuana cooperatives—nonprofit organizations that cultivate and distribute marijuana for medical uses to their members through dispensaries.

In 2015, the Legislature passed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA). For the first time, MCRSA established a comprehensive, statewide licensing and regulatory framework for the cultivation, manufacture, transportation, testing, distribution, and sale of medicinal cannabis.

Shortly following the passage of MCRSA in November 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, the "Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act" (Proposition 64), which legalized adult-use cannabis. Less than a year later in June 2017, the California State Legislature passed a budget trailer bill, SB 94 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2017), that integrated MCRSA with Proposition 64 to create the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), the current regulatory structure for both medicinal and adult-use cannabis. Beginning in 2018, Proposition 64 363
SB 1186

Page 5 ends

permitted adults 21 years of age or older to legally grow, possess, and use cannabis for nonmedical purposes, with certain restrictions.

As the cannabis industry has evolved over the past two decades, the Author reports that access to medicinal cannabis has been adversely impacted given that MAUCRSA gives cities the authority to ban cannabis activity, including medical cannabis.

County of Santa Cruz, et. al. v. BCC. In 2019, the County of Santa Cruz and 24 other California cities sued the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC). BCC promulgated CCR § 15416(d) which permits statewide cannabis delivery. The plaintiffs, local jurisdictions, claimed the regulation directly conflicts with BPC § 26200, which gives authority to local jurisdictions to regulate cannabis in their county or city. In 2021, the courts decided that delivery is permitted statewide.

However, it also affirmed that cities and counties can ban operations, and they can choose to enforce their own ordinances.

Local Control. Proposition 64 allowed local jurisdictions to choose if cannabis activity was the best direction for their respective counties and cities. Today, about 53% of counties have permitted cannabis commercial Medicinal/Adult-Use cannabis business operations. This leaves, geographically, almost half of the state without access to legal cannabis in a local county or city. Because the regulatory framework for adult-use and medicinal were consolidated, local jurisdictions are permitted to make the same regulatory decision for all use of cannabis.

Access to Medicinal Cannabis. According to the Sponsor, there are about 18 local jurisdictions that have limited their licensing to only certain medicinal activities. In addition, there are 17 jurisdictions that have prohibited all commercial cannabis activities from being established within their jurisdictions, but have explicit ordinances allowing medicinal cannabis delivery into their jurisdiction as long as it originates outside of their jurisdiction. Currently, there are 979 brick and mortar storefronts and 391 delivery operators.

Medicinal Use Benefits. Following enactment of Proposition 215 (CUA), the Institute of Medicine issued a report in 1999 stating that scientific data indicate the “potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.” The report went on to state that the psychological effects of cannabinoids, such as anxiety reduction, sedation, and euphoria can influence their potential therapeutic value. In 2017, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released a 364
SB 1186

Page 6 ends

comprehensive report dedicated to the current understanding of the demonstrated health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD) and the psychoactive molecule, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This review found evidence to support that patients who were treated with cannabis or cannabinoids were more likely to experience significant reductions in pain symptoms. It also found benefits for multiple sclerosis-related muscle spasms, and preventing and treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

The report found conclusive evidence of modest therapeutic efficacy for cannabis, cannabis-based products, or synthetic cannabinoids for three conditions: cancer patients experiencing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis-related spasticity. For other conditions evaluated, NASEM either found no therapeutic effects or inconclusive evidence of effects. Although there is only conclusive evidence for these three conditions, California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 established the right for patients to obtain and use cannabis when prescribed for “cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which [cannabis] may provide relief.” At this point in time, there is limited information doctors can rely upon to properly discuss, recommend, and prescribe cannabis to patients.

Medicinal versus Adult-Use Cannabis. Currently, doctors write their patient or client a “recommendation” for cannabis. After a doctor provides a “recommendation”, the county health department approves (or denies) it with an application fee, and then a medical identification card (ID) is given. With this ID, a person can buy cannabis in a retail store, but benefit from a reduced taxes.

Medicinal Cannabis is fully exempt from state and local sales taxes if purchased for medical use with a valid state medical ID card. Some cities and counties also levy lower excise tax rates on purchases. This bill does not address how medicinalonly retail would impact localities without tax revenue for services like enforcement.

Enforcement mechanism. This bill provides for enforcement of its requirements through the existing writ of mandate provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Code Civ. Proc., pt. 2, tit. 1, ch. 2, §§ 1084 et seq.) A writ of mandate issued pursuant to these provisions is a court order to a specific body to compel the performance of an act that is required by law. (Id., § 1085.) The bill authorizes any medical cannabis patient or primary cannabis caregiver who seeks to purchase cannabis in the jurisdiction, a medical cannabis business that seeks to offer medical cannabis for sale in the jurisdiction, the Attorney General, and any other party otherwise authorized by law to seek the writ, and establishes that these potential 365
SB 1186

Page 7 ends

parties have the necessary interest in a local jurisdiction’s compliance to satisfy the statutory interest requirement. (See id., § 1086.) While the bill does not create a private right of action that would allow an injured party to seek damages, the bill specifies that the provision authorizing a party to seek a writ of mandate does not limit the availability of other remedies; as such, if a local jurisdiction’s violation of the bill also constituted a violation of additional statutes, this bill would not prohibit an injured party from seeking remedies under all available statutory schemes.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified 5/17/22)
California Cannabis Industry Association (source)
Americans for Safe Access
APLA Health
Assured Partners
Autumn Brands
California Norml
Curaleaf
Endo Industries
Good Farmers Great Neighbors
Kiva Confections
MWG Holdings Group, Inc.

Origins Council
Quality Testing Lab
San Diego Cannabis Times
San Francisco Aids Foundation
SPARC
The Parent Company
Weed for Warriors Project
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/17/22)
California Contract Cities Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Bellflower
City of Beverly Hills
City of Lakewood
City of Menifee
City of Thousand Oaks
366
SB 1186

Page 8 ends

City of Walnut
County of Butte
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Urban Counties of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Generally, supporters write that the the problem can be found in Proposition 64’s dual licensing structure, because cannabis businesses must be licensed by both the State and the appropriate local jurisdiction to legally operate. According to the Secretary of State, 393 out of 540 jurisdictions voted in favor of Proposition 64. But today, approximately two-thirds of California cities and counties still prohibit commercial cannabis retail. The shortage of legal cannabis retail businesses has fueled an ever-growing illicit cannabis market, which is estimated to be worth nearly $8 billion annually.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Generally, opposition writes that SB 1186 undermines the intent of MAUCRSA by eliminating a local jurisdiction’s ability to prohibit medical cannabis retail activities, regardless of the needs or conditions in the jurisdiction, and restricting local authority to set appropriate local regulations which are developed in various public processes.

Prepared by: Alexandria Smith Davis / B., P. & E.D. /
5/18/22 15:47:59
**** END ****
367
Agenda Item No.: 13.B
Mtg. Date: 06/27/2022
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: DISCUSSION REGARDING LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION

DISTRICT LABOR AGREEMENT (WILSON)
DATE: June 27, 2022
BACKGROUND:

Mayor Pro Tem Wilson attends the monthly Los Angeles County Sanitation District meeting and requested this be brought to the attention of the City Council.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220613_SanitationDistrict.pdf
368
369
Agenda Item No.: 14.A
Mtg. Date: 06/27/2022
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: UPDATE ON EIS REGISTRATION EFFORTS
DATE: June 27, 2022
BACKGROUND:

The City Council commissioned an Emergency Information System (EIS) to be built for Rolling Hills. The EIS is accessible on the city’s website and it is only set up for residents of Rolling Hills to enter household, and contact information by address. Contact information entered into the EIS can be exported to the two above mentioned platforms to send out notification messages. The Block Captains worked with city staff to test drive the EIS. Volunteers from the Block Captain program reported on ease of use, the mobile version on cell phones, EIS on Mac Books and Personal Computers, and program interface improvements.

At the April, 25, 2022 City Council meeting, staff was asked to return with an update on the current EIS registration drive.

DISCUSSION:

As of Wednesday June 6, 2022, an estimate 69 households have registered for the EIS. Of those, staff was able to assist either over the phone or at city hall an estimated 33 households.

The number of residents whose information was added for those households was 93.

EIS Enrollments:

November 2021 4
December 2021 1
January 2022 1
February 2022 1
March 2022 9
April 2022 21 (staff enrolled 11)
May 2022 31 (Staff enrolled 22)
June 2022 1
TOTAL: 69
370
FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

ATTACHMENTS:
371
Agenda Item No.: 14.B
Mtg. Date: 06/27/2022
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: CONSIDERATION OF SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS (SBCCOG) REQUEST FOR SUPPORT REGARDING

STATE BUDGET REQUEST
DATE: June 27, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On June 3, 2022, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) sent local legislators a request for state funding of $5 million for the SBCCOG to create a Center for Sustainable and Resilient Neighborhoods. As the attached letter shows, this funding would allow the SBCCOG to move forward with a solar initiative, regional organic waste education, the Local Travel Network, Neighborhood Centers and further advancing city climate action plan implementation steps.

DISCUSSION:

State budget deliberations have started and therefore time is of the essence for the SBCCOG to show local legislators that they also have individual member cities support. The SBCCOG is requesting a formal letter of support from the City of Rolling Hills, but also immediately having the Mayor and Councilmembers send personal email notes to our legislators (Senator Allen and Assemblymember Muratsuchi) saying that you are in support as an individual. If willing staff can provide a sample email for the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_220613_SBCCOG_StateBudgetRequest.pdf
372

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T S I N A C T I O N
Carson El Segundo Gardena Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Inglewood Lawndale Lomita Manhattan Beach Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Torrance Los Angeles District #15 Los Angeles County 2355 Crenshaw Blvd., #125
Torrance, CA 90501
(310) 371-7222
[email protected]
www.southbaycities.org
June 2, 2022
The Honorable Ben Allen
Senator, 26th District
1021 O Street, Suite 6610
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
The Honorable Steven Bradford
Senator, 35th District
1021 O Street, Suite 7210
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
The Honorable Al Muratsuchi
Assemblymember, 66th District
1021 O Street, Suite 5610
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
The Honorable Mike Gipson
Assemblymember, 64th District
1021 O Street, Suite 8110
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Re: South Bay Cities Council of Governments State Budget Funding Request Dear South Bay Legislators:

The SBCCOG respectfully submits this request for a $5 million allocation from the state’s historic $100 billion budget surplus to create a South Bay Center for Sustainable and Resilient Neighborhoods. This Center’s mission would be to expeditiously deploy all tools available to local and subregional governments to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to create more equitable, sustainable and resilient neighborhoods in the South Bay. Dramatically reducing GHG emission over the next five years is critical to avoiding climate change “tipping points.” The SBCCOG would utilize the state budget allocation within that time period to implement various programs and projects that reduce GHG emissions, as well as develop partnerships to leverage state funding.

The SBCCOG has worked with our cities to adopt both local climate action plans and adaptation plans. In addition, the SBCCOG Board adopted subregional climate action and adaptation plans. However, neither the SBCCOG nor our cities have adequate resources to implement these plans. A state budget allocation that provides seed funding for a collaborative implementation program will ensure successful implementation at this critical time if irreversible environmental damage is to be avoided.

We envision the Center implementing programs that could reduce carbon in a variety of ways across the diverse communities of the South Bay cities. These programs will include:
• Developing renewable energy and electric storage programs – Municipal roof top solar generation and electric storage systems will be critical to adapting to this future, as communities transition from natural gas appliances to electric, use high levels of A/C to combat extended heat waves and ramp up electric vehicle charging. South Bay cities have expressed interest in roof top solar projects that could not only reduce GHG emissions, but also increase the resilience of critical city services. Funding could be leveraged to bring in other partners. • Implementing a Local Use Vehicle Ecosystem, which will provide a scalable option for zero emission mobility in support of the hyper-local travel patterns in the South Bay – SBCCOG research shows that 70% of trips in the South Bay are within 3 miles of home and 90% within 10 miles. Additionally, public transit mode share is less than 3% in the subregion, largely due to inefficient or infrequent service for the noted travel patterns. This means most South Bay 373
2 residents use internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to make short trips. To reduce transportation related GHG emissions, the South Bay must transition from ICE to EV modes.

Prioritizing the least expensive segment of the market – Local Use Vehicles – will speed the transition by getting zero emission vehicles into the hands of drivers from all economic backgrounds—not just those who can afford a full-sized EV. The SBCCOG is working with our cities to implement their respective segments of the South Bay Local Travel Network for all Local Use Vehicles. Success will depend on funding to implement public education, ride and drive events, and other tools to help residents “right size” their ride. These supportive initiatives are ready for implementation but require funding.
• Implementing a pilot of our innovative land use-technology strategy to develop a “digital hub” and revitalize a neighborhood center in three disadvantaged neighborhoods to advance digital equity while also reducing carbon emissions – One of the most effective methods of reducing transportation related GHG emissions is by creating destinations that are closer to home. The SBCCOG is pioneering an innovative strategy that establishes neighborhood business districts, initially in disadvantaged and working-class communities. Districts are centered around a public facility dedicated to providing high-speed internet access combined with technology and training. The SBCCOG’s award-winning South Bay Fiber Network project is currently operating a middle-mile network ready to extend to commercial areas in equity-focused communities as well as to additional public facilities. These centers would provide a variety of services, including educational training opportunities for residents on use of emerging technologies such as 3D printing. When coupled with the SBCCOG’s Local Use Vehicle ecosystem initiative, these neighborhood centers would allow South Bay residents to close the “mobility divide” by reaching most of their destinations with little to no GHG emissions. This is achieved through use of active modes, zero emission LUVs, and virtual presence of telemedicine, distance education and e-government.
• Developing regional organic waste projects – Our cities all face organic waste and SB 1383 compliance requirements. The SBCCOG believes a cost-effective regional organic waste effort is feasible and can be successful. The SBCCOG has worked with partner agencies such as West Basin Municipal Water District to implement regional water conservation programs and could replicate that success with state funding for organic waste.

The SBCCOG is an agile organization with a record of accomplishing successful environmental and social justice projects in partnership with the cities and county areas of the South Bay. We have programs supported by years of research and demonstration that are ready for implementation. The SBCCOG will build on our proven history of success in the region in the areas of mobility, technology, water and energy efficiency with seed funding from the state. Our cities are poised to move forward with implementation of the sustainability programs described above that are currently unfunded. The historic state budget surplus will ensure that together, they can do so in collaboration facilitated by the SBCCOG. This funding will allow the South Bay to demonstrate to the state that strategically placed resources can make a positive impact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and advance the state’s goals.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Should you have any questions, please contact SBCCOG Executive Director, Jacki Bacharach, at (310) 371-7222 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Drew Boyles, SBCCOG Chair
Mayor, City of El Segundo
374

Rolling Hills City CouncilJune 27, 2022

Rolling Hills City Council
June 27, 2022