CC SR 20211005 G - Flock Safety Update
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/05/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a status update on the installation of Flock
Safety cameras in association with the City’s Security Camera Grant Program.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a status update on the installation of Flock Safety cameras in the
City.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. December 20, 2016 staff report authorizing a Neighborhood Monitoring
Public Safety Program
B. September 1, 2020 staff report implementing the first round of the HOA
Security Camera Grant Program
C. January 19, 2021 staff report implementing the second round of the HOA
Security Camera Grant Program
D. August 26, 2021 letter from City Manager Mihranian to Flock Safety CEO
Garrett Langley (page D-1)
E. August 27, 2021 response from Flock Safety CEO Langley (page E-1)
F. City Council Policy No. 31 (page F-1)
BACKGROUND:
In recognition that security cameras are a valuable crime-fighting tool, in 2016, the City
began offering grants to neighborhoods to assist in the acquisition of security cameras at
neighborhood entrances by reimbursing some of the startup costs (Attachment A) and
amending City Council Policy No. 31 pertaining to allowing privately-owned cameras in
the public right-of-way (Attachment F).
1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
In 2019, this program transitioned from utilizing Obsidian Integration security cameras to
Flock Safety license plate-reading cameras. Obsidian Integration was selected after a
request for information (RFI) was released. After the first round with Obsidian concluded
in 2018, the City entered into an agreement with Flock Safety due to its solar capacity
which eliminated the need for utility hookups, better camera resolutio n, and more user-
friendly interface that allows users to search through footage more quickly. These
cameras allow residents to view footage after a crime has occurred to potentially provide
additional evidence to the Sheriff’s Department to assist in an investigation. The Sheriff’s
Department has the ability to receive immediate “hot list” alerts from the Flock cameras if
a known stolen vehicle, for example, enters a neighborhood, but the primary purpose of
the cameras is to assist in an investigation after a crime has occurred and to potentially
deter criminal activity in the first place.
On September 1, 2020, the City Council approved the first round of the Security Camera
Grant Program with Flock Safety to assist homeowner associations (HOAs) with funding
for security cameras for their neighborhoods of up to $1,000 per camera for up to two
cameras, or approximately half of the installation cost of the camera(s) (Attachment B).
Ten cameras in seven neighborhoods were funded through this program. Due to the
continued demand from neighborhoods to participate in the program, the City Council
directed Staff to return in January 2021 with the second round of funding, which was
approved on January 19, 2021 (Attachment C). Ten cameras in six neighborhoods were
funded through this round.1
To date, thirty neighborhood-owned or -leased cameras will have been installed across
the City as a result of these grant programs with Obsidian and Flock. These are in addition
to the 25 automatic license plate-reading (ALPR) cameras in the Peninsula ALPR network
and the 17 ALPR cameras owned by the City at entrances to the City on Western Avenue.
Obsidian and/or Flock cameras have been installed in the following neighborhoods:
• Coral Ridge Rd.,
• Del Cerro HOA,
• Friendship Park Neighbors,
• La Cresta HOA,
• Ladera Linda HOA,
• Lunada Pointe HOA (pending Coastal Permit approval),
• Mediterrania HOA,
• Miraleste HOA,
• Ocean Front Estates HOA,
• Panorama Estates HOA,
1 Seacliff Hills HOA requested two cameras through the program and funds were held for them , as funds
are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. The HOA elected to continue holding the funds until
cameras were installed in other neighborhoods to ensure that it would like to move forward with Flock
cameras. As of the writing of this report, the HOA has not yet purchased the cameras, but the funds remain
held should it elect to move forward.
2
• Peninsula Pointe HOA,
• Rancho Crest HOA,
• Rolling Ridge Rd,
• Seacrest Neighborhood,
• Seaview HOA, and
• West Portuguese Bend Community Association (pending Coastal Permit
approval).
DISCUSSION:
The City’s Security Camera Grant Program, as implemented during Rounds One and Two
with Flock Safety, provided assistance to HOAs and neighborhoods in the form of
reimbursements for partial costs (up to $1,000 per camera for up to two cameras) of the
cameras paid once the cameras were installed and waiving of all fees associated with
permitting. Additionally, Staff acted as an intermediary between participants and Flock to
best address questions and concerns, act ed as a mediator when conflicts arose and
coordinated across multiple departments assisting Flock through the permitting process.
General Permit Timeline
The general permitting process for participants is as follows:
1. Apply for the grant program. Funds were “held” for participants on a first-come,
first-served basis. Participants could elect to not move forward with the program,
in which case, neighborhoods on a waitlist would be notified of their eligibility.
2. The City connected the participants with Flock Safety, which hosted an initial
meeting to discuss viable camera locations. If the participants agreed to the
location, Flock issued an invoice.
3. Once the invoice was paid, Flock began preparing permits with the Departments
of Public Works and Community Development for the installation.
4. Flock conducted a physical site visit and confirmed that there was enough solar
power for the camera and with Dig Alert that there were no major utilities in the
proposed dig location.
5. After the City issued the permit, cameras were installed and reimbursements were
issued.
Round One Applicants and Installations
Round One participants applied to the program in October and, on average, had a camera
installed over seven months after paying their invoice. On average, six of the seven
months were the result of Flock preparing and subsequently addressing corrections
requested by the City’s Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to
permit issuance. The City took approximately two weeks to review both preliminary and
corrected permits, within the established policy 10-business day review period. Cameras
were then installed.
3
Seven of the 10 purchased cameras at five of the six participating locations were installed
in June 2021. All reimbursements were issued.
It should be noted that two participants in the first round, representing three cameras
collectively, waited nearly 10 months to have one or both of their cameras installed. In
one case, the residents reevaluated their preferred camera location multiple times as
there were concerns the camera would impact views. The City worked with the residents
and Flock to propose alternative solutions and once a decision was reached, Flock
resubmitted their permits. In the other case, as per the City’s standard procedures with
neighborhood-owned security cameras in the public right-of-way, a neighbor adjacent to
a proposed location declined to approve of the camera, citing view concerns. The
location’s other camera was installed in June 2021, however. The City worked with the
resident and Flock to achieve a mutually beneficial solution that maintained the operability
of the camera.
These three cameras at two locations were installed in September 2021. All
reimbursements were issued.
Round Two Applicants and Installations
The City hoped that Flock would be able to prepare complete permits more quickly during
the second round, but due to the overlap of the rounds, Flock did not begin preparing
permits for the second round until after the first round’s were issued.
Participants in the second round submitted their applications between February and April
2021, met with Flock, and paid invoices between March and May 2021. Despite more
variation between when invoices were paid, nearly all installations occurred in Sept ember
2021, resulting in four to six months between when the cameras were purchased and
when they were installed, depending on when the cameras were purchased.
Four of the six purchased cameras at three of the five locations were installed in
September 2021. All reimbursements were issued.
Two locations in the second round are expected to be installed in late October, as they
are located in the Coastal Zone, requiring a Coastal Permit. Coastal Permits can take up
to two months to issue due to public notification and hearing requirements. Flock
submitted completed applications in early September.
These four cameras at two locations are anticipated to be installed in late October or early
November 2021, pending Coastal Permit approval and no appeals are filed.
Reimbursements will be issued once installations are scheduled.
City Communication with Flock
City Staff remained in frequent communication with Flock staff throughout the process
and expressed concerns about the delay in preparing permits on multiple occasions. This
included City Manager Mihranian and City Staff meeting and discussing with Flock
4
representatives regarding one of the Special Consideration locations in the first round of
applicants multiple times in February 2021.
With continued delays and multiple residents expressing continued extreme concern with
the process, City Manager Mihranian sent a letter to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley
in August 2021 (Attachment D). Mr. Langley informed the City that a Project Management
Office was created dedicated to projects like the City’s to improve the services provided
to the community (Attachment E).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Footage from installed cameras has been used by the Lomita Sheriff’s Station to help
investigate crimes in neighborhoods near the cameras. Deputies are being trained to use
the Flock system to continue using the footage to help investigations where appropriate.
During the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget cycle, the City Council appropriated $30,000
for a Public Safety Grant Program. Staff is updating this program for the Council’s
consideration at a future meeting date. The updated program will combine the City’s
security camera programs with the previous doorbell security program. Additionally, a
portion of the funds are intended to go toward participants in the first and second rounds
of the Flock program, to provide a partial reimbursement for their second year of service
through Flock, equivalent to the reimbursement disbursed for the installation of the
camera(s).
Seven HOAs/neighborhoods have contacted Staff to express interest in obtaining a
security camera and five individuals have expressed interest in obtaining a doorbell
camera through the updated program.
5
D-1
August 26, 2021
Mr. Garrett Langley
CEO, Flock Safety
CITYOF
1170 Howell Mill Rd NW Unit 210
Atlanta, GA 30318
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Via Email
SUBJECT: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Concerns Regarding Flock Safety
Dear Mr. Langley:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes partnered with Flock Safety in October 2019 to hold a
pilot program whereby a local neighborhood purchased Flock cameras and the City
provided a partial reimbursement to the neighborhood to help defray the cost of
acquisition. The City subsequently hosted two full rounds of this program, with eleven
Flock cameras currently installed in the City and eleven more in the permitting process.
The City has provided Flock a significant amount of business but has severe concerns
regarding the time it took to install the cameras and the satisfaction of your customers,
our residents .
The City's intention in partnering with Flock and offering reimbursements to
neighborhoods was to improve the City's public safety, as security cameras are an
important crime fighting tool. However, during every round of these programs, deadlines
established by Flock staff have consistently been missed, resulting in eight to ten months
passing between when the cameras are purchased and when they were installed for the
first round of the program.
The majority of the delays have been the result of creating and/or correcting permits
required by the City for installation. It was the City's assumption that the learnings made
during the pilot and first round of the permitting process would result in a marked
improvement during the subsequent rounds, but the same problems are continuing, with
long delays between purchase of a camera and creation of a permit, and the City's
request for corrections and submission of finalized permits. Progress is being made on
the second round of permits, but the fact remains that we are approaching seven months
between purchase and installation for participants in the second round of the program.
The City cannot continue to support Flock or its products without substantial
improvements to Flock's permitting capabilities. This is unacceptable and should be of
great concern to you as the Co -Founder and CEO of Flock Safety.
30940 HAW TH ORNE BLVD/ RANC HO PALOS VERDES , CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544 -52 07 / WWWR PVCAGOV
@ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PA PER
D-2
Mr. Garrett Langley
August 26, 2021
Page 2
Multiple participants in the program have expressed their frustration and disappointment
with Flock customer service and the significant delay in installation of cameras. Timelines
that were established during initial conversations were never met due to delays in
preparing permits. While participants felt they had an open line of communication with
Flock during initial conversations, as time went on, they were no longer connected to the
Flock team member that could best answer their concerns and were never provided an
accurate assessment of time.
Our residents' experience with your company reflects poorly on the City and its security
camera program. Flock Safety needs to make a tangible difference in their permit
preparation procedures, as failure to do so will require the City to cease all partnership
and promotion of Flock products and utilize another vendor for our security camera
program .
Ara Mihraman
City Manager
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Karina Banales, Deputy City Manager
McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
Vincent Nicolson, Flock Safety Regional Sales Manager
Ryan Sanders, Flock Safety General Manager
Hector Soliman-Valdez, Flock Safety Market Manager
Jasmine Ellis, Flock Safety Field Operations Regional Manager
1
McKenzie Bright
From:Garrett Langley <garrett@flocksafety.com>
Sent:Friday, August 27, 2021 12:39 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:McKenzie Bright; CC; Karina Banales; Vincent Nicholson; Ryan Sanders; Hector Soliman-
Valdez; Jasmine Ellis
Subject:RE: Letter from City Manager Ara Mihranian: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Concerns
Regarding Flock Safety
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Good afternoon Ara,
I was able to talk with my team last night and this morning.
At the end of the day, you are right that the work so far, post-contract, has been far below the level of service I expect
from my team and what we consistently deliver to other cities. There is no excuse, and I have explicitly expressed my
deep frustration with this team. That being said, let me articulate what I have learned and what I expect to change going
forward.
Our root problem resided in poor and inconsistent communication on project status with your staff. Proper expectations
and consistent communications would have made this a better experience. I.e., I just ordered a new couch, and the lead
time is 16 weeks. Surely longer than I want, but upfront, I am aware of this lead time.
Our failure was not to clearly articulate that the City's license requirements were new to us (despite working with +1,000
cities nationally, and +100 in California). While we were surprised at how long it would take to obtain said licenses, we
should have been more clear that it would take our company many months to acquire these licenses and that in the
interim, we would seek to contract out the work which would come with a decreased control over specific timelines.
This was 100% our fault. I am sorry for this.
Two things are happening to prevent this from being a reoccurrence:
1 - We are obtaining the required licenses to do work in RPV without 3rd party support. This has been underway for a
few months, and we are moving as fast as the State will allow. This will dramatically impact our ability to do work
consistently and in a timely manner.
2 - We have created a dedicated Project Management Office. While most of our projects are simple in nature (taking 2-4
weeks from start to finish), we do have a growing number of projects, like RPV, that have unique and specific
requirements that can take weeks/months to complete. To ensure consistent and quality communication, this PMO will
be the sole person responsible at Flock. Ryan Sanders, who is on this email, is responsible for this team, and I have
explicitly asked him to own all RPV installs going forward.
While none of what I wrote can excuse the past, I hope this at least provides insight into the seriousness of the situation
and my commitment to make it right going forward.
Also my personal cell phone is XXX.XXX.XXXX — please do not hesitate to call me directly.
Thank you for the consideration and please have a safe weekend,
Garrett
E-1
2
Garrett Langley
CEO & Founder
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 8:32 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Garrett,
I appreciate your quick response and attention to the City’s concerns, and look forward to hearing
from you next week.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
E-2
f i' o c k s a f e t y
3
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Garrett Langley <garrett@flocksafety.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:12 PM
To: McKenzie Bright <mBright@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>; Vincent Nicholson
<vince@flocksafety.com>; Ryan Sanders <ryan.sanders@flocksafety.com>; Hector Soliman-Valdez
<hector.soliman@flocksafety.com>; Jasmine Ellis <jasmine.ellis@flocksafety.com>
Subject: Re: Letter from City Manager Ara Mihranian: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Concerns Regarding Flock Safety
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ara,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I agree that your letter causes me deep concern and does not reflect the
quality service I believe we are able to provide for our customers.
Please give me the day tomorrow to discuss with my team, and I will provide a more detailed response by Monday.
E-3
~
0 • . . ,_
DOW LOAD
71/_fr V
Available-in the App Store and Googte Play
~ GETITON
,.. Google Play
4
Thank you again and I will do my best to rectify this situation going forward.
Garrett
Garrett Langley
CEO & Founder
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:35 PM, McKenzie Bright <mBright@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Langley,
Please see the attached letter from City Manager Ara Mihranian regarding the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ concerns
with the length of time it is taking to install Flock cameras and the satisfaction of your customers, Rancho Palos Verdes
residents and participants in the City’s security camera program.
Sincerely,
McKenzie Bright
Administrative Analyst
City Manager’s Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5305
mbright@rpvca.gov
E-4
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 31
DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 04/16/96 (Amended 01/21/97, 04/18/00,
12/20/16, 04/04/17, and 04/20/21)
SUBJECT: Encroachments into the Public Right-of-Way
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City Council to follow the procedures outlined in the
attached Policy Statement for encroachments in the public right-of-way, as adopted
on April 16, 1996, revised on January 21, 1997, April 18, 2000, December 20, 2016,
and April 4, 2017.
BACKGROUND:
On April 19, 1996, the City Council reviewed and approved an update of the City
policy pertaining to encroachments of structures in the public right-of-way. The
changes consisted of augmentation of the then current policy which was approved
by the City Council on May 15, 1984, with language pertaining to the encroachment
of tract entrance observation structures into the public right-of- way. The City
Council has directed that this policy relating to encroachments into the public right-
of-way be placed into the City Council Policy Manual.
Amendments were made on April 18, 2000, to streamline the review process for
certain types of encroachments into the right-of-way, especially for unpermitted
structures for which legalization is sought.
Amendments were made on December 20, 2016 and April 4, 2017, to exempt security
cameras owned by Homeowner Associations for public safety purposes provided that
the location was approved by the Public Works and Community Development
Departments. Additionally, certain sections were updated to be consistent with the
City’s Municipal Code, along with wording amendments for clarification purposes.
Amendments were made on April 20, 2021 to allow security cameras and poles
owned by Homeowner Associations for public safety purposes be installed within the
required setbacks on private property where it is not feasible in the public right-of-
way without being subject to the height limit of 42”. Additionally, language was added
clarifying that public safety cameras owned by neighborhoods without a formal
Homeowner Association may also be covered by this policy.
Attachment: April 16, 1996 Policy Statement for Encroachments into the Public
Right-of-Way (Revised January 21, 1997, April 18, 2000, December 20, 2016, April
4, 2017, and April 20, 2021)
F-1
Page 2 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
POLICY STATEMENT FOR
IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADOPTED APRIL 16, 1996 AND
REVISED ON APRIL 4, 2017.
The City Council approved this policy at its April 16, 1996, meeting, and amended it on
January 21, 1997, April 18, 2000, December 20, 2016, and April 4, 2017. It should be noted
that this policy replaces and supersedes the one adopted by the City Council on May 15,
1984.
The City may permit encroachments of walls, fences, pilasters, observation booths, security
cameras and/or similar structures on an individual basis, based on the following criteria:
I. FENCES, WALLS, PILASTERS, AND OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES IN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
1) All requests for construction of fences, walls, pilasters, and other similar structures that
are to encroach into the public right-of-way shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department, and shall include the following materials:
a) A letter from the applicant and/or adjacent property owner(s) describing the
proposed encroachment request and the reason for the request.
b) A processing fee as established by Resolution of the City Council.
c) Five (5) hard copies and an electronic copy of plans which clearly show the following:
i) A site plan which shows the accurate lot dimensions, property lines, location
and dimension of the adjacent public right-of-way, and the location of all
easements, if applicable.
ii) A site plan indicating the location and dimensions of all existing and/or proposed
encroachments (i.e walls, fences, pilasters, or other similar structures) , as well
as the distance of the proposed encroachments from the adjacent property
lines.
iii) Section and/or elevation drawings representing the total height of the proposed
project, as measured from both the highest and lowest existing adjacent grade.
d) Documentation to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that demonstrates
the location of the proposed encroachment relative to the edge of the public right-
of-way.
F-2
Page 3 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
e) For encroachments to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, two copies of a
"vicinity map", prepared to scale, which shows all properties located within the tract
for which the proposed observation booth will serve, as well as all properties located
within 500 feet of the tract boundaries. All lots shown on the "vicinity map" shall be
numbered consecutively, beginning with the number "one". The "vicinity map" must
be prepared exactly as described in the attached instruction sheet.
f) For encroachments to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, two (2) sets of self-
adhesive mailing labels and one (1) photocopy of the labels which list the property
owner of each parcel which falls within the boundaries shown on the "vicinity map".
The name and address of every property owner (including the applicant) and the
local Homeowners Association (if any), must be typed on 8-1/2 X 11 sheets of self-
adhesive labels (33 labels per sheet). The labels shall be keyed to the consecutive
numbers shown on the "vicinity map" as described above. The property owners’
mailing list must be prepared exactly as described in the attached instruction sheet.
2) Fences, walls, pilasters, and other similar structures which meet the following criteria
shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development :
a) Encroachments extending less than 6-feet into the public right-of-way (Note that it
is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the location of the proposed
encroachment to the Director of Public Works’ satisfaction, which may entail
preparation of a survey for some projects);
b) Encroachments, such as individual pilasters or similar structures, having a base
width that is no more than 24 inches on each side;
c) Encroachments whose total height, including any decorative features, does not
exceed 72 inches, unless located adjacent to the front property line , in which case
the total height does not exceed 42 inches. The main structure (excluding
decorative features) shall not exceed 60 inches, unless it is located within an
Intersection Visibility Triangle as determined by the Director of Public Works, in
which case the overall height including any decorative features may not exceed 30
inches;
i) If the decorative features are lanterns, light fixtures, or some other kind of light
source, then the property owner must demonstrate that adequate screening
and shielding is provided to ensure that there is no direct or indirect illumination
of another property other than where the light source is located, that there is no
adverse traffic/pedestrian impact, and that all conditions of residential outdoor
lighting pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.56.030 are met.
F-3
Page 4 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
The Director’s decision shall be appealable pursuant to the Appeal procedures of Chapter
17.80 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC).
3) Fences, walls, pilasters, and other similar structures which meet the following criteria
shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed
public hearing pursuant to Section 17.80.090 of the RPVMC.
a) Encroachments extending more than 6-feet into the public right-of-way (Note that
it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the location of the structure to the
Director of Public Works’ satisfaction which may entail preparation of a survey for
some projects);
b) Encroachments, such as individual pilasters and other similar structures, having a
base width that exceeds 24 inches on each side;
c) Encroachments with a decorative features at a combined height that is greater than
72 inches, or encroachments without decorative features at a height that exceeds
60 inches.
d) Encroachments serving as bases for decorative features (i.e. statuary) that are
more than 60 inches in height, and/or the combined height of a decorative feature
and its base that is greater than 72 inches.
e) Encroachments that are decorative features (i.e. fountains) measuring more than
18 inches in height;
f) Encroachments including decorative features or decorative features/bases with a
combined height measuring greater than 30 inches within an Intersection Visibility
Triangle.
The Planning Commission may refer a request to the Traffic Safety Committee for
recommendation, if traffic safety is involved. The Planning Commission may grant the
encroachment, subject to the conditions stated below in Section 5, and any other conditions
which the Commission may impose, or deny the encroachment if it fails to meet the criteria
stated below in Sections 3 and 4. The Planning Commission decision may be appealed to
the City Council, pursuant to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.80 of the RPVMC.
4) In granting an Encroachment Permit, the Director of Community Development or the
Planning Commission must find the following:
a) The encroachment is not detrimental to the public health/safety, and that the Public
Works Director has made a written determination that the encroachment does not
pose a hazard to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or equestrians; and further that all
F-4
Page 5 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
other requirements for issuance of a Public Works Department encroachment
permit are met. The Community Development Department review shall be
concurrent with the Public Works Department review to the greatest degree
possible.
b) The encroaching structure cannot be reconfigured or relocated due to practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardship, including economic hardship, so as to either:
i) locate the structure on the applicant’s property in accordance with provisions of
the Municipal Code; or,
ii) adhere to the criteria set forth for an encroachment requiring Director-level
review .
c) The encroaching structure is not inconsistent with the general intent of the
Development Code.
d) Illuminating features of the encroachment, such a light fixtures, are designed and
configured in a manner that minimizes impacts to neighboring properties or
vehicular traffic, and prevents direct or indirect illumination of a property other than
the applicant’s, as determined by the Director of Community Development.
e) The encroachment does not significantly impair a protected view from any
surrounding property.
5) Approval of an Encroachment Permit shall be subject to the following conditions, and
any other appropriate conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare:
a) Prior to construction of the encroachment, the owner shall submit to the City an
"Indemnification and Hold Harmless" agreement for recordation, to the satisfaction
of the City Attorney.
b) Prior to construction of the encroachment , the owner shall submit to the City a Use
Restriction Covenant for recordation, agreeing to remove the encroachment within
ten (10) days of notice given by the Director of Public Works, except in case of an
emergency where less notice may be required. The owner shall also acknowledge
that failure to remove the encroachment within the specified time will result in
removal of the structure by the City, and that the owner shall be billed by the City
for the costs of removal of the encroaching structure.
c) Prior to construction of the encroachment, the owner shall obtain an Encroachment
Permit from the Department of Public Works and, if applicable, permits from the
F-5
Page 6 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
Building and Safety Division. The owner shall be responsible for any fees
associated with the issuance of said permit(s).
d) The encroachment shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the
approved plans, and the owner shall comply with all conditions and requirements
that are imposed on the project.
e) Prior to construction of the encroachment, the applicant shall submit to the City a
covenant, subject to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, which records these
requirements as conditions running with the land, and binding all future owners of
the property which is benefited by the encroachment (i.e., underlying right-of- way,
adjacent property, or common area owned by a homeowners association, if any),
until such time as the encroaching structure is removed from the right-of-way.
f) The applicant shall comply with all recommendations and requirements, if any,
required by the City's Planning Commission, Traffic Safety Committee, or Traffic
Engineer.
II. OBSERVATION BOOTHS AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY
1) All requests for construction of observation booths or similar structures within the public
right-of-way are to be submitted to the Community Development Department, and shall
include the following materials.
a) A letter from the applicant and/or adjacent property owner(s) describing the
proposed encroachment request and the reason for the request.
b) Any application for construction of an observation booth or similar structure, shall
first be approved by the local Homeowners Association, if any, in accordance with
the recorded CC & R's for the Homeowners Association.
c) The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the application. A
minimum Trust Deposit of $1,000 shall be established to cover costs associated
with the application. Additional deposits may be required if the costs for processing
the application exceed the minimum required deposit.
d) Five (5) copies and an electronic copy of plans which clearly show the following:
i) A site plan which shows the accurate lot dimensions, property lines, location
and dimension of the adjacent public right-of-way, and the location of all
easements, if applicable.
F-6
Page 7 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
ii) A site plan indicating the location and dimensions of all existing and/or proposed
observation booths or similar structures, as well as the distance of all existing
and/or proposed encroachments from the adjacent property lines.
iii) Section and/or elevation drawings representing the total height of the proposed
project, as measured from both the highest and lowest existing adjacent grades.
e) Two copies of a "vicinity map", prepared to scale, which shows all properties located
within the tract for which the proposed observation booth will serve, as well as all
properties located within 500 feet of the tract boundaries. All lots shown on the
"vicinity map" shall be numbered consecutively, beginning with the number "one".
The "vicinity map" must be prepared exactly as described in the attached instruction
sheet.
f) Two (2) sets of self-adhesive mailing labels and one (1) photocopy of the labels
which list the property owner of each parcel which falls within the boundaries shown
on the "vicinity map". The name and address of every property owner (including
the applicant) and the local Homeowners Association (if any), must be typed on 8-
1/2 X 11 sheets of self-adhesive labels (33 labels per sheet). The labels shall be
keyed to the consecutive numbers shown on the "vicinity map" as described above.
The property owners’ mailing list must be prepared exactly as described in the
attached instruction sheet.
2) All requests shall be subject to review first by the Traffic Safety Committee and then by
the Planning Commission. Both the Traffic Safety Committee and Planning Commission
meetings shall be duly-noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 17.80.090 of the
RPVMC. Upon a favorable recommendation by the Traffic Committee, the Planning
Commission shall grant the encroachment, subject to the conditions stated below in
Section 16, or deny the encroachment if it fails to meet the criteria stated below in
Sections 3 through 15, inclusive. The Planning Commission decision may be appealed
to the City Council, within fifteen (15) calendar days following the Commission's
decision.
3) In granting an Encroachment Permit for an observation booth or similar structure, the
Planning Commission must find that each of the following conditions exist:
a) The encroachment is in the best interest of the City.
b) The encroachment is not detrimental to the public health and safety.
c) There is no alternative location on private property to accommodate the proposed
improvements without encroaching into the City's right-of-way.
F-7
Page 8 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
d) The encroachment has been designed in the safest manner possible.
e) The encroachment does not significantly impair the view from the viewing area of
any private property as defined in the City's Development Code, nor from an area
designated by the General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan to be protected.
4) The maximum height limit of observation booths or similar structures located within the
public right-of-way shall not exceed twelve (12) feet.
5) The observation booth or similar structure shall not exceed a maximum of 120 square
feet in area.
6) For structures which are attended by an operator, restroom facilities shall be provided
within the observation booth.
7) All necessary utilities (i.e., cable, electric) shall be located underground.
8) All minimum sight distances and turning radii shall be maintained, subject to review and
approval by the City's Traffic Safety Committee and engineering consultant.
9) All observation booths or similar structures shall be located on a separate, curbed, and
landscaped median.
10) No portion of any eave and/or overhang shall extend beyond the edge of the curb of the
landscape median, or into any travel lanes. The structure shall be designed to maintain
appropriate lateral and overhead clearance to ensure that large and/or high profile
vehicles or trucks will not hit the overhangs on the building.
11) Protective bollards shall be installed at each corner of the structure to reduce the
potential for accidental damage caused by vehicles.
12) The observation booth or similar structure shall be compatible with the character and
architectural styles of surrounding residences.
13) Directional signage only shall be permitted in association with construction of the
observation booth or similar structure. Installation of any signs shall be subject to
separate review and approval of a Sign Permit. Installation of signs with changeable
copy intended to provide general information regarding upcoming events, meetings,
etc., shall not be permitted within the public right-of-way.
14) Any proposed exterior lighting shall be located on the facade of the building, at a
maximum height of ten (10) feet. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed
downwards to prevent direct illumination of or towards surrounding properties.
F-8
Page 9 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
15) Ingress/Egress vehicle lanes shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet wide at the
Observation Booth to allow vehicles to pass a stopped vehicle. Wider travel lanes may
be required at the discretion of the City.
16) Approval of an Encroachment Permit shall be subject to the following conditions:
a) The applicant shall comply with all recommendations and requirements, if any,
required by the City's Planning Commission, Traffic Safety Committee, or Traffic
Engineer.
b) Prior to construction of the observation booth or similar structure, the owner shall
submit to the City a "Hold Harmless" agreement for recordation, to the satisfaction
of the City Attorney.
Prior to construction of the observation booth or similar structure, the owner shall
submit to the City a Use Restriction Covenant for recordation, agreeing to remove
the encroachment within sixty (60) days of notice given by the Director of Public
Works, except in case of an emergency where less notice may be required. The
owner shall also acknowledge that failure to remove the encroachment within the
specified time will result in removal of the structure by the City, and that the owner
shall be billed by the City for the costs of removal of the encroaching structure.
c) Prior to construction of the observation booth or similar structure, the owner shall
obtain a minimum of one million (1,000,000) dollars liability insurance, naming the
City as an additional insured, subject to review and acceptance by the City Attorney.
Proof of said insurance shall be provided to the City annually.
d) Prior to construction of the observation booth or similar structure, the owner shall
obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works. The owner
shall be responsible for any fees associated with the issuance of said permit.
e) The encroachment shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the
approved plans, and the owner shall comply with all conditions and requirements
that are imposed on the project.
f) Prior to construction of the encroachment, the applicant shall submit to the City a
covenant, subject to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, which records these
requirements as conditions running with the land, and binding all future owners of
the property which is benefited by the encroachment (i.e., underlying right-of-way,
adjacent property, or common area owned by a homeowners association, if any),
until such time as the encroaching structure is removed from the right-of-way.
g) No person and/or vehicle shall be required to present identification nor otherwise
be restricted, prohibited, or denied access to any public right-of- way, including but
F-9
Page 10 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
not limited to streets, sidewalks, parks, and/or public trails as a result of construction
of any attended or unattended observation booth or similar structure.
h) Prior to construction of the encroachment, the owner and/or applicant shall submit
to the City a Covenant agreeing to assume all responsibility for maintenance and
upkeep of the structure.
III. HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION SECURITY CAMERAS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
1) All requests for construction of homeowners’ association or neighborhood security
cameras in the public right-of-way shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department, and shall include the following materials.
a) A letter from the applicant (i.e., homeowners’ association) and/or adjacent property
owner(s) describing the proposed encroachment request and the reason for the
request.
b) Documentation to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that demonstrates
the location of the structure relative to the edge of the public right -of-way.
c) All fees associated with an Encroachment Permit for homeowners’ association
security cameras shall be waived.
2) The Public Works, Community Development, and Sheriff’s Departments will meet with
the applicant to assess the proposed location and to determine whether there is a more
suitable location.
3) Security cameras owned by homeowners’ associations shall be exempted from the base
size and height limitations described elsewhere in this Policy, with the approval of the
Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development.
4) In granting an Encroachment Permit for homeowners’ association security cameras, the
Director of Community Development must find the following:
a. The encroachment is not detrimental to the public health/safety, and that the Public
Works Director has made a written determination that the encroachment does not
pose a hazard to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or equestrians; and further that all
other requirements for issuance of a Public Works Department encroachment
permit are met. The Community Development Department review shall be
concurrent with the Public Works Department review to the greatest degree
possible.
F-10
Page 11 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
b. The encroaching structure cannot be reconfigured or relocated due to practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardship, including economic hardship, so as to either:
i. locate the structure on the applicant’s property in accordance with provisions of
the Municipal Code; or,
ii. adhere to the criteria set forth for an encroachment requiring Director-level
review.
c. The encroaching structure is not inconsistent with the general intent of the
Development Code.
d. Illuminating elements associated with and a part of the proposed security camera
are configured in a manner that minimizes impacts to neighboring properties or
vehicular traffic, and prevents direct or indirect illumination of a property other than
the public right-of-way intended to be illuminated in order to enhance the night time
use of the security camera, as determined by the Director of Community
Development.
e. The encroaching structure does not significantly impair a protected view from any
surrounding property.
5) Approval of an Encroachment Permit for homeowners’ association security cameras
shall be subject to the following conditions, and any other appropriate conditions
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare:
a. Prior to construction of the encroaching structure, the owner shall submit to the City
an "Indemnification and Hold Harmless" agreement for recordation, to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney.
b. Prior to construction of the encroaching structure, the owner shall submit to the City
a License Agreement agreeing to remove the encroachment within ten (10) days
of notice given by the Director of Public Works, except in case of an emergency
where less notice may be required. The owner shall also acknowledge that failure
to remove the encroachment within the specified time will result in removal of the
structure by the City, and that the owner shall be billed by the City for the costs of
removal of the encroaching structure.
c. Prior to issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall comply with all
City recommendations and requirements.
d. The applicant for the proposed encroaching structure, post, fence and/or wall, shall
obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works and, if
applicable, any permit from Building and Safety.
F-11
Page 12 of 12 01203.0005/352406.1
e. The encroachment shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the
approved plans, and the applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements
that are imposed on the Encroachment Permit.
6) If it is determined that no suitable location in the public right-of-way will allow for proper
operation of the security cameras, security cameras owned by homeowners’
associations or neighborhood groups shall be permitted to locate the security camera
within the required setbacks on private property without being subject to the base size
and height requirements outlined in Section 17.48.030(5)(C) of the Municipal Code.
a. Prior to issuance of approval, the applicant shall comply with all City
recommendations and requirements.
b. The applicant for the proposed structure shall obtain approval from the Public Works
and Community Development Departments and, if applicable, any permit from
Building and Safety.
c. The structure shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the approved
plans, and the applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements that may
be imposed.
F-12