06-14-2021CCAgendaPacket.F1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on
the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
AGENDA
Regular City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 14, 2021
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
7:00 PM
This meeting is held pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on
March 17, 2020.
All Councilmembers will participate by teleconference. The meeting agenda is available on the City’s
website. A live audio of the City Council meeting will be available on the City’s website. Both the
agenda and the live audio can be found here: https://www.rolling-
hills.org/government/agenda/index.php.
Members of the public may observe and orally participate in the meeting via Zoom and or submit
written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your
comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please
do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published.
Zoom access: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87227175757?
pwd=VzNES3Q2NFprRk5BRmdUSktWb0hmUT09
Or dial (669) 900-9128
meeting ID: 872 2717 5757 passcode: 780609
Audio recordings to all the City Council meetings can be found here:
https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/government/agenda/index.php
While on this page, locate the meeting date of interest then click on AUDIO. Another window will appear. In the
new window, you can select the agenda item of interest and listen to the audio by hitting the play button. Written
Action Minutes to the City Council meetings can be found in the AGENDA, typically under Item 4A Minutes.
Please contact the City Clerk at 310 377-1521 or email at cityclerk@cityofrh.net for assistance.
Next Resolution No. 1281 Next Ordinance No. 371
1
take place on any items not on the agenda.
4.MEETING MINUTES
4.A.REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2021.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
5.CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
5.A.PAYMENT OF BILLS.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
5.B.RECEIVE AND FILE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN
THE CANYONS GRANT PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
5.C.APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN
ENGINEERING TO CONDUCT A SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY (PHASE III) ON
CONNECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED 8" SEWER MAIN ALONG PORTUGUESE
BEND ROAD/ROLLING HILLS ROAD.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
6.COMMISSION ITEMS
7.PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.A.CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 1276 TO CREATE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT FOR CREST ROAD EAST UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1276 to create Underground Utility
District No. 1 (Crest Road) to support the Crest Road East Cal-OES Hazard
Mitigation Grant Project.
7.B.CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1277 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE 2014-2021
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS
PREVIOUSLY PREPARED, ADOPTED, AND FILED FOR THIS PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1277 adopting the revised 2014-2021
Housing Element.
05.24.2021_CCMinutes.P.docx
Payment of Bills.pdf
VegetationManagementGrant_EnvironmentalAssessment_RFP.pdf
RH_ PSA with Willdan Group for Sewer Service Feasibility Study (Phase III)-Signed.pdf
ResolutionNo1276 Crest Road Assessment District Rule20A.pdf
ResolutionNo1277 5th Cycle Housing Element.pdf
Attachment2-HCDPre-ComplianceFinding-042621.pdf
Attachment3-2014HCDCommentswith2021Responses.pdf
2
7.C.CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1279 DENYING THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN
REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A MIXED
STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD (NAKAMURA).
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.
8.OLD BUSINESS
8.A.RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING A PENINSULA CITIES JOINT LETTER
EXPRESSING CONCERNS REGARDING SPECIAL DIRECTIVE POLICIES
IMPACTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
R E C O M M E N D AT I O N : Staff recommends that the City Council continue
participation in the joint letter with the cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho
Palos Verdes.
8.B.REVIEW OVERALL PROJECT COST ESTIMATES AT 65% DESIGN PROGRESS FOR
TWO LAYOUT OPTIONS FOR THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION: Review additional data for the project and provide direction
to staff.
8.C.CONSIDER AND APPROVE A PROPOSAL FROM PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND
ENGINEERING FOR THE DESIGN OF THE EMERGENCY POWER SOLUTION TO
REPLACE THE NON-WORKING EMERGENCY STANDBY GENERATOR.
REC OMM ENDATIO N : Staff recommends that the City Council approve Pacific
Architecture and Engineering Inc.'s proposal to design the solar power solution.
9.NEW BUSINESS
9.A.RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT ON THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD
ON JUNE 2, 2021; AND APPROVE THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO FUND AN ANNUAL CANYON MANAGEMENT
RollingHills2014-2021HousingElement-forCouncilAdoption-April2021(1).pdf
Iniital_Study_2014-2021_Update__201312311052198725.pdf
24_Cinchring_Mixed-use Plans.pdf
24_Cinchring_Stamped_House Plan_Set.pdf
SUPPLEMENTALBrunner_response_for_Planning_Commission_3-30-21_v2.pdf
Appeal Ltr of 24 Cinchring Road (Brunner_Korzennik) final.pdf
Clint Patterson's Letter_24 Cinchring.pdf
24 Cinchring Retaining Walls Height.pdf
ResolutionNo1279_Mixed_Use_Structure_Nakamura.pdf
PC_Resolution_No_2021-04_Mixed_Use_Structure_-_Nakamura.pdf
ResolutionNo1221_24CinchringRoadNakamura.pdf
Three PV Peninsula Cities_Gascon Policy Concerns.docx
rolling hills city hall _option1_202006008 Layout1 (1).pdf
rolling hills city hall _option2_202006008d Layout1 (1).pdf
20210519_city hall renovation cost estimate_two options.pdf
20200509_rollinghills_costestimate10.pdf
210210604_Rolling HIlls Solar.pdf
3
PROGRAM.
R E C O M M E N D AT I O N : Receive and file report and approve the Fire Fuel
Committee's recommendation.
9.B.CONSIDER AND APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA
LAND CONSERVANCY FOR ADDITIONAL FUEL LOAD REDUCTION IN THE
NATURE PRESERVE IN THE AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY BORDER.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider proposal and provide direction to staff.
9.C.ACCEPT SMALL CITIES ALLOCATION FROM THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
ACT (ARPA)
R ECOMM ENDATION: Accept the ARPA allocation and direct staff to file the
necessary documents for the acceptance of the funds.
9.D.APPROVE RESOLUTION 1280 AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION
A FUNDS WITH THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS FOR GENERAL FUNDS; AND
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FUND EXCHANGE
AGREEMENT.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council consider and approve the following:
1. Exchange of $84,000 ($0.75 per $1.00) in Proposition A funds with the City of
Beverly Hills and authorize the City Manager to execute the Fund Exchange
Agreement between the City of Rolling Hills and the City of Beverly Hills, Prop
A Local Return Fund Exchange.
2. Approve Resolution XXXX Approving an Agreement between the City of
Rolling Hills and the City of Beverly Hills that authorizes the Exchange of
Proposition “A” Local Return Funds for General Funds.
9.E.CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1278 UPDATING THE FEE
SCHEDULE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1260.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1278 updating the Fee Schedule and
repealing Resolution No. 1260.
10.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
6.2.2021 FF Supplemental AgendaPacket.pdf
PVPLC Reducing Fuel Load Project RH 2021.pdf
Fuel Load Reduction Phases.docx
SLFRP-Fact-Sheet-FINAL1-508A.pdf
2021-10283.pdf
SLFRPFAQ.pdf
Award_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf
Title_VI_Assurances.pdf
Certification-Form.pdf
ResolutionNo1280 Prop_A_Funds.pdf
ResolutionNo1278 Fee Schedule FY21-22.pdf
4
10.A.REPORT ON REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY AND REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW
COMMITTEES MEETINGS HELD ON MAY 13, 2021.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
11.MATTERS FROM STAFF
11.A.RECEIVE AND FILE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S REQUEST TO REDUCE THE MONITORING
FREQUENCY TO MEET THE MACHADO LAKE TRASH TMDL.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
11.B.CALRECYCLE'S AB 939 2016-2019 JURISDICTION REVIEW UPDATE.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File.
12.CLOSED SESSION
13.ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, June 28. 2021 at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom. Zoom access:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87227175757?pwd=VzNES3Q2NFprRk5BRmdUSktWb0hmUT09
Meeting ID: 872 2717 5757
Passcode: 780609
RegionalContractLawCommittee_2021-05-13_AgendaPacketFinal.Supplemental.pdf
Rolling_Hills_Response_TMRP_FINAL.pdf
2016-19 Jurisdiction Review Item G.5.pdf
Notice:
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City
Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting
due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and
attendance at this meeting.
5
Agenda Item No.: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JANELY SANDOVAL, CITY CLERK
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2021.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
05.24.2021_CCMinutes.P.docx
6
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2021
1.CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met via Zoom Teleconference on the above
date at 7:04 p.m.
Mayor Bea Dieringer presiding.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY MAYOR BEA DERINGER
2.ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper, Mirsch and Wilson
Absent: None.
Staff Present:Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Stephanie Grant, Code Enforcement Officer
Ashford Ball, Senior Management Analyst
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
Terry Shea, Finance Director
Janely Sandoval, City Clerk
3.OPEN AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
None.
4.CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
4A REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 10, 2021
City Manager Elaine Jeng presented meeting minute edits.
MOTION:Councilmember Pieper motioned to approve as amended and
Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pro Tem Black
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
5.CONSENT CALENDAR
7
Minutes 2
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
5A PAYMENT OF BILLS
5B REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR APRIL
2021
5C NV5 FIRST CONTRACT AMENDMENT – SEPULVEDA MONITORING
MOTION:Councilmember Wilson motioned to approve the consent items and
Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper,
Mirsch and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
6. PRESENTATION
6A COMMEND CREST ROAD WEST GATE ATTENDANT DAVID SAEI
FOR HIS ACTIONS ON APRIL 28, 2021 AND FOR HIS SERVICES TO
THE COMMUNITY
Mayor Dieringer presented summary of accomplishment followed by commendation.
7.COMMISION ITEMS
7A ZONING CASE NO. 20-08: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-01 FOR
DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED ENTITLEMENTS REQUIRING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
1) INCREASE TO SIZE OF RESIDENCE BY 1,100 SQUARE FEET; 2)
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF GRADING BY 7,520 CUBIC YARDS;
AND 3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW CABANA
EXCEEDING 200 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT 20 UPPER
BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 101-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA
90274 (IANNITTI).
Code Enforcement Officer Stephanie Grant provided a summary of the proposed project.
Mayor Pro Tem Black asked if he should recuse himself due to proximity of the project to
his property.
City Attorney Jenkins, City Manager Jeng, and Code Enforcement Officer Grant discussed
Mayor Pro Tem Black’s question.
Mayor Pro Tem Black recused himself and turned off Zoom camera at 7:25 PM.
8
Minutes 3
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
Discussion ensued among Councilmembers and Contractor David Palacios regarding the
aspect of the residence having an unbalanced feng shui and needing revisions.
MOTION:Councilmember Wilson motioned to approve the proposed project and
Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pro Tem Black
Mayor Pro Tem Black joined and turned on Zoom camera at 7:29 PM.
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
9.OLD BUSINESS
9A RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE TO THE DESIGN OF THE 8” SEWER
MAIN ALONG PORTUGUES BEND ROAD/ROLLING HILLS ROAD;
AND CONSIDER AND APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN TO STUDY POTENTIAL
CONNECTIONS TO THE 8” SEWER MAIN FROM POTENTIAL
SEWERS LINES ALONG MIDDLERIDGE LANE AND WILLIAMSBURG
LANE.
City Manager Jeng provided summary of approved project and presented amendment for
new study.
Resident Jeffrey Maclean, 9 Williamsburg Lane, provided report of research findings he
has accumulated regarding financial implications for residents.
Resident Fred Dellovade, 11 Middleridge Lane North, provided an option for residents
interested in connecting to the main sewer line to sign a formal letter of agreement prior to
moving forward with project.
Discussion ensued among Councilmembers, City Manager Jeng, and City Attorney
Michael Jenkins regarding future implications for residents, future residents, and City, if
overall sewer project gets approved.
Resident Alfred Visco, 15 Clinchring Road, asked if the additional sewer line connecting
Middleridge and Williamsburg Lane would be paid by residents or the City.
Councilmember Pieper provided clarification that the main sewer line would be paid by
the City.
9
Minutes 4
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
MOTION:Councilmember Pieper made a motion to approve the additional $14,500 to
complete the sewer study and Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper,
Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
9B REVIEW ASSESSMENT REPORT FROM PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE
AND ENGINEERING, INC. AND CONSIDER OPTIONS TO REPLACE A
NON-WORKING EMERGENCY STANDBY GENERATOR.
City Manager Jeng provided summary of questions asked regarding options to replace the
emergency generator.
Discussion ensued among Councilmembers with additional questions presented to City
Manager Jeng.
City Manager Jeng answered questions and explained the pros and cons of each option.
Discussion among Councilmembers and City Manager Jeng continued.
Resident Visco expressed concerns on the $40,000 price for a 5KW battery.
Resident Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, asked if the only bid for the solar option is
through the presented bidder.
City Manager Jeng explained that these are options and there are additional items to discuss
before implementing the design phase.
MOTION:Councilmember Pieper motioned to pursue the solar option, not as a final
decision, get further information on this option, and see if it is really sustainable, and what
needs to change in order to make it work and Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pro Tem Black
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Additional discussion ensued among Councilmembers and City Manager Jeng regarding
interim options and potential for portable generator.
MOTION:Councilmember Pieper made a second motion for City Manager Jeng to
obtain further details regarding having a back-up generator, at her earliest convenience,
and Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion.
10
Minutes 5
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper,
Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Additional discussion ensued among Councilmembers regarding proposed immediate
action about removing current generator and cleaning the area for future usage.
MOTION:Councilmember Pieper made a third motion to clean out the little house, fix
the fuel modes, get rid of the generator and other pieces, but keep the house and Mayor Pro
Tem Black seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper,
Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
9C REPORT ON MAY 19, 2021 FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING
City Manager Jeng reported on the Fire Fuel Committee meeting.
Councilmember Mirsch provided additional information and recommendations regarding
the meeting discussion.
Mayor Pro Tem Black discussed options to tackle areas of concerns and questioned what
the Rolling Hills Community Association will allow residents to do to address the dead
vegetation.
Discussion ensued among Councilmembers and City Manager Jeng regarding grant
allocation, recommendations, and what can be legally done by residents and the City.
City Manager Jeng read an email from resident Arum Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive, to
maintain tallest trees within the community trimmed.
Resident Aichele stated his concerns regarding some residents not being contacted
concerning any dead vegetation within their property and the lack of proper management
of such issues being addressed in a public forum.
Resident Visco stated his concerns regarding current vegetation ordinance not fully
addressing what is needed for fire fuel protection.
Resident Arlene and Gene Honbo, 33 Portuguese Bend Road, provided their support for
the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), and stated that the main goal is to
create a solution. They support a demonstration project but not only on public land.
11
Minutes 6
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
Mayor Dieringer and City Attorney Jenkins discussed public nuisance and potential legal
implications.
Mayor Pro Tem Black discussed potential agenda items for the upcoming Fire Fuel
Committee Meeting.
Councilmember Pieper discussed moving forward with currentrecommendations to ensure
residents begin addressing dead vegetation concerns.
City Manager Jeng provided a list of potential agenda items for the next Fire Fuel
Committee Meeting on Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 6:30 PM.
MOTION:Councilmember Mirsch motioned to receive and file with note to add to the
agenda for the next Fire Fuel Committee Meeting about LACFD assessing properties based
on whether they present a danger and Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper,
Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
10.NEW BUSINESS
10A RECEIVE AND FILE ROLLING HILLS HARDENING THE HOME
VIDEOS PRODUCED BY THE WORLD WISE PRODUCTION.
City Manager Jeng presented the first educational video from a series of videos approved
by City Council.
Resident Gene Honbo provided positive feedback regarding the video outcome.
Resident Deborah Shrader, 54 Saddleback Road, expressed gratitude for City Council
support and explained the need for minor edits.
MOTION:Councilmember Wilson motioned to receive and file and Councilmember
Pieper seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper,
Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
10B REPORT BY BUDGET/AUDIT/FINANCE COMMITTEE ON MEETING
HELD ON MAY 19, 2021.
12
Minutes 7
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
Finance Director Terry Shea provided a summary of the Budget/Audit/Finance Committee
Meeting discussion and potential changes.
Mayor Dieringer asked about the longevity of current auditor contract and had questions
regarding potential changes.
Discussion ensued among Councilmembers regarding complaint fee.
MOTION:Councilmember Pieper motioned to receive and file and Councilmember
Wilson seconded the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper,
Mirsch, and Wilson
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
10C CITY COUNCIL FY 21-22 BUDGET WORKSHOP
Finance Director Shea presented the budget workshop report.
Finance Director Shea discussed program funding allocation with Mayor Dieringer and
Councilmember Mirsch.
Councilmember Mirsch asked if there is additional funding for events and training.
City Manager Jeng responded that estimates are included in the proposed budget. She then
presented and showed the three-year CPI report that was also presented to the Committee,
and will be presented for approval during the next Council Meeting on Monday, June 14
at 7 PM.
City Manager Jeng and Mayor Dieringer discussed potential adjustments.
11.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS
11A CONSIDER A PENINSULA CITIES JOINT LETTER EXPRESSING
CONCERNS REGARDING SPECIAL DIRECTIVE POLICIES
IMPACTING PUBLIC SAFETY (MAYOR DIERINGER)
Mayor Dieringer presented the letter and abstained due to being an employee of the District
Attorney’s office. She requested for Mayor Pro Tem Black to handle the discussion and
sign the letter if approved.
Discussion ensued among Councilmembers about the City’s more active role lately and
taking on more presence on legislations.
13
Minutes 8
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
MOTION:Councilmember Mirsch motioned to have staff obtain Mayor Pro Tem
Black’s signature on behalf of City of Rolling Hills and Councilmember Pieper seconded
the motion.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pro Tem Black, Pieper, and Mirsch
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Wilson
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dieringer
Mayor Dieringer abstained herself from the vote and discussion.
City Manager Jeng explained that the letter is a draft and might have some changes
resulting from Peninsula Cities’ further discussions about the letter.
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL ELECTIONS FOR MATTERS
CONCERING SB 9 AND SB 10. (MAYOR DIERINGER)
Mayor Dieringer presented a summary regarding her participation with the Associationand
nascar letters.
Councilmember Pieper stated that the City must take into consideration what is needed to
show opposition against SB 9 and SB 10.
12.MATTERS FROM STAFF
City Manager Jeng asked Mayor Pro Tem Black if he wanted more information on the cost
estimates of the ADA project and agreed to email the previous and current estimates to all
Councilmembers.
13.CLOSED SESSION
None.
14.ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:11
PM.
Next regular meeting: Monday, June 14, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. via City's website's link at:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
Zoom access:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87227175757?pwd=VzNES3Q2NFprRk5BRmdUSktWb0hmT
9 or dial (669) 900-9128, meeting ID: 872 2717 5757, passcode: 780609
14
Minutes 9
City Council Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Janely Sandoval
City Clerk
Approved,
______________________________________
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
15
Agenda Item No.: 5.A
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JANELY SANDOVAL, CITY CLERK
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:PAYMENT OF BILLS.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Payment of Bills.pdf
16
17
Agenda Item No.: 5.B
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS GRANT PROJECT.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The City was awarded funds for Phase 1 of the Vegetation Management in the Canyons project for
design development to determine the project locations and mitigation methods within the City. Phase 1
of the project also includes CEQA assessment, and legal services. The City must meet the grant
requirements by completing the tasks for Phase 1 by November 16, 2021. FEMA/Cal OES will
consider releasing additional grant funds for Phase 2 implementation based on satisfactory work on
completing Phase 1.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department (Fire Department) serves the City of Rolling Hills. The
department assessed that focusing fuel reduction within Rolling Hills, in the area adjacent to the fuel
reduction work in the Nature Preserve, previously commissioned by the City Council, will continue to
break up the fuel continuity, further reducing fire spread and extreme fire behavior. In March 2021, Cal
OES approved the Fire Department’s recommendations for mitigation measures and project locations.
The next component of the project is to conduct an environmental analysis of the project to meet the
requirements of the grant.
DISCUSSION:
City staff prepared a Request for Proposal for services from qualified companies that have experience in
conducting environmental assessments to meet applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations
for vegetative management projects. Proposals are due no later than 5pm on July 1, 2021.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Phase 1 of the grant provides $242,625 with a required City match of $80,875 for a total of $323,500.
The City Council accepted the grant in November 2020 committing General Fund for the City match.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department provided expertise free of charge to the City in identifying
18
the project locations and the mitigation measures to satisfy several components of Phase 1. Consulting
with Cal OES, the City can also submit records of the time spent by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department on the project to offset General Fund for the City match. To date, there has been zero cash
expenditures on the project.
During the 2021 budget workshop, staff recommended that the City Council program Phase 1 of the
project into the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2021-2022.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
VegetationManagementGrant_EnvironmentalAssessment_RFP.pdf
19
Page 1 of 5
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND
ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA
90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/CLEARANCE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT MITGIATION PROJECT
PROPOSALS DUE 5 PM, JULY 1, 2021
BACKGROUND
The City of Rolling Hills is requesting proposals from qualified firms to provide professional services to satisfy the
environmental requirements for the Vegetative Management Mitigation Project funded by the Federal Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
The City of Rolling Hills is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designated by Cal Fire and considered
at-risk for wildfire events. The City has historically been subject to fires/wildfires threatening loss of life and
property. The City applied for funding through the HMPG to create defensible space/fuel breaks to protect
homeowners from wildfires within the City.
The City was awarded funds for Phase 1 of the project for design development to determine the project locations
and methods within the City. Phase 1 of the project also includes CEQA assessment, and legal services. The City
must meet the grant requirements by completing the tasks for Phase 1 by November 16, 2021. FEMA/Cal OES will
consider releasing additional grant funds for Phase 2 for implementation based on satisfactory work on completing
Phase 1.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department (Fire Department) serves the City of Rolling Hills. To determine the project
locations, the Fire Department assisted the City by assessing the canyons and ranking the fire danger threat to the
community of Rolling Hills based on topography, fuel load, local weather pattern and fire history. The Nature
Preserve is located just outside of the southwest City limits but have canyons that span across both jurisdictions.
These canyons are subject to the southwest winds and the Fire Department ranked them as the highest priority
for fuel reduction. The Fire Department recommended focusing the grant funds on fuel reduction on the south
side of the city, immediately adjacent to the Nature Preserve. In 2019, 2020 and 2021, the City commissioned fuel
reduction work within the Nature Preserve (outside of City limits) through the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy. The Fire Department noted that focusing fuel reduction within Rolling Hills, in the area adjacent to
the fuel reduction work in the Nature Preserve would continue to break up the fuel continuity, further reducing
fire spread and extreme fire behavior.
20
Page 2 of 5
SECTION 1
Description / Purpose
The Fire Department recommended that the City apply the grant funds for fire fuel reduction at the following areas:
1. Paint Brush Canyon: The area below Running Brand Road and along the Paintbrush Canyon Creek.
2. Portuguese Canyon: The area south of Crest Road near Fire Station 56 and end of Quail Ridge Road.
3. Klondike Canyon: The area between Southfield Drive and Portuguese Bend Road and the area at the end
of Packsaddle Road West.
4. Forrestal Canyon: The area at the end of Packsaddle Road East and end of Ringbit Road East and the area
at the end of Spur Road to the end of Crest Road East.
The City submitted the Fire Department’s recommendation scope of work and locations of work to Cal OES for
review and approval. In March 2021, Cal OES approved the Fire Department’s recommendations. The next
component of the project is to conduct an environmental analysis of the project scope to meet the requirements
of the grant. Grant requirements are included in documents listed below:
• Attachment 1 to the Request for Proposal is the City’s grant application (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Project Subapplication).
• Attachment 2 is the grant award letter from FEMA dated November 16, 2020.
• Attachment 3 is the Fire Department’s recommended scope of work for the project.
• Attachment 4 is the parcel information for work areas for the Paint Brush Canyon and the Portuguese
Canyon.
Proposers shall review the documents and determine the grant requirements to satisfy the environmental
component of the project. Proposers shall provide the City with their approaches to the project including a roster
of experienced personnel to work within a schedule that will meet the grant deadline.
21
Page 3 of 5
SECTION 2
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City is requesting proposals from qualified companies that have experience in conducting environmental
assessments to meet applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations for vegetative management projects.
Task 1 Information Gathering and determine grant requirements
• Review relevant documents
• Confer and correspond with City staff, Cal OES and FEMA as necessary
• Deliverable: memorandum on final environmental scope to satisfy grant requirements
Task 2 Conduct environmental assessments and prepare necessary documents to secure clearance for project
implementation
• Conduct site visits as necessary and coordinate with City staff, property owners, and Rolling Hills
Community Association for access
• Coordinate and correspond with other regulatory agencies and other organizations as necessary
• Conduct meetings with City staff as necessary
• Deliverable: Environmental clearance documents to be submitted to Cal OES and FEMA
Task 3 Stakeholder meetings
• Attend 2 community meetings
• Attend 2 City Council meetings
• Deliverable: meeting minutes
Task 4 Provide technical support during Cal OES and FEMA’s review of the environmental documents
• Respond to Request for Information
• Respond to review comments from Cal OES and FEMA
• Deliverable: Any response material generated by consultant
22
Page 4 of 5
SECTION 3
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Understanding of the Scope of Work:
Firms shall provide a narrative to the approach to complete the Scope of Work efficiently and economically.
2. Organization, Credentials and Experience:
Provide a summary of the Firm’s qualifications, credentials, and related past experience. Describe the firm,
including the personnel who will be assigned to the contract. Provide a list of three of the firm’s projects
within the last five years of similar scope and content.
3. Fees:
Under separate cover, provide a rate proposal for the scope of work. The cost proposal shall be identified
for each task. The proposed cost budget shall present the labor rates and proposed labor hours of
proposed staff for each work task described in the consultant’s proposal, as well as other direct costs.
4. Additional Information:
Firms are to review the sample Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 5) and provide comments
and or questions as a part of the firm’s proposal. See Section 6 of this RFP.
23
Page 5 of 5
SECTION 4
PROPOSAL PROCEDURE
All proposals are due no later than 5pm on July 1, 2021. The City reserves the right to extend the deadline. The
City will respond to request for clarification in written RFP addendum(s) as needed. All inquiries for clarification
shall submitted in writing via email to the Senior Management Analyst by 12pm on June 24, 2021. The City will
post any addendums to the RPF to the City’s website. Consultants planning to submit a proposal are required to
refer to the website to verify that they have received all addendums issued for this RFP.
Proposals shall be emailed to the Senior Management Analyst.
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
aball@cityofrh.net
310 377-1521
Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposal
unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the agreement between the City
of Rolling Hills and the firm selected. The City of Rolling Hills reserves the right without prejudice to reject any or
all proposals. No reimbursement will be made by the City for costs incurred in the preparation of the response to
this Request for Proposal. Submitted materials will not be returned and become the property of the City of Rolling
Hills.
SECTION 5
SELECTION CRITERIA
Proposals will be selected based on sound approach to meeting the scope of work, the ability to demonstrate
efficiency use of resources, the relevant experience of proposed personnel, and dedication of personnel to
complete the project within the specified timeframe. Firms may be asked to participate in an interview with the
City. If necessary, interviews are tentatively scheduled for the week of July 5, 2021.
SECTION 6
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 City of Rolling Hills HMGP Project Subapplication
Attachment 2 City of Rolling Hills grant award letter from FEMA dated November 16, 2020
Attachment 3 Los Angeles County Fire Department recommended vegetation management mitigation and
locations
Attachment 4 Parcel information for work areas for the Paint Brush Canyon and the Portuguese Canyon
Attachment 5 Sample Professional Services Agreement
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607-4052
November 16, 2020
Mark S. Ghilarducci
Governor’s Authorized Representative
California Office of Emergency Services
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Reference: Application Approval for Phase 1
HMGP-4382-175-13R, City of Rolling Hills
City of Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project
Supplement #29
Dear Mr. Ghilarducci:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved and issued Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) funds for the City of Rolling Hills (subrecipient), HMGP-4382-175-13R,
City of Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project (Phase 1).
The total eligible costs for Phase 1 are $323,500. As shown in the enclosed Supplement #29
Obligation Report, we have obligated $242,625 for up to 75 percent federal share; the non-Federal
share match is $80,875. These funds are available in Smartlink for eligible disbursements.
This HMGP grant approval and obligation of funds are subject to the following:
1. Scope of Work (SOW) - The City of Rolling Hills is proposing to create defensible
space/fuel breaks to protect homeowners from wildfires within the City. Phase 1 design
development funds are needed to determine the project locations and methods within the
City.
2. Budget Revisions and Cost Overruns - In accordance with the 2015 Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Unified Guidance, Part VI D.3, when budget changes are made, all programmatic
requirements continue to apply. Additional information regarding budget adjustments and
revisions can be found in 2 CFR Part 200.308. The Recipient must obtain FEMA’s prior
written approval for any budget revisions.
89
November 16, 2020
Page 2
3. Completion Date – The work schedule in the application states the activity completion time
frame is 12 months. We will annotate November 16, 2021 as the project completion date for
Phase 1. Please inform the subrecipient that work completed after this date is not eligible for
federal funding, and federal funds may be de-obligated for work not completed within
schedule for which there is no approved time extension
4. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) –This project has been determined to be
Categorically Excluded from the need to prepare either an Environmental Impact Statement
or Environmental Assessment in accordance with FEMA Instruction 108-1-1 and DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01. Categorical Exclusion a4 and a7 has been applied.
5. This award of funds is subject to the enclosed Standard Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Conditions, amended August 2018. Federal funds may be de-obligated for work that does
not comply with these conditions.
If you have any questions or need further assistance please contact me, or your staff may contact
Aaron Lim, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Specialist, at Aaron.Lim@fema.dhs.gov (510)-627-7036.
Sincerely,
for
David Stearrett
Acting Director
Mitigation Division
FEMA Region IX
cc: Robert Aguilar, Cal OES
Emily Winchell, Cal OES
Robin Shepard, Cal OES
Monika Saputra, Cal OES
Enclosures (4):
NEMIS Obligation Report
NEMIS Project Management Report
Record of Environmental Considerations (REC)
Standard HMGP Conditions
90
State Recipient
Disaster
No
Supplemental
No
Action
No
State
Application ID
Amendment
No
FEMA
Project No
4382 -0 175 1 29 CA Statewide
Project Title :Rolling Hills, City of, Vegetative Management ProjectRolling HillsSubrecipient:
Subrecipient FIPS Code:037-62602
13 R
Obligation Report w/ Signatures
8:03 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANTS PROGRAM
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY11/13/2020 HMGP-OB-02
Total Amount
Previously Allocated
Total Amount
Previously Obligated
$242,625.00 $242,625.00 $0.00$0.00
Total Amount Available
for New Obligation Total Amount
Pending Obligation
FYSubrecipient Management
Cost AmountProject Amount Total Obligation IFMIS Date IFMIS Status
$0.00$242,625.00 2021$242,625.00 11/12/2020 Accept
STEVEN SCOTT
KAREN MOJICA
Authorization
Preparer Name:
HMO Authorization Name:
Preparation Date:11/12/2020
HMO Authorization Date:11/12/2020
Comments
Comment:Approved funding for City of Rolling Hills, Vegetative Management Project
User Id:Date:11/12/2020 SSCOTT39
Authorizing Official Title Authorization DateAuthorizing Official Signature
Authorizing Official Signature Authorizing Official Title Authorization Date
Page 1 of 1 91
FEMA
Project Number
State RecipientAmendment
Number
App IDDisaster
Number
13 -R
Rolling Hills
037-62602
Subrecipient:
FIPS Code:Project Title :Rolling Hills, City of, Vegetative Management Project
CA Statewide01754382
HMGP-AP-01FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
11/15/2020
2:36 PM
Project Management Report
Approved Amounts
Total Approved
Net Eligible
Total Approved
Non-Fed Share Amount
Federal
Share Percent
Non-Federal
Share Percent
Total Approved
Federal Share Amount
$80,875.00$323,500.00 75.000000000 $242,625.00 25.00000000
FY
Allocations
Allocation
Number
IFMIS
Status
Proj Alloc Amount
Fed Share
IFMIS
Date
Submission
Date
ES/DFSC
Support Req
ID
ES/DFSC
Amend Nr
Total
Alloc Amount
Subrecipient
Management Cost
15 $242,625.00A11/12/2020 202111/12/2020 3231152 3 $242,625.00$0.00
Total $242,625.00 $242,625.00$0.00
Work Schedule Status
Description Amend # Time Frame Due Date Revised Date Completion Date
PHASE I 0 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
CEQA Assessment 6 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Boundary Survey 1 Month 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Legal Services 3 Month 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Site Survey 1 Month 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Project Design 7 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
PHASE II 0 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Construction Mobilizaton 1 Month 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Clearing & Grubbing 6 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Grading 4 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Hydroseeding 3 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Roadway Surfacing 2 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Offsite Mitigation 2 Months 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/00000
Approved
Project Title :
Recipient Place Code :
Recipient Place Name :
Recipient County Code :
Recipient County Name :
Recipient :
Project Closeout Date :
37
Los Angeles
Statewide
Rolling Hills
0
00/00/0000
Rolling Hills, City of, Vegetative Management Project
Subrecipient Place Code :
Subrecipient Place Name :
Subrecipient County Code :
Subrecipient County Name :
Subrecipient :
62602
Rolling Hills
Los Angeles
37
Rolling Hills
Approval Status:Approved
Mitigation Project Description
Amendment Status :
Page 1 of 2 92
FEMA
Project Number
State RecipientAmendment
Number
App IDDisaster
Number
13 -R
Rolling Hills
037-62602
Subrecipient:
FIPS Code:Project Title :Rolling Hills, City of, Vegetative Management Project
CA Statewide01754382
HMGP-AP-01FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
11/15/2020
2:36 PM
Project Management Report
Obligations
Action
Nr
IFMIS
Status
IFMIS
Date
SFS
Amend
Number
Submission
Date FY
SFS
Support
Req ID
Project Obligated
Amt - Fed Share
Total Obligated
Amount
Subrecipient
Management Cost
Suppl
Nr
11/12/2020 011/12/2020 2021 3306034 $242,625.001A $242,625.00$0.0029
Total $242,625.00 $242,625.00$0.00
Page 2 of 2 93
11/05/2020 REC-01FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
23:41:54
RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:
HMGP 4382-175-13 (Phase 1)
City of Rolling Hills Vegs Management Project (Phase 1)
Non Compliant Flag:
Level:
EA Draft Date:EA Final Date:
EA Public Notice Date:EA Fonsi
EIS Notice of Intent EIS ROD Date:
No
CATEX
Comment The City of Rolling Hills is proposing to create defensible space/fuel breaks to protect homeowners from
wildfires within the City, Los Angeles County (33.757238, -118.354605). Phase 1 design development
funds are needed to determine the project locations and methods within the City.
Phase 1 (Design) of this project has been determined to be Categorically Excluded from the need to
prepare either an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment in accordance with
FEMA Instruction 108-1-1 and FEMA Directive 108-1-1 as authorized by DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Revision 1. Categorical Exclusions a4 (information gathering, data analysis and processing,
information dissemination, review, interpretation, and development of documents) and a7 (commitment
of resources, personnel, and funding to conduct audits, surveys, and data collection of a minimally
intrusive nature) have been applied. Particular attention should be given to the project conditions before
and during project implementation. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize federal
assistance including funding. - dcohen3 - 11/05/2020 23:41:04 GMT
NEPA DETERMINATION
Description SelectedCatex Category Code
(a4) Information gathering, data analysis and processing, information
dissemination, review, interpretation, and development of documents. If any of
these activities result in proposals for further action, those proposals must be
covered by an appropriate CATEX. Examples include but are not limited to: (a)
Document mailings, publication and distribution, training and information
programs, historical and cultural demonstrations, and public affairs actions. (b)
Studies, reports, proposals, analyses, literature reviews; computer modeling;
and non-intrusive intelligence gathering activities.
a4 Yes
(a7) The commitment of resources, personnel, and funding to conduct audits,
surveys, and data collection of a minimally intrusive nature. If any of these
commitments result in proposals for further action, those proposals must be
covered by an appropriate CATEX. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a)
Activities designed to support the improvement or upgrade management of
natural resources, such as surveys for threatened and endangered species,
wildlife and wildlife habitat, historic properties, and archeological sites; wetland
delineations; timber stand examination; minimal water, air, waste, material and
soil sampling; audits, photography, and interpretation. (b) Minimally-intrusive
geological, geophysical, and geo-technical activities, including mapping and
engineering surveys. (c) Conducting Facility Audits, Environmental Site
Assessments and Environmental Baseline Surveys, and (d) Vulnerability, risk,
and structural integrity assessments of infrastructure.
a7 Yes
CATEX CATEGORIES
Description Selected ?Extraordinary Circumstance Code
No Extraordinary Circumstances were selected
EXTRAORDINARY
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW / EXECUTIVE ORDER
Page 1 of 3NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock.94
11/05/2020 REC-01FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
23:41:54
RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:
HMGP 4382-175-13 (Phase 1)
City of Rolling Hills Vegs Management Project (Phase 1)
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Description CommentStatus
Clean Air Act (CAA)Project will not result in permanent air
emissions - Review concluded
Completed
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA)
Project is not on or connected to CBRA Unit
or otherwise protected area - Review
concluded
Completed
Clean Water Act (CWA)Project would not affect any water of the U.S.
- Review concluded
Completed
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
Project is not located in a coastal zone area
and does not affect a coastal zone area -
Review concluded
Completed
Executive Order 11988 -
Floodplains
No effect on floodplain/flood levels and
project outside floodplain - Review concluded
Completed
Executive Order 11990 -
Wetlands
No effects on wetlands and project outside
wetlands - Review concluded
Completed
Executive Order 12898 -
Environmental Justice for Low
Income and Minority Populations
No Low income or minority population in,
near or affected by the project - Review
concluded
Completed
Endangered Species Act (ESA)Listed species and/or designated critical
habitat present in areas affected directly or
indirectly by the federal action
The proposed action is to provide funding to the
subrecipient for Phase 1 design development
funds, without any proposed physical
disturbance. These actions would result in no
impacts to endangered species. ESA review will
need to be completed prior to implementing any
subsequent phases of the project. The proposed
scope of work for design development will not
destroy or adversely modify suitable habitat and
will not affect any other listed or proposed
species. It is therefore determined the proposed
action would have No Effect on listed species
and consultation with the Services under Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required.
- dcohen3 - 11/05/2020 23:31:47 GMT
Completed
No effect to species or designated critical
habitat (See comments for justification) -
Review concluded
Completed
Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA)
Project does not affect designated prime or
unique farmland - Review concluded
Completed
Page 2 of 3NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock.95
11/05/2020 REC-01FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
23:41:54
RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:
HMGP 4382-175-13 (Phase 1)
City of Rolling Hills Vegs Management Project (Phase 1)
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Description CommentStatus
Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA)
Project does not affect, control, or modify a
waterway/body of water - Review concluded
Completed
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)Project located within a flyway zoneCompleted
Project does not have potential to take
migratory birds - Review concluded
Completed
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management
Act (MSA)
Project not located in or near Essential Fish
Habitat - Review concluded
Completed
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
Not type of activity with potential to affect
historic properties - Review concluded</br>
The Undertaking complies with Stipulation
I.A.7.f. (assistance provided for planning,
studies, design and engineering costs that
involve no commitment of resources other than
staffing and associated funding) of the
Programmatic Agreement among the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and
California Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES), signed October 29, 2019. Thus, the
Undertaking does not require SHPO review, and
FEMA has no further Section 106 responsibilities
in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.3(a)(1). No
ground disturbance is proposed. - dcohen3 -
11/05/2020 23:25:38 GMT
Completed
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(WSR)
Project is not along and does not affect Wild
and Scenic River - Review concluded
Completed
Standard Conditions:
Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders.
This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all
federal, state and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may
jeopardize federal funding.
If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological
resources are discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA.
CONDITIONS
Page 3 of 3NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock.96
1
Standard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Conditions
FEMA Region IX, August, 2018
The following list applies to Recipients and Subrecipients accepting HMGP funds from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
1. Applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws and Regulations. The Recipient/Subrecipient must
comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations, regardless of whether they
are on this list or other project documents. DHS financial assistance Recipients and Subrecipients are
required to follow the provisions of the State HMGP Administrative Plan, applicable Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Uniform Guidance, and Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards located in Title 2 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 200, adopted by DHS in 2 CFR 3002.
2. Financial Management Systems. The Recipient and Subrecipient must maintain financial
management systems to account for and track funds, as referenced in 2 CFR 200.302.
3. Match or Cost Share. Non-federal match or cost share must comply with 2 CFR 200.306, the scope
of work (SOW), and any agreements among the Subrecipient, the Recipient, and FEMA.
4. Budget Changes. Unanticipated adjustments are permitted within the approved total cost. However,
if costs exceed the federal share, the Subrecipient must notify the Governor’s Authorized
Representative (GAR) of overruns before implementation. The GAR shall submit a written request
for approval to FEMA Region IX. The subaward must continue to meet HMGP requirements,
including cost effectiveness and cost share. Refer to 2 CFR 200.308 for additional information.
5. Real Property and Land. The acquisition, use, and disposition must comply with 2 CFR 200.311.
6. Equipment. The acquisition, use, and disposition must comply with 2 CFR 200.313.
7. Supplies. Upon project completion, FEMA must be compensated for unused supplies, exceeding
$5,000 (fair market value), and not needed for other federal programs. Refer to 2 CFR 200.314.
8. Procurement. Procurement procedures must be in conformance with 2 CFR 200.318-320.
9. Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance. The Recipient and Subrecipient must submit
quarterly progress reports, as referenced in the 2 CFR 200.328 and State HMGP Administrative Plan.
10. Records Retention. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.333, financial/ programmatic records related to
expenditures must be maintained at least 3 years after the date of Recipient’s final expenditure report.
11. Enforcement and Termination. If the Recipient or Subrecipient fails to comply with the award or
subaward terms, whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, the State HMGP Administrative
Plan, subpplication, a notice of award, an assurance, or elsewhere, FEMA may take one or more of
the actions outlined in 2 CFR 200.338, including termination or partial termination of the award or
subaward outlined in 2 CFR 200.339.
12. Allowable Costs. Funds are to be used for allowable costs in compliance with 2 CFR 200.403, the
approved SOW, and any agreements among the Subrecipient, Recipient, and FEMA.
97
2
13. Non-Federal Audit. The Recipient and Subrecipient are responsible for obtaining audits in
accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984, in compliance with 2 CFR 200.501.
14. Debarred and Suspended Parties. Recipients and Subrecipients are subject to the non-procurement
debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, and 2 CFR
180. These regulations restrict federal financial assistance awards, subawards, and contracts with
parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in the
federal assistance programs or activities.
15. Equipment Rates. Rates claimed for use of Subrecipient-owned equipment in excess of the FEMA-
approved rates must be approved under State guidelines issued by the State Comptroller's Office or
must be certified by the Recipient to include only those costs attributable to equipment usage less any
fixed overhead and/or profit.
16. Duplication of Funding between Public Assistance (PA) and HMGP. Funding for PA Section 406
and HMGP Section 404 are permitted on the same facility/location, but the activities identified under
each program must be distinct with separately accounted funds. At closeout, FEMA may adjust the
funding to ensure the Subrecipient was reimbursed for eligible work from only one funding source.
17. Historic Properties and Cultural Resources. In compliance with 2 CFR 800, if a potential historic
property or cultural resource is discovered during construction, the Subrecipient must cease work in
the area and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the discovered
property/resource. During construction, the Subrecipient will monitor ground disturbance activity,
and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, will immediately cease work in that area,
and notify the Recipient and FEMA. Construction in the area may resume with FEMA’s written
approval after FEMA’s consultation, if applicable, with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO).
18. NEPA and Changes to the Scope of Work (SOW). To comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and other Laws and Executive Orders, any change to the approved SOW shall be
re-evaluated before implementation. Construction associated with a SOW change, prior to FEMA
approval, may be ineligible for funding. Acceptance of federal funding requires environmental
permits and clearances in compliance with all appropriate federal, state and local laws, and failure to
comply may jeopardize funding.
Within their authority, the Recipient and Subrecipient must use of all practicable means, consistent
with other essential policies, to create and maintain productive harmony for people and nature, and
fulfill the social, economic, and other needs of present and future generations of Americans.
\\R9li8a1\mitdata$\05. HMA Grants Management\02. HMGP\HMGP Standard Conditions\Standard HMGP Conditions, August 2018.docx
98
99
Project Description Summary
The proposed Hazardous Fuel Reduction project will take place within the city limits of
Rolling Hills located in the Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA, with 685 homes and 1,960
residents. Project will target canyons in the community for fuel modification. The goal is
to reduce the fuel by 50% - 70% tonnage per acre in targeted canyons. Thus creating
a defensible space required to protect life and property in case of a damaging wildland
fire.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department identified 11 canyons with approximately 187
acres that can be treated to provide protection to the communities of Rolling Hills. These
canyons have been identified using topography, local weather patterns, fuel load, fire
history, and density of homes. Environmental health, natural habitat for wildlife, and
stable hillsides for erosion control are considered in the plan. There are three primary
ways to remove hazardous fuels from the environment.
• Prescribed Fire – a form of land management in which fire is intentionally applied
to vegetation. Prescribed fires are conducted under desired weather and fuel
conditions to meet specific objectives, such as to restore adapted ecosystems or
limit the amount of dry brush in area prone to wildfires.
• Mechanical Fuel Treatments – are fuel treatments using machine activities
designed to change the size and arrangement of the bio mass. These treatment
methods include thinning, chipping, and pruning of lower tree branches.
• Goats – are used for fuel load reduction in dense understory and utilized in areas
to rugged for mechanized equipment. This technique takes time and the returning
of goats to the sites of fuel mitigation for up to four years.
Many of the homes in Rolling Hills are located at the top of ridgelines with the canyon
drainages below. Canyons have large amounts of untreated vegetation that can threaten
the homes in wildfire. To establish a priority list of project locations from highest risk to
low risk, the Los Angeles County Fire Department focused on 11 canyons within the
community The County of Los Angeles Fire Department categorized the canyons as
follows:
• Canyons that would be at risk from wind driven fires originating from the southwest:
Paint Brush Canyon, Portuguese Canyon, Altamira Canyon, and Forrestal
Canyon. Based on fire history maps these south facing canyons have the
highest risk for a wildfire in the future.
• Canyons that would be at risk during northeast winds: Georgeff Canyon, Purple
Canyon, Willow Canyon, Sepulveda Canyon, Blackwater Canyon, John’s Canyon,
Agua Magna Canyon. Most medium or larger fuels are located in the bottom of
drainages with pockets of fuel on north facing slopes. Access to vegetation in the
bottom of these canyons would be difficult, so hauling out material for chipping
100
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
FEMA-4382-DR-CA, Project #PJ0175, FIPS#037-62602
City of ROLLING HILLS: Scope of Work
Page 2
would have to be planned accordingly. Weed whip the fine fuels, target trees for
removal which would enhance better fuel spacing.
Some properties have extended the clearance from there fence line down mid slope into
the canyon below. This could set the example for other property owners to continue fuels
reduction in these canyons. Continue mid slope down into the canyon with homes above,
target vegetation for removal with spacing in mind by removing fuel continuously. Some
of the canyons do have access to use mechanical equipment and to chip removed
materials. Larger brush in the canyons could be trimmed up and ladder fuels removed.
Expected out come with these fuels reductions would help slow rate of spread of fire,
reduce flame lengths, lower amount of ember cast, reduce fire intensity in case of wild
fire. This would allow for better defensible space for structures and allow firefighters
opportunities to aggressively suppress wildland fire with ground and air resources.
Rolling Hills Terrain is comprised of many large and steep canyons that are the targets
for this hazardous fuels reduction project. Each one of the canyons has homes lining the
ridgelines. Home owners have done a good job with brush clearance 100’ from structures
but with the heavy fuel load in the canyons below topography and wind driven fires will
threaten structures with flame lengths and ember cast. The alignment of the canyons
makes them more at risk from winds of different directions. Strategically removing
vegetation will give proper spacing to slow the rate of spread of fire in these canyons.
Trimming and liming trees will reduce ladder fuels and help to keep the fire from getting
into the canopy’s, this will reduce flame length and ember cast that could threaten
structures in the community.
The amount of funding appropriated through the grant for the project should go to the
greater good of the community. Focus on canyons with highest threat of fire. Focus on
fuel modification from the structures to the canyon bottoms. This project can be the
example of what the community needs to keep moving forward towards the achievable
outcome of canyons with less fire hazards toward the community.
The County of Los Angles has ranked the canyons fire danger threat to the
community of Rolling Hills based on Topography Fuel Weather and Fire history.
The Canyons with threat from Southwest winds rank as the highest priority for fuels
reduction. City limits are an imaginary lines, the canyons below in the conservancy
are connected to the city of Rolling Hills. Focusing these grant funds to do fuels
reduction on the south side of the city, would continue to build on the vegetation
management Rolling Hills has already contributed to in the conservancy lands.
Focus on where the city boundaries meet the conservancy, this will continue to
break up the fuel continuity reducing fire spread and extreme fire behavior.
Paint Brush Canyon has two areas to target. The canyon between Cinchring Rd
and Portuguese Bend. Canyon area below Running Brand Rd and Burma Rd
(motorway).
101
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
FEMA-4382-DR-CA, Project #PJ0175, FIPS#037-62602
City of ROLLING HILLS: Scope of Work
Page 3
Portuguese Canyon has a two areas to target. South of Crest Rd near Fire station
56 and End of Qual ridge Rd.
Forrestal Canyon has two areas to target. End of Packsaddle RD E and End of
Rigbit Rd E, also end of spur road dead end of Crest Rd E.
Klondike Canyon is connected to Forrestal Canyon and has two area to target,
between Southfield Dr and Portuguese Bend Rd also end of Packsaddle W.
A. Scope of Work, Section 1: Hazardous Fuel Reduction/Removal of Dead or Dying
Tree Projects, sections 1-5 seen above, will be rewritten with specific detail to the
South facing only canyon for submission to Cal OES grants.
102
Three priority locations
identified by the Fire
Department:
(1)near the end of
Quail Ridge Road,
(2)Paintbrush Canyon
along the length of
the Paintbrush
Canyon Creek
within the limits of
Rolling Hills,
(3)south of Running
Brand Road
1
2
3
103
GOOD EXAMPLES
104
105
106
BAD EXAMPLES
107
108
109
110
111
C r e s t Rd
Cr
ensh
a
wBlv
d
Sweetbay Rd
Del C e rr o P ar k Portu g u e s e B e n d R d
Crest Rd W BuggyWhipDrUpperBlackwaterCanyonRdO
c
e
anaire D r
Burma Rd
Bu
r
m
a
Rd QuailRi
dgeRdNSouthfieldDrCrest
R
d
E
C
re
st
R
d
W
Por tu g u ese
Bend Natu re
P r es erv e
Crest
R
d
ESouthfieldDr
S a n P e d r o H i l l
Crew Work for Veg Project: Potential Project Parcels
NAD 83 04/15/21 FPURolling Hills Parcels\0 0.40.2
Miles
112
Scotw o o d D rC r e s t Rd
C restR d
N a r c issa Dr
Ci
nnamo
n
L
n Crensh
a
w
Blv
dSantaCatalinaDr
Sweetbay Rd
D e l Cer r o P ar k
PeppertreeDrPortug u e s e
Ben d Portug u e s e B e n d R d
Crest Rd W BuggyWhipDrMorganLn
UpperBlackwaterCanyonRdO
c
e
anair e D r
Burma Rd
Bur
m
a
Rd QuailRi
dgeRdNSouthfieldDrCrest
R
d
E
C
re
st
R
d
W
P or tuguese
B end Nature
Pr es er v e
L a d er a Li nda
P ar k and
C o m m unity
Center Musta
n
gRdS
u
rr
e
yLn
R ol l ing Hill s Ci ty
Par kland
Crest
R
dESouthfieldDr
CrestRdStarlineDrS a n P e d r o H i l l
M ir a Cata l i n a
E lementa r y
S c h ool
7567-012-0237567-012-026
7567-012-028
7567-012-032
7567-013-009
7567-013-010
7567-017-013
7567-017-016
7567-017-028
7567-017-038 7567-017-040
7569-009-002
7569-009-010
7569-009-011
7569-010-007
7567-012-016
7567-012-0257567-012-027
7567-012-029
7567-012-030
7567-012-031
7567-013-006
7567-013-007
7567-013-008
7567-017-012 7567-017-017
7567-017-037
7567-017-039 7567-017-042 7567-017-043
7567-017-0447567-017-0457567-017-046
7569-009-004
7569-010-005
7569-010-006
7569-010-010
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P,
METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
Crew Work for Veg Project: Potential Project Parcels
NAD 83 04/15/21 FPURolling Hills Parcels\0 0.40.2
Miles
113
114
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _____day of ________ 2019
between the City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"CITY'' and ______________ with principal offices at __________________-,
hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
1. RECITALS:
A. The CITY desires to contract the CONSULTANT for
__________________________
B. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education and experience to
perform such services; and
C. CONSULTANT is willing to render such __________ services as
hereinafter defined.
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
herein contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agrees to
perform the services set forth in this AGREEMENT.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner
satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in the specifications and the scope of work
described in the Proposal for ___________________ Services, attached herein as
Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as “SERVICES”).
3. COST
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work
performed under this AGREEMENT at the rates and in the manner established in the
attached Scope of Work, attached herein as Exhibit A.
Total contract shall not exceed the sum of _________________ during the term
of the AGREEMENT. This fee includes all expenses, consisting of all local travel,
attendance at meetings, printing and submission of grants, which are accrued during
that period. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated.
Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be approved by expressed
written amendment executed by the CITY and CONSULTANT.
115
ATTACHMENT 3
4. METHOD OF PAYMENT
CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed within 30 (thirty) days of submitting an
invoice to City for the SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall submit an invoice for the
SERVICES within 10 (ten) days of completing each task or portion thereof identified in
Exhibit A to this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices electronically to
the City Manager of the CITY and shall also provide a courtesy copy by U.S. Mail
addressed to the City Manager of the CITY.
5. SUBCONTRACTING
CONSULTANT may employ qualified independent subcontractor(s) to assist
CONSULTANT in the performance of SERVICES with CITY’s prior written approval.
6. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall commence work under this AGREEMENT upon execution
of this AGREEMENT.
7. PERFORMANCE TO SATISFACTION OF CITY
CONSULTANT agrees to perform all work to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY
and within the time hereinafter specified.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
All SERVICES rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of relevant local, State and Federal Law.
9. ACCOUNTING RECORDS
CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining
to costs incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the
CONSULTANT’s California office during the contract period and thereafter for five years
from the date of final payment.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DATA
All data, maps, photographs, and other material collected or prepared under the
contract shall become the property of the CITY.
11. TERM OF CONTRACT
This contract shall be valid for _____________ from execution of this
AGREEMENT.
116
ATTACHMENT 3
12. TERMINATION
This contract may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon seven
(7) days written notice to the other party. All work satisfactorily performed pursuant to
the contract and prior to the date of termination may be claimed for reimbursement.
13. ASSIGNABILITY
CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the
prior written consent of the CITY.
14. AMENDMENT
It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of
this contract, or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid unless
made in writing, signed by the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary parties.
15. NON-SOLICITATION CLAUSE
The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any
company or persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the
CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other
consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.
For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this
contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
16. INDEMNITY
CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save harmless CITY, its elected and
appointed officers and employees from all claims, damages, suits, cost or actions of
every name, kind or description, brought for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of
any person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from performance of this
AGREEMENT in any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of
CONSULTANT, it officers, agents, employees and/or servants in connection with this
AGREEMENT.
CITY shall indemnify and save harmless CONSULTANT, its officers, agents,
employees, and servants from all claims, damages, suits, costs or actions of every
name, kind, or description, brought for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of any
person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from performance of this AGREEMENT in
any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, its officers,
agents, employees, and/or servants in connection with this AGREEMENT.
If CONSULTANT should subcontract all or any portion of the SERVICES to be
performed under this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall require each subcontractor to
indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY and each of its officers, officials, employees,
117
ATTACHMENT 3
agents and volunteers in accordance with the term of the preceding paragraph. This
section shall survive termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT.
17. INSURANCE
A. Without limiting CONSULTANT’S obligations arising under paragraph 16 -
Indemnity, CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this AGREEMENT until it obtains
policies of insurance required under this section. The insurance shall cover
CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives and employees in connection with the
performance of work under this AGREEMENT, and shall be maintained throughout the
term of this AGREEMENT. Insurance coverage shall be as follows:
i. Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverage of $300,000
for property damage, $300,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence, and
$300,000 for injury to more than one person/single occurrence.
ii. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, insuring CITY its
elected and appointed officers and employees from claims for damages for personal
injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise
from CONSULTANT’S actions under this AGREEMENT, whether or not done by
CONSULTANT or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such
insurance shall have a combined single limit of not less than $500,000.
iii. Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT’S
employees to the extent required by the State of California. CONSULTANT shall require
all subcontractors who are hired by CONSULTANT to perform the SERVICES and who
have employees to similarly obtain Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all of the
subcontractor’s employees.
iv. Professional Liability Insurance for CONSULTANT that at a
minimum covers professional misconduct or lack of the requisite skill required for the
performances of SERVICES in an amount of not less than $500,000 per occurrence.
B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and
(iii) shall not exceed $5,000 per occurrence.
C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers and employees
shall be named as additional insured on policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) and
(ii).
D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) and (ii)
shall be primary and not excess coverage.
E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the
execution of this AGREEMENT, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued
by an insurer authorized to do business in California, and an endorsement to each such
118
ATTACHMENT 3
policy of insurance evidencing that each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 days
prior written notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of the
AGREEMENT. All required insurance policies are subject to approval of the City
Attorney. Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to procure or maintain said insurance in
full force and effect shall constitute a material breach of this AGREEMENT or procure or
renew such insurance, and pay any premiums therefore at CONSULTANT’S expense.
18. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT
In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights
created under this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of
costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount to be determined by the court.
19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or
agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the
planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest,
direct or indirect, in this AGREEMENT; and the CONSULTANT further covenants that in
the performance of this AGREEMENT, no person having any such interest shall be
employed.
20. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly
independent contractor. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over
the conduct of the CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT’s employees or
subcontractors, except as herein set forth. The CONSULTANT shall not at any time or
in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner
agents or employees of the CITY.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
This AGREEMENT supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in
writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by
CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect
such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this AGREEMENT
acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or
otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which
are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be
effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.
22. NOTICES.
All written notices required by, or related to this AGREEMENT shall be sent by
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid and addressed as listed
119
ATTACHMENT 3
below. Neither party to this AGREEMENT shall refuse to accept such mail; the parties
to this AGREEMENT shall promptly inform the other party of any change of address. All
notices required by this AGREEMENT are effective on the day of receipt, unless
otherwise indicated herein. The mailing address of each party to this AGREEMENT is
as follows:
CITY: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
CONSULTANT: ____________________________
23. GOVERNING LAW
This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as
amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the
date and year first above written.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSULTANT
CITY MANAGER
______ _____ ________
ELAINE JENG, PE
DATE:___________ DATE:_____________
ATTEST:
______ _____
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______ _____
MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY
120
Agenda Item No.: 5.C
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JANELY SANDOVAL, CITY CLERK
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
WILLDAN ENGINEERING TO CONDUCT A SEWER FEASIBILITY
STUDY (PHASE III) ON CONNECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED 8" SEWER
MAIN ALONG PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD/ROLLING HILLS ROAD.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The 8" sewer main line along Portuguese Bend Road/ Rolling Hills Road is currently in the design
phase. At the May 24, 2021 meeting, two residents reported that they plan to construct sewer main
lines along Williamsburg Lane and Middleridge Lane to serve the residents along these streets. The
residents also noted that their proposed lines need an outlet for the collected sewage. Since the City
secured approvals from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District to discharge effluent from 235
homes within the City limits to the County's treatment facility, the residents requested the City to allow
the effluent from their proposed lines to discharge to the City's 8" sewer main. With the 8" sewer main
in final engineering design, the residents expressed that the design scope can be expanded to include a
future connection to their proposed lines.
To assist the City Council in the consideration of the request, staff solicit a proposal from Willdan
Engineering. Willdan Engineering was commissioned by the City to study the alignment of the 8"
sewer main along Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road and assisted the City in achieve two will-
serve letters from the Los Angeles County for the effluent discharge of 235 homes. With a wealth of
background knowledge, and engineering data from previous sewer studies for the City, Willdan
Engineering was asked to provide a scope of work and a cost estimate to study the potential connection
between the proposed sewer lines and the 8" sewer main line. Willdan Engineering's proposal included
an evaluation of upstream areas that could connect to the proposed sewers in the future and also
evaluated conveyance of sewer flows from the proposed lines to downstream facilities. Willdan
estimated the cost of the study to be $14,500.
DISCUSSION:
At the May 24, 2021 meeting, the City Council approved the scope of work outlined in the proposal and
directed staff to engage Willdan for service. The City Attorney prepared a Professional Services
Agreement (PSA) with Willdan Engineering based on the approved proposal.
121
FISCAL IMPACT:
Willdan's proposed fee of $14,588 will be funded by the Utility Fund. There is sufficient budget in the
Utility Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
RH_ PSA with Willdan Group for Sewer Service Feasibility Study (Phase III)-Signed.pdf
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
Agenda Item No.: 7.A
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 1276 TO CREATE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR CREST ROAD EAST
UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
To preserve the rural character of Rolling Hills and to eliminate risks of wildfires, the City Council
encourages and supports utility undergrounding throughout the community. In line with this vision, the
City applied for grant funds through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program and on September 14, 2020,
the City was awarded $1,145,457 of Federal funds to underground utility infrastructure along Crest
Road East from the eastern city limits to the frontage of 67 Crest Road East. The grant requires a local
match of 25% or $381,819 for a total project amount of $1,527,276. The local match can be fulfilled
using the CPUC Rule 20A work credits. The entire project can be characterized as a CPUC Rule 20A
project. For Rule 20A projects, Southern California Edison (SCE) handles the design, joint trench
bidding and assist in the coordination with the other utility companies. City staff held a kick-off meeting
with SCE on January 13, 2021. SCE commenced with their work by performing a site visit and
measurements to confirm scope and limits of work and preparation of a Rough Order of Magnitude
(ROM) estimate for the project. The ROM was submitted to the City on February 25, 2021 and is based
on: 8-poles and approx. 1,340 feet of overhead wires being removed, and 1-overhead service converted
to underground feed covering the area from Crest Road from 87 Crest Road to East City Limits. The
Rough Order of Magnitude cost estimate for this project is $1,000,000, expressed in 2023 dollars. The
City sent SCE an email of concurrence for this ROM on March 3, 2021. The next step is the creation of
an Underground Utility District as required by SCE Rule 20A requirements for SCE to continue with
design efforts.
SCE Rule 20A projects require the local agency a dopt an ordinance creating an underground district in
the area in which both the existing and new facilities are and will be located requiring, among other
things, (1) that all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities in such district
shall be removed, (2) that each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have
installed in accordance with SCE’s rules for underground service, all electrical facility changes on the
premises necessary to receive service from the underground facilities of SCE as soon as it is available,
and (3) authorizing SCE to discontinue its overhead service. This ordinance can also be in the form of a
132
resolution. The formation of the Underground Utility District provides SCE the authorization needed to
remove the existing overhead facilities and install the underground facilities as replacement.
At the May 10, 2021 City Council Meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 1275 to establish an
Underground Utility District and set a public hearing for the June 14, 2021 City Council Meeting.
Letters were sent on May 19, 2021 to all property owners whose property or portion of their property
would fall within the proposed Underground Utility District to notify them on the formation of the
Underground Utility District and the public hearing that would take place at the June 14, 2021 City
Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Approval of Resolution No. 1276 is required for SCE to begin designing the undergrounding system to
replace the existing overhead facilities within the designated Underground Utility District. SCE would
also begin contacting and coordinating with other utility companies that have facilities on the existing
overhead system to begin their design to underground these facilities to coincide with SCE's design
efforts.
The grant the City received for this project requires the project must be completed by May 7, 2023 to
use the grant funds awarded the City; therefore delays in establishing the Underground Utility District
delays the project and could jeopardize the availability and use of the grant funds designated for this
project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Under Rule 20A, SCE does not send an invoice the design is completed. City would be reimbursed
from the grant funds less the City required match. The City's work credit will be used to meet the
required local match of $381,819. Allocation of this work credit will be included in the budget adoption
for FY2021-2022.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution No. 1276 to create Underground Utility District No.
1 (Crest Road) to support the Crest Road East Cal-OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Project.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1276 Crest Road Assessment District Rule20A.pdf
133
Resolution 1276
RESOLUTION NO. 1276
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, FORMING THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO.
1 (CREST ROAD), ORDERING THE REMOVAL AND
UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN
OVERHEAD FACILITIES AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City has received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(“FEMA”) and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (“CalOES”) to underground
utility infrastructure along Crest Road East from the eastern limits of the City to Wideloop Road;
B. Rule 20A of the California Public Utilities Commission (“Rule 20A”) allows Southern
California Edison (”Edison”) to remove poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures, and
the underground installation of wire and facilities for supplying electric, communication and similar
services to underground utility districts;
C. Rule 20A funds are expected to be used as the local match portion for the
CalOES/FEMA grant to provide for the undergrounding of such utility infrastructure;
D. Chapter 15.32 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills permits the City to
form underground utility districts if the City Council finds, after holding a public hearing, that the
public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated
overhead structures within designated areas of the City and the underground installation of wires and
facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar associated service;
E. On May 20, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1275, setting a public
hearing to consider the formation of City of Rolling Hills Underground Utility District No. 1 (Crest
Road) (the “District”);
F. The proposed boundaries of the District are shown on a map included as Exhibit A to
this Resolution;
G. On June 14, 2021 at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing was held at the regular meeting place
of the City Council at City Hall Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California
90274 to consider whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles,
overhead wires and associated overhead structures within the proposed District and the underground
installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar associated service;
H. Prior to such public hearing, the City Clerk notified all affected property owners as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll and the utilities concerned by mail of the time and place
134
2
Resolution 1276
of such public hearing at least ten days prior to the date thereof, and at such public hearing all persons
interested were given an opportunity to be heard.
I. The City Engineer has consulted with all affected utilities and has prepared a report
(the “Engineer’s Report”), which was submitted to the City Council at the public hearing, which
contained, among other information, the extent of such utilities’ participation and estimates of the total
costs to the City and affected property owners. Such report also contained an estimate of the time
required to complete such underground installation and removal of overhead facilities.
SECTION 2. The above recitals, and each of them, are true and correct.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Chapter 15.32 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, the City
Council finds that the public necessity, health, safety and welfare requires the removal of the poles,
overhead wires and associated overhead structures, and the underground installation of wire and
facilities for supplying electric, communication and similar services, as described in the Engineer’s
Report. The City Council hereby declares the area described in Exhibit A to this Resolution to be the
City of Rolling Hills Underground Utility District No. 1 (Crest Road) and hereby orders such removal
and underground installation as described in the Engineer’s Report.
SECTION 4. Such removal and underground installation shall be accomplished no later than, and all
affected property owners within the District shall be ready to receive underground services by, January
1, 2023. The City Council finds that such time is a reasonable time for such removal and underground
installation, having due regard for the availability of labor, materials and equipment necessary for such
removal and installation of such underground facilities, as described in the Engineer’s Report. The
City Manager may extend such time, upon providing notice to the property owners within the District,
if the City Manager finds such extension is necessary to meet to the requirements of Section 15.31.040
of the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills.
SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the estimated total costs and expense of the project within
the District, less the FEMA and CalOES grant amounts and Rule 20A funds, is $0.00 and no
assessments will be charged to property owners within the District, as described further in the
Engineer’s Report.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of the passage of this Resolution
pursuant to Section 15.32.080 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills to all affected utilities
and all persons owning real property within the District. The City Clerk is hereby further directed to
notify such affected property owners of the necessity that if they or any person occupying such property
desire to continue to receive electric, communication, or similar or associated service, they or such
occupant shall provide all necessary facility changes on their premises so as to receive such service
from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new location.
135
3
Resolution 1276
SECTION 7. All inquiries for any and all information relating to these proceedings and the proposed
District should be directed to:
Elaine Jeng, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
SECTION 8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it
into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on June 14, 2021.
____________________________________
JEFF PIEPER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ELAINE JENG, P.E.
ACTING CITY CLERK
136
A-1
Resolution 1276
EXHIBIT A
BOUNDARY MAP OF PROPOSED
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 (CREST ROAD)
137
5
Resolution 1276
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1276 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS, CALIFORNIA, FORMING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 (CREST ROAD), ORDERING
THE REMOVAL AND UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN
OVERHEAD FACILITIES AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of
June 2021 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
JANELY SANDOVAL
CITY CLERK
138
Agenda Item No.: 7.B
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1277 OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE 2014-2021 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING
ELEMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREVIOUSLY
PREPARED, ADOPTED, AND FILED FOR THIS PROJECT.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
State law requires all cities and counties in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of their
General Plans. The Housing Element must show that each community is doing its fair share to meet the
region’s housing needs and has adopted policies and regulations that implement State housing laws.
The State requires that Housing Elements are updated every eight years. The current planning period
(called the “5th Cycle”) extends from October 2013 – October 2021; the next planning period (the “6th
cycle”) runs from October 2021 through 2029.
The City of Rolling Hills met the statutory deadline for submitting its 5th Cycle Element. The City
submitted a Working Draft for review by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) prior to the October 15, 2013 deadline. On December 16, 2013, HCD issued its
determination that the Draft did not yet meet State Government Code requirements. The City revised the
Element in response to the findings. On January 21, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the revised Draft by the City Council. The Council adopted the 5th Cycle Element on
February 10, 2014 and submitted it to the State for certification.
On May 30, 2014, the City received a 9-page determination letter from HCD indicating that the adopted
Fifth Cycle Element still did not comply with Government Code requirements. The letter
acknowledged that a number of HCD’s initial objections had been resolved. However, HCD found that
the Element did not identify adequate sites for meeting Rolling Hills’ Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, including potential locations for affordable multi-family housing. Moreover, the State
139
advised the City that because it did not have a certified element for the 2006-2013 (4th Cycle) planning
period, it was obligated to “carry over” its unmet need from the 4th Cycle and plan for both the 4th and
5th cycles in its 2013-2021 Element.
On December 28, 2018, HCD issued a notice of non-compliance to the City. The City met with HCD a
number of times in early 2019 to address their objections. In April 2019, the City issued a letter to
HCD agreeing on a schedule for compliance, including rezoning of land to meet the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation. The schedule established the end of 2020 as the target for submitting a compliant
element to HCD.
During the remainder of 2019 and 2020, the City took a number of actions to develop a compliant
Element, including adoption of Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations, reasonable accommodation
procedures, and extensive outreach to residents on housing issues. In September 2020, the City retained
a consultant to amend the Housing Element and address the specific issues raised in HCD’s 2014
comment letter. In November 2020, the City prepared amendments to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan creating the Rancho Del Mar (RDM) Affordable Housing Overlay and adopting Plan
provisions allowing multi-family housing within the Overlay area. The City subsequently released an
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (IS/ND) on the Land Use Element Amendments and Draft RDM
Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning District.
Draft amendments to the Municipal Code creating the RDM Overlay Zone were prepared in December
2020. The Zone permits 16 units of affordable multi-family housing on the 31-acre site at 38 Crest
Road owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. While the zone maintains the General Plan
density of one unit per two acres for the site as a whole, it requires that the allowable number of units be
clustered in the area west of the PVPTA maintenance facility. The Zone further permits emergency
shelter and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residential uses on the site, subject to specific development
standards included in the Code. At its meeting on December 22, 2020, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council approve the Overlay Zone and IS/ND, with the modification that
housing on the site should be 100% affordable.
The City Council convened a public hearing on the Ordinance creating the RDM Affordable Housing
Overlay Ordinance, and Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element on January 22,
2021. A subsequent hearing was convened on February 8, 2021 and the Resolution was approved at
that time. The Ordinance was approved at its second reading on March 8, 2021. Minor revisions to the
General Plan Amendment and Ordinance were incorporated in response to Council comments.
While adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Amendment was proceeding, staff worked
with HCD on further revisions to the Housing Element. Meetings with HCD’s Housing Policy Division
took place on September 22, November 19, December 14, December 31, 2020, to discuss HCD’s
comments and the changes needed to achieve a compliance determination. On February 26, 2021, the
City submitted a revised Draft Housing Element to HCD. On March 11, 2021, the City met with HCD
to review their comments on the newest draft. HCD indicated that the latest revisions responded to
most of their objections but requested a few minor clarifications. These clarifications were made and a
revised Draft was submitted on March 29, 2021.
On April 2, 2021, HCD responded that all issues had been adequately addressed, but asked that the City
provide an analysis of the Rolling Hills Community Association’s role in reviewing applications for
new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Specifically, HCD requested that the City determine if RHCA’s
design review procedures were constraining the production of ADUs that were otherwise permitted
ministerially (i.e., without review by the Planning Commission or City Council). Staff provided
140
supplemental information on this topic, noting that every ADU reviewed by RHCA had been approved,
and that the review did not adversely affect the time required for approval or result in costly changes to
design or materials. Revisions to the document were made to provide the requested evaluation.
On April 26, 2021, HCD issued its finding that the Draft Element, as amended, met the requirements of
the Government Code and would be deemed compliant if adopted as presented. Accordingly, the City
convened a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 1, 2021. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Commission unanimously approved a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt
the revised Housing Element.
HCD’s decision letter includes a reminder to the City that the 6 th Cycle Housing Element is due on
October 15, 2021. A number of new State requirements will apply to that document. Moreover, the 6 th
Cycle housing allocation is 45 units, which is a 60 percent increase over the combined 4th and 5th Cycle
allocation. The City is currently in the early stages of preparing its 6th Cycle Element and intends to
have a Draft ready for Planning Commission review in late Summer.
DISCUSSION:
This section of the staff report highlights the changes made to the Housing Element to address HCD’s
comments. The most significant change is that the Element adopted in 2014 concluded that the City
would be unable to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) due to slope, wildfire, land
use, landslide, and infrastructure constraints, whereas the amended 2021 document demonstrates that
the City has capacity to meet the RHNA. This conclusion is mandated under State law and is necessary
for a compliance determination.
Specific changes to the document are highlighted below. The document is organized the same way it
was in 2014. It includes an Introduction, a Needs Assessment, a discussion of Housing Constraints, an
Assessment of Regional Needs, a discussion of Housing Opportunities (including potential sites), and
Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs. Each chapter has been edited to respond to the State’s
comments and describe activities since 2014. Edits also reflect the fact that the City was required to
“carry-over” 22 units from the 4th Cycle.
Foreword
A Foreword was added explaining that the Housing Element Update has been prepared to meet a State
mandate. The Foreword notes that cities without certified elements face loss of funding and potential
loss of local land use authority; thus, it is in the City’s best interest to have a compliant Element.
Introduction
Background information on public participation has been added to show that City has made an effort to
engage all economic segments of the community. This is required by State law.
Needs Assessment
Additional information on extremely low-income and disabled residents has been provided, per the
State’s comments on the 2014 Draft.
Housing Constraints
141
The following changes have been made:
A section has been added on constraints for different housing types, per State guidelines
Text on Accessory Dwelling Units has been moved here from Chapter 5 and expanded per the
State’s comments. Changes to City Ordinances made since 2014 have been described.
The description of multi-family housing has been updated to reflect the new Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone
The text on emergency shelter and SROs (Single Room Occupancy) has been updated to show
that the City has met State requirements
The discussion of housing for persons with disabilities has been updated to reference the City’s
new reasonable accommodations provisions
A new section has been added on the “Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls,” per HCD
requirements
The discussion of permitting times, processing, and fees has been updated per HCD comments
A discussion of ADU processing and the impacts of RHCA’s design review procedures has been
added, per HCD comments
Housing Assessment Summary
The text on the RHNA has been updated to describe the 4 th cycle carry over requirements and increase
the planning period target to 28 units (2006-2021).
Housing Opportunities
The following changes have been made:
A list of vacant sites, including their Assessor Parcel Numbers, has been added—as required by
state law
A discussion of “underutilized land” has been added
A detailed discussion of the 31-acre PVUSD (Rancho Del Mar) site has been added, including a
description of the new Overlay Zone
A discussion of ADU opportunities has been added, including the findings of the ADU survey
administered in 2020
The City’s ability to meet the RHNA is affirmatively demonstrated
Housing Plan
The Housing Plan has been updated to respond to HCD’s comments. Since the period covered by the
Element is 2014-2021, the City has included many of the actions it has already completed in order to
demonstrate its progress and responsiveness to the State’s comments. The following new programs
have been added to the document:
1. Prepare an Annual Progress Report (This is required by State law)
2. Amend Land Use Element to allow a variety of housing types (This has been completed)
3. Create Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (This has been completed)
4. Identify next steps for PVUSD site (This is “in progress”)
5. Allow emergency shelter (This has been completed)
6. Allow SROs (This has been completed)
7. Adopt Reasonable Accommodation (This has been completed)
8. Add definition of supportive, transitional, and employee housing to code (This is required by
State law and may be done later in 2021)
142
9. Adopt density bonus ordinance (This is required by State law and may be done later in 2021)
10. Adopt ADU requirements (This has been completed)
11. ADU education and outreach, including meeting with RHCA to make sure Architectural Review
is not a constraint (This is “in progress”)
12. ADU Incentives (This will be carried forward to the 6th Cycle Housing Element)
13. Monitoring of multi-family constraints and new opportunities (This was required by HCD and
will be carried forward to the 6th Cycle)
14. Seek ways to assist Extremely Low-Income Households (ongoing, required by Government
Code)
15. Facilitate communication with housing developers (ongoing, required by Government Code)
In addition, several programs from the Draft adopted in 2014 have been retained and carried forward,
but with updated text. These include programs supporting:
Shared housing (roommate matching, especially for seniors living alone)
Sewer feasibility studies
Stormwater runoff improvements
Code enforcement (ongoing)
Energy conservation
Remodels and new construction
Repair of landslide damaged lots
Fair housing practices
Appendices
Two appendices have been added to the Housing Element. The first is a profile of the Rancho Del Mar
site, demonstrating the viability of multi-family housing on the property. This was required by HCD in
order to qualify the site as eligible to meet the RHNA. The second is the report on the 2020 ADU
survey. The results of the survey were presented to the Planning Commission in March 2021.
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council approves the revised Housing Element, it will be submitted to HCD for a formal
determination of compliance. Once that determination is received, the City will be fully compliant with
State Housing Element law and will not be subject to “carryover” requirements for its 6th Cycle
Housing Element.
The City has already begun work on the 6th Cycle Element and will accelerate that work once the
Council has adopted the amended 5th Cycle Element. Additional City Council meetings on the 6 th
Cycle Element will take place this Summer.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
Amendment of the Housing Element is considered a Project under CEQA. Accordingly, an Initial
Study and Negative Declaration were prepared when the Housing Element was initially updated in
2013. The IS/ND was adopted by the City Council concurrently with the Housing Element on February
10, 2014. Most of the amendments to the Housing Element that are now under consideration were
addressed by a separate IS/ND issued in November 2020. That IS/ND considered the environmental
effects of amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and creation of the RDM Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone. The IS/ND for the General Plan Amendment and Overlay Zone was approved
143
on March 8, 2021. Both the 2014 Housing Element IS/ND and the subsequent 2021 IS/ND for the
General Plan Amendment and Overlay Zone concluded that the project would have no significant
environmental impacts. The edits included in the revised 2014-2021 Housing Element would not
change these findings and do not require recirculation of the IS/ND or preparation of a third IS/ND.
The edits primarily document measures that have already been taken by the City and the addition of
data and analysis required by State law.
Based upon all of the information in the record, including this staff report, none of the conditions
outlined in Public Resources Code, section 21166 or State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162 requiring
subsequent environmental review are triggered by these Housing Element Updates. Thus, no further
environmental documentation will be prepared for this plan. To the extent that this Housing Element
Update would involve future preparation of ordinances, such as a density bonus ordinance, those
ordinances will be evaluated for compliance with CEQA at such time that they are formulated and prior
to Council action on them.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Housing Element is a planning document that establishes policies for the City of Rolling Hills and
will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City. It may have an indirect positive fiscal impact by
reducing legal risks and qualifying the City for State planning grants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 1277 adopting the revised 2014-2021 Housing Element.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1277 5th Cycle Housing Element.pdf
Attachment2-HCDPre-ComplianceFinding-042621.pdf
Attachment3-2014HCDCommentswith2021Responses.pdf
RollingHills2014-2021HousingElement-forCouncilAdoption-April2021(1).pdf
Iniital_Study_2014-2021_Update__201312311052198725.pdf
144
Resolution No. 1277 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 1277
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE 2014-2021 ROLLING HILLS
HOUSING ELEMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS
PREVIOUSLY PREPARED, ADOPTED, AND FILED FOR THIS
PROJECT
THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals
A. On January 4, 1957, the City of Rolling Hills was established as a duly organized
municipal corporation of the State of California.
B. The City of Rolling Hills adopted its current General Plan on June 25, 1990. The
General Plan establishes goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve the community’s vision for its
future. A Housing Element of the General Plan was initially adopted in 1991 and amended in 2001
and 2009.
C. Cities and counties in the Los Angeles region were assigned new Regional Housing
Needs Allocations in 2013 and were required by State law to update their Housing Elements to
cover the October 15, 2013 through October 15, 2021 planning period.
D. The City of Rolling Hills prepared a Draft Housing Element update for 2014-2021.
The Planning Commission reviewed a Preliminary Draft Housing Element at a Public Hearing/
Workshop on September 26, 2013. The document was forwarded as a Draft to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their 60-day review. On
December 16, 2013 HCD requested modifications which were incorporated into a revised Housing
Element update,
E. On December 30, 2013 pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65353,
the State of California Clearinghouse, the cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Palos Verdes Estates, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Center Library, the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District, and the County of Los Angeles were notified of upcoming public hearings
for this project. Notifications of the public hearings were published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News on January 2 and January 30, 2014 and the City of Rolling Hills Newsletter. Copies of the
2014-2021 Housing Element update and Initial Study were made available at the public counter
and the City's web site.
F. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City
prepared an initial study and determined that there was no substantial evidence that adoption of
the 2014-2021 Housing Element may have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly,
a negative declaration was prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by
law.
145
Resolution No. 1277 -2-
G. A duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the
proposed negative declaration and the 2014-2021 Housing Element was held on January 21, 2014
at which time public comments on the negative declaration and the 2014-2021 Housing Element
were received by the Commission. At that meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2014-03 recommending that the City Council adopt the Housing Element and Negative
Declaration.
H. The City Council at a public hearing on February 10, 2014 considered individually
and collectively, the proposed negative declaration and the 2014-2021 Housing Element. After
due consideration of public testimony, staff analysis and the Planning Commission's
recommendation, the City Council determined that the 2014-2021 Housing Element, General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-01, furthered the housing goals of the City's General Plan, and adopted the
proposed negative declaration and 2014-2021 Housing Element.
I. The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) issued a determination letter on May 30, 2014, finding that the Element had only addressed
some of the issues in the December 16, 2013 letter and was not in compliance with the California
Government Code.
J. HCD issued a subsequent letter to the City on December 28, 2018 indicating its
non-compliant status and requested that the City establish a timeline for compliance.
K. The City established a tentative schedule in collaboration with HCD to develop a
compliant element by the end of 2020.
L. The City worked diligently during 2019 and 2020 to meet the requirements of the
Government Code and State law, including the adoption of Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinances,
Reasonable Accommodation Procedures, provisions for emergency shelter and single room
occupancy dwellings, and adoption of the Rancho Del Mar (RDM) Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone.
M. The City engaged the public through an on-line housing survey, newsletter updates,
and web-based information on housing, and through notification of public hearings on housing-
related issues.
N. The City issued a Negative Declaration on the RDM Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone and conforming amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan on November 17,
2020, in accordance with State Law.
O. The Planning Commission convened a public hearing on the Negative Declaration,
the General Plan Amendments, and the RDM Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on December 22,
and recommended their approval to the City Council, with modifications.
P. The City Council convened public hearings on the Negative Declaration, the
General Plan Amendments, and the RDM Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on January 25 and
February 8, 2021. The Council adopted the Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendments
on February 8 and approved the Zoning Code amendments establishing the Overlay Zone at its
second reading on March 8, 2021.
146
Resolution No. 1277 -3-
Q. On February 26, 2021, the City submitted a revised Draft Housing Element to HCD
reflecting the actions taken by the City Council in 2019, 2020, and 2021, and demonstrating the
City’s capacity for providing its fair share of the region’s housing needs, as defined by the Southern
California Association of Governments.
R. On March 11, 2021, HCD orally communicated requested revisions to the February
Draft to staff. These revisions were substantially incorporated.
S. On March 29, 2021, the City submitted a second revised Draft responding to
supplemental comments from HCD.
T. On April 26, 2021, HCD issued its finding letter that the Housing Element as
revised met the requirements of the Government Code and would receive a compliance
determination if adopted as presented.
U. On June 1, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
revised Draft Housing Element and adopted a Resolution recommending approval by the City
Council.
Section 2. Findings. Based upon the facts contained in this Resolution, those contained in
the staff report and other components of the legislative record, the previously adopted negative
declaration for the 2014-2021 Housing Element and the previously adopted negative declaration
for the General Plan Amendment and RMD Rezoning, and the written confirmation from HCD
that the City will be in compliance with State Housing Element requirements if it adopts the
Element as drafted, the City Council finds that:
A. Substantive changes made to the Housing Element since adoption of the 2014
Negative Declaration for the project were addressed in the Negative Declaration for the Land Use
Element amendment and creation of the RMD Affordable Housing Overlay Zone adopted in
March 2021. There is no substantial evidence that adoption of the proposed amendments to the
previously adopted 2014-2021 Housing Element will have a significant effect on the environment.
B. The City Council has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Housing Element
and the comment letters from HCD, including HCD’s findings on April 26, 2021 that the
amendments will bring the Element into compliance with State Housing Element law.
C. The City has edited the Draft Housing Element to comply with the requirements of
Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8. The revisions demonstrate the capacity of the Rolling
Hills to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 4th and 5th Housing Element Cycles,
and further demonstrate that topographic, geologic, infrastructure, fire safety and land use
constraints preclude further rezoning of property or increases in the development capacity of the
city.
D. The 2014-2021 Housing Element, as amended, is consistent with the other elements
of the General Plan because the Element uses the land use designations of the Land Use Element
147
Resolution No. 1277 -4-
and those designations in turn are reflective of, and consistent with, the policies and provisions of
the remaining elements of the General Plan.
E. The housing goals, objectives, and policies stated in the 2014-2021 Housing
Element are appropriate for the City of Rolling Hills and will contribute to the attainment of State
housing goals. The Housing Element will aid the City’s efforts to assist in the development of
housing for all members of the community and is in the public interest.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby adopts the proposed
amendments to the 2014-2021 Housing Element based on the preceding findings.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2021.
_______________________________
BEA DIERINGER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
JANELY SANDOVAL
CITY CLERK
148
Resolution No. 1277 -5-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1277 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE 2014-2021 ROLLING HILLS
HOUSING ELEMENT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS
PREVIOUSLY PREPARED, ADOPTED, AND FILED FOR THIS
PROJECT
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of
June 2021 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
149
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 26, 2021
Meredith T. Elguira, Director
Planning and Community Services
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Meredith T. Elguira:
RE: Review of the City of Rolling Hills’ 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Draft Housing Element
Update
Thank you for submitting the City of Rolling Hills’ (City) draft housing element update
received for review on February 26, 2021 along with revisions received on March 29,
April 1, and April 6, 2021. In addition, the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) reviewed Ordinance Nos. 364, 366, and 369. Pursuant
to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), HCD is reporting the results of its
review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on March 11, 2021 with
you and the City’s consultant, Barry Miller.
The draft element, incorporating the revisions submitted, meets the statutory
requirements of State Housing Element Law. This finding was based on, among other
reasons, implementation of zoning to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for lower-income households. Additionally, Programs 8 (Add
Definitions of Transitional and Supportive Housing, and Employee Housing to the
Municipal Code) and 13 (Multi-Family Zoning Monitoring and Consideration of
Additional Opportunities) are crucial to meeting statutory requirements. The housing
element will comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code)
when it is adopted, submitted to and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government
Code section 65585, subdivision (g).
HCD reminds the City that the City’s 6th cycle housing element update is due on
October 15, 2021. As such, the 5th cycle housing element expires on October 15, 2021.
HCD’s determination of compliance on an adopted 5th cycle housing element in no way
implies compliance is forthcoming for the 6th cycle planning period. The updated 6th
cycle housing element will be reviewed on its own contents, and new laws and new
housing element requirements will apply. These include, but are not limited to, analysis
ATTACHMENT 2
150
Meredith T. Elguira, Director
Page 2
surrounding the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(10). Additionally, successful
implementation of Programs 8 and 13, as noted above, including the identification and
zoning of sites to accommodate market rate (i.e. not limited to affordable) multifamily
housing zoning is critical for 6th cycle compliance.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information
regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing
element adoption. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual
reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant
housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other
funding sources.
HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication of the City’s housing element team in
preparation of the City’s housing element and looks forward to receiving the City’s
adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical
assistance, please contact Robin Huntley, of our staff, at Robin.Huntley@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
151
1
ATTACHMENT 3:
Documentation of Rolling Hills’ Actions on HCD Housing Element Comments
A.Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
This comment was made in the December 11, 2013 letter from HCD to the City of Rolling Hills
and applied to the City’s first draft for HCD review. The May 30, 2014 letter from HCD to the
City of Rolling Hills indicated this requirement had been met in the document adopted by the
City on February 10, 2014. Extremely low income households are quantified on page 18.
Extremely low income housing needs also are addressed on pages 30-31 and on pages 57 and 67.
2.Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment
compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock
condition (Section 65583(a)(2)).
The element must include an estimate and analysis of the number of lower-income households,
by tenure, paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. For your information, US
Census data indicates 2 of 15 (13 percent) of renter households and 206 of 598 (34 percent) of
owner households paid more than 30 percent of their income on housing. This information should
be incorporated into the element.
This comment was made in the December 11, 2013 letter from HCD to the City of Rolling Hills
and applied to the City’s first draft for HCD review. The May 30, 2014 letter from HCD to the
City of Rolling Hills indicated this requirement had been met in the document adopted by the
City on February 10, 2014. Housing overpayment is addressed on pages 29-30.
1.Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections
and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels,
including extremely low-income households (Section 65583(a)(1)).
The element must quantify existing extremely low-income (ELI) households and analyze their
housing needs. To assist the analysis, please find the enclosed Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. Information can be found at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/EHN extremelylowincome.php.
152
2
B. Housing Needs, Resources. and Constraints
1. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites
having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public
facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The inventory of land suitable for
residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within
the planning period (Section 65583.2).
City must zone or rezone sites to accommodate any unaccommodated need (Section 65584.09).
Since the City of Rolling Hills did not demonstrate adequate sites to accommodate the regional
housing need in the prior planning period, the element must include an analysis and programs as
appropriate to comply with this requirement.
For your information, the City of Rolling Hills must zone or rezone sites to accommodate any
unaccommodated need within the first year of the 2013-2021 planning period (Section 65584.09).
If the City does not complete the rezoning and does not adopt the element before this timeframe
lapses, the Department will not be able to find the element in compliance until the required
rezoning is complete and it is amended to reflect that rezoning.
As required by HCD, the City has zoned sites to accommodate the regional housing need for the
prior and current planning periods (e.g., the 4th and 5th cycles). The analysis documenting the
unaccommodated (4th cycle) need and the current (5th cycle) is on pages 56-57. The analysis
demonstrating that the City has adequate capacity to meet this need is on page 67. The rezoning
program is described on page 79. Appendix A provides further detail on the Rancho Del Mar
opportunity site.
As the adopted Element indicates, the City has adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on
an underutilized 31-acre parcel owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District (e.g., the
Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School site). The General Plan and Zoning Code permit 16
units on the site (one unit per two acres), which exceeds the RHNA need for 13 units for the 4th
and 5th cycles. The Affordable Housing Overlay requires that these units be clustered on a
development site within the 31-acre parcel where densities of 20-24 units per acre are achieved.
Affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right, with no discretionary review required.
Sites Inventory and Analysis: The City of Rolling Hills has a Regional Housing Need Allocation
(RHNA) of 6 housing units, of which 4 are for low-and moderate-income households. The
element states that available land to accommodate residential development falls into two zone
categories: RA-S-1 (one unit per acre) and R-S-2 (two units per acre), but only provides minimal
additional information to demonstrate adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. For example,
the element must include a parcel listing and demonstrate zoning to accommodate housing for
lower income households. However, the element does not identify any sites to accommodate
Rolling Hills' housing need nor demonstrate zoning appropriate to accommodate housing for low-
and moderate-income households. As a result, the element must be revised to identify sites to
accommodate the RHNA and analyze the suitability of sites and appropriateness of zoning and
include a program as appropriate to provide the necessary sites pursuant to GC Section
65583(a)(3), and 65583.2 and 65583(c)(1).
153
3
As required, the City has expanded the level of detail provided for each housing site, expanded
the number of sites listed, and expanded the range of housing types permitted on each site. This
information is provided on pages 57-67. Page 60-61 includes a parcel listing (with APNs) for
each vacant lot in the City, including a realistic assessment of housing potential. Pages 62-65
evaluate sites for their potential for lower income households, including detailed information on
the most viable site, which is the PVUSD site (now an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone).
Pages 65-66 provide more detail on how ADUs will meet a portion of the RHNA for low- and
moderate-income households. Programs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13 all address steps the City
is taking to provide the necessary sites pursuant to the Government Code.
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
Multifamily Zoning: Government Code Sections 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2, require jurisdictions to
demonstrate the availability of zoning to provide for a variety of housing types including
multifamily rental, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees,
supportive housing, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. The availability of multifamily
housing is critical to providing the variety of housing necessary to address the needs of lower-
income families and workers. The element (page 32) indicates only two zones allow residential
uses: the RAS-1 (one-acre minimum lot size) and RAS-2 zone (two acre minimum lot size) and
provides no discussion of zoning opportunities for multifamily uses. Therefore, the element must
include an analysis and programs to provide realistic opportunities for multifamily development.
See pages 36-45, pages 62-65, and Appendix A. All of this content has been added to
demonstrate that the City now provides for a variety of housing types, including multifamily
rental (Programs 2, 3, and 4), factory-built housing and mobile homes (P 35), emergency shelter
(Program 5), and Single Room Occupancy hotels (Program 6). Farmworker housing is not
expressly called out in the Municipal Code since there is not a farmworker population in the City
or nearby. The City also provides for transitional and supportive housing and treats these uses
the same way it treats other residential uses in each zoning district. Page 81 (Program 8)
includes an action to add definitions of transitional and supportive housing to the Municipal
Code before October 2021.
Emergency Shelters: The element states the City has provided funds to organizations to provide
shelter services (page 53). However, the element must identify a zone(s) where emergency
shelters are permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action and
demonstrate sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for shelters and at least one shelter
(Section 65583(a)(4)). The element must also describe characteristics, suitability, and capacity
within zone(s) for emergency shelters.
The City has amended its Municipal Code to allow emergency shelters without a CUP or other
discretionary action in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. See page 42 of the attached
document. The text describes the characteristics, suitability, and capacity within the zone as
required by the Government Code. Although annual counts of unsheltered residents indicate
there are no homeless residents in Rolling Hills, the City has met the requirement to allow for at
least one shelter. This is also explained on page 80 (Program 5).
154
4
Transitional and Supportive Housing: Pursuant to SB 2, transitional and supportive housing must
be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential and only subject to those
restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone (Section
65583(a)(5)). The housing element must be revised to describe compliance with this requirement,
including any necessary program actions.
This is addressed on pages 43-44 of the attached document. In addition, Program 8 has been
added (Page 81) indicating that definitions of transitional and supportive housing should be
added to the Municipal Code by October 2021, noting that these uses are considered residential
uses and are subject to the same restrictions that apply to the other residential uses that are
allowed in a given zoning district.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The housing element should be revised to describe
whether zoning is available to allow SRO units and add or modify programs as appropriate.
This is addressed on page 41 of the attached document. In addition, Program 6 has been added
(Page 80) indicating that the City has amended its Municipal Code to allow SROs with a
conditional use permit in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, subject to development
standards that are evaluated on Page 41.
Second Units: The element notes the City has adopted an ordinance prohibiting second units
(page 38). While the City's findings, made about 30 years ago to comply with Government Code
Section 65852.2(c), may have been appropriate, conditions or circumstances might have changed.
For example, new sewage disposal methods may be available to allow the development of second
units. The City could include a program to evaluate its ordinance prohibiting second units and
investigate sewage disposal technologies. For your information the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (NSFC) http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/wastewater.cfm, has information for small
communities and individuals to solve their wastewater problems through objective information
about onsite wastewater collection and treatment systems.
As indicated on pages 36-38, pages 65-67, and pages 82-83 of the attached document, the City
amended its Municipal Code in 2018 and again in 2020 to permit Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU) and Junior ADUs by right in all residential zones, subject to development standards that
are described in the document (see pages 36-38). The City’s standards are compliant with State
laws for ADUs and JADUs. Housing Element Program 12 addresses issues associated with
septic systems, an issue the City will continue to work on as it moves into the 6th Cycle. The City
has also adopted Policy 2.5 allowing ADUs in all residential zones.
The City also completed and analyzed a comprehensive, detailed survey of all residents
regarding ADUs in 2020. This is documented in the revised Housing Element (page 66) and is
described in detail in Appendix B.
155
5
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing for all income levels, including land-use controls, building codes and
their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove
governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing
need in accordance with Section 65584 (Section 65583(a)(5)).
Land-Use Controls: The element lists some residential development standards, but concludes,
without analysis, the standards do not impede achieving maximum densities and are not viewed
as constraints (page 33). However, the element must include an analysis of potential impacts on
the cost and supply of housing and add implementation actions as appropriate to address
constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing. This analysis must
include an evaluation of the cumulative impacts of development standards and specifically
address regulations such as parking and minimum lot size (one acre and two acre minimum lot
size) or lack of smaller minimum lot sizes to demonstrate whether they constrain housing.
Chapter 3 of the newly adopted Housing Element covers Constraints, including Land Use
Controls. This section has been substantially expanded from the first draft. It evaluates the
impacts of land use controls for single family homes on development feasibility (P 34-35), and
then evaluate the impacts of land use controls for different housing types, including ADUs and
multi-family housing. Chapter 6 now includes Programs that specifically address the
maintenance, improvement, and development of a variety of housing types, including programs
that have been implemented since the Element was initially adopted in 2014. Page 45 includes
an analysis of the cumulative impacts of development standards. The analysis concludes that
parking is not a constraint, and that larger minimum lot sizes are necessary to address fire
safety, landslide hazards, and the lack of sewer infrastructure, which is also addressed in this
chapter.
As noted in our prior review letter (April 23, 2009), while covenants, conditions and restrictions
(CC&Rs} limit development opportunities, the City has the obligation to remove governmental
constraints (e.g., zoning) which in and of themselves inhibit development opportunities and
restrict the availability of appropriate sites. The City should utilize its local powers to
appropriately zone sites to accommodate its housing needs including the regional housing need as
well as meet other requirements of State law (e.g., Section 65913(a)(1-3} of the Government
Code).
Comment addressed in earlier replies. The City has expanded its analysis of governmental
constraints and has added Programs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 to address zoning-related constraints
and ensure adequate capacity to meet the regional housing need and comply with provisions of
the Government Code regarding zoning for a variety of housing types. Many of these programs
have been implemented since HCD’s comment letter was sent in May 2014.
156
6
In addition, the City's land use policies prohibiting multifamily should be analyzed relative to the
limitations of State and Federal fair housing laws. To assist with this analysis, refer to
Government Code Section 65008.
While the City of Rolling Hills has never had a land use policy expressly prohibiting multi-
family housing, it has amended its Land Use Element to expressly state that multi-family
housing is permitted. It has also amended its Housing Element to encourage a variety of housing
types (Policy 1.4). Housing Element Program 2 creates the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
and permits affordable multi-family housing by right (e.g., without a conditional use permit).
Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes some information indicating the
City Council makes final decisions for all discretionary applications, it must describe and analyze
permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type for impacts on the cost and
supply of housing and approval certainty.
The discussion of permit procedures on pages 47-48 of the attached document has been
substantially expanded from the 2014 document, including a discussion of the types of projects
that are permitted administratively, the types of projects that require Planning Commission
and/or Council review, and those requiring review by the RHCA Architectural Committee. The
text includes further detail on the time required for permit processing for single family homes,
major home improvements, and ADUs.
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities: The element indicates the City "endeavors to
accommodate disabled access", however, it does not include an analysis or programs to comply
with this requirement. For example, the analysis must describe any spacing or concentration
requirements for housing for persons with disabilities. The element must also demonstrate the
City has a reasonable accommodation procedure for providing exceptions in zoning and land use
or include a program to do so (Section 65583(c}(1)(3)}. To assist in addressing this statutory
requirement, refer to the Building. Blocks' section on Constraints for Persons with Disabilities at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element/screen27_sb520.pdf.
An updated and expanded discussion of persons with disabilities has been included in the Needs
Assessment on pages 22-23 and an analysis of housing constraints for persons with disabilities is
now included on page 44. As the text on page 44 indicates, there are no spacing or concentration
requirements for housing for persons with disabilities. As the text on pages 23, 44, 77 (Policy
4.2), and 81 indicate, the City has adopted Reasonable Accommodation procedures that comply
with State law (see Program 7)
157
7
This comment was made in the December 11, 2013 letter from HCD to the City of Rolling Hills
and applies to the City’s first draft for HCD review. The May 30, 2014 letter from HCD to the
City of Rolling Hills indicated this requirement had been met in the document adopted by the
City on February 10, 2014. The City has further expanded the discussion of fees and exactions
in its latest adopted Housing Element on pages 46 and 47.
C. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and
conserved over a five-year time frame (Section 65583(b)(1 & 2)).
The element includes a summary of quantified objectives (page 63), it must also include qu antified
objectives by income category, including extremely low. This requirement could be addressed by utilizing
a matrix like the one illustrated below:
Income New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
TOTAL
This comment was made in the December 11, 2013 letter from HCD to the City of Rolling Hills
and applies to the City’s first draft for HCD review. The May 30, 2014 letter from HCD to the
City of Rolling Hills indicated this requirement had been met in the document adopted by the
City on February 10, 2014. The City has further expanded its quantified objectives in its latest
adopted Housing Element on pages 90-92.
Fees and Exactions: The element lists some fees (pages 34); however, it must analyze their
impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis
should list and evaluate the total amount of fees for a typical development, including the
proportion of total development costs. For additional information and a sample analysis and
tables, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/CON_fees.php.
158
8
D. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a
timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that
there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local
government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the
goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and
development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization
of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program
shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of
the various actions (Section 65583(c)).
Numerous programs in the element indicate "ongoing" implementation status. While this may be
appropriate for some programs, where the programs include specific deliverables or
implementation actions, the timeframes should indicate specific completion or initiation dates to
demonstrate beneficial impact within the planning period. Sample programs are available on the
Building Blocks website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/PRO_overview.php.
The newly adopted Draft addresses this comment. Please note that every one of the 22 programs
listed in Table 20 (the Housing Action Plan) also has a quantified objective and a specific
timeframe for implementation. The timeframe acknowledges that certain programs are ongoing,
but also identifies specific measures that have been accomplished since the Element was
initially adopted in 2014, those that are now underway, and those that need to be accomplished
by October 2021 when the Sixth Cycle begins. This information is color coded by status (see
pages 91-92) and is explained in greater detail in the program descriptions on pages 78-89.
2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage
the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing,
factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters and transitional housing. Where the
inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to
accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the
program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental
multifamily residential use by-right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low-income households
(Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in finding B1, the element does not include a complete site analysis and the adequacy of
sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and
analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning
available to encourage a variety of housing types. For example, the element must include
programs as appropriate to provide for multifamily opportunities. In addition:
Per the response to finding B1 on page 2 of this Memo, the City has expanded the site analysis in
order to establish the adequacy of sites and zoning. It has adopted the Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone to meet the 4th and 5th Cycle RHNA for 13 lower income units by right, thereby
closing a shortfall that had been identified in the 2014 Element. The adequacy of this site is
documented in Appendix A and in Chapter 5 (P. 64-67), and is further addressed in Programs 3,
4, 5, and 6.
159
9
For Your Information: Where the inventory does not identify adequate sites pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2, the element must provide a program to
identify sites in accordance with subdivision (h) of 65583.2 for 100 percent of the remaining
lower-income housing need with sites zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily
uses by-right during the planning period. These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and
development standards that permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 20 units per
acre. Also, at least 50 percent of the remaining need must be planned on sites that exclusively
allow residential uses.
See prior response. The inventory includes a program (already implemented) to meet 100
percent of the remaining lower income housing need with sites zoned to permit multi-family
housing by right during the planning period. As required, the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
accommodates 16 units at a density of 20-24 units per acre (the identified RHNA need is for 13
units, but the site accommodates a larger number). These 16 units are permitted by right, with no
discretionary review. The City also allows ADUs and JADUs without discretionary review.
Based on survey data and permitting records, a number of ADUs have been created since 2018
and are meeting a portion of the RHNA for low- and moderate-income housing.
Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing: As noted in finding B1, the
element must comply with the provisions of SB 2 for emergency shelters, and transitional and
supportive housing. To assist in addressing this statutory requirement, please refer to this website:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/sb2_memo050708.pdf.
See Program 5 (Emergency Shelter) on page 80 and Program 8 (Transitional and Supportive
Housing) on Page 81. The City has adopted provisions for emergency shelter by right in the
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. The standards are described on page 42. Transitional and
Supportive Housing is addressed on pages 43-44. While the City treats these uses in a manner
consistent with State law, Program 8 includes an action to add definitions of these use types to
the Zoning Code.
3. The housing element shall contain programs which "assist in the development of adequate
housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, low-and moderate-income households (Section
65583(c)(2)).
The element must include specific and proactive actions to assist in the development of housing
for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, including persons with
persons with development disabilities and special needs. For example, actions could commit the
City to annually contact nonprofit housing sponsors to coordinate and implement a strategy for
developing housing including assisting with site identification; adopt priority processing, fee
waivers or deferrals, modify development standards, grant concessions and incentives for housing
developments that include units affordable to extremely low to moderate income household, and
assist, support or pursue funding applications. The Department's Financial Assistance Program
Directory is available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/falProgram_Directory_June%202012.pdf to
assist the City with these efforts.
160
10
See Chapter 6 of the attached Housing Element. Several programs have been added in response
to this comment, including Program 4 (to market the housing opportunities at the PVUSD site
and work with the School District on potentially creating a separate parcel on the site for
housing, explore the possibility of teacher housing or employee housing, meeting with non-profit
developers, etc.), Program 11 (outreach and education on Accessory Dwelling Units), Program
12 (Incentives for ADUs and JADUs), Program 13 (Facilitating communication with affordable
housing providers, housing service providers, housing advocacy organizations, and senior
housing organization), and Program 14 (Facilitating shared housing).
4. The housing element shall contain programs which "address, and where appropriate and legally
possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing" (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted in finding B2, the element requires an analysis of potential governmental constraints.
Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs and
address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
If the element indicates the City does not have a reasonable accommodation procedure, it must
include a program to develop specific procedures for requesting and granting a reasonable
accommodation. The procedure should not be limited to the installation of accessibility
improvements and must provide reasonable accommodations to zoning and land-use requirements
for housing for persons with disabilities.
In response to this comment, programs have been developed to address the removal of
constraints, including Zoning Code Amendments adding definitions of transitional and
supportive housing and density bonus provisions. As noted earlier, the City amended its
Municipal Code in October 2020 to add reasonable accommodation procedures. This is Program
7 (Page 81) in the attached document. As Programs 16 and 17 indicate, the City is also actively
working to address infrastructure constraints.
This comment was made in the December 11, 2013 letter from HCD to the City of Rolling Hills
and applied to the City’s first draft for HCD review. The May 30, 2014 letter from HCD to the
City of Rolling Hills indicated this requirement had been met in the document adopted by the
City on February 10, 2014. The City has bolstered the discussion of fair housing and added
Program 22 (Page 89) which adds Fair Housing information to the City’s website and provides
guidance for making fair housing information available at community events.
5. The housing program shall promote equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of
race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin color, familial status or disability
(Section 65583(c)(5)).
Fair Housing (Page 63): While the program notes the City provides fair housing brochures at the
public counter, it must include broader efforts to promote equal housing opportunities such as
making information available at a variety of community locations and events.
161
11
E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments
of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort
(Section 65583(c)(8)).
While the element notes a public workshop and a hearing, it did not demonstrate how the City made a
diligent effort to achieve the participation of all economic segments in the development of the housing
element including low and moderate-income and special needs households and/or the groups that serve
them. For example, the element could describe a specific outreach effort with non-profits and service
providers to make the element available and solicit information on housing needs and strategies.
Additional information is available on the Department's Building Blocks' website at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/GS_publicparticipation.php
Between the initial adoption of the Housing Element in February 2014 and adoption of the
current Element in 2021, the City has held more than a dozen public hearings (Planning
Commission and City Council) on the Housing Element or housing-related actions (such as the
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and the ADU Regulations). These meetings have been
advertised to the entire community and elicited a high level of feedback. This is described on
pages 7-8 of the attached document.
The City has featured articles about the Housing Element in the City newsletter, which is
delivered to every household in the City. It also conducted a community survey on housing
(specifically, on Accessory Dwelling Units) that was administered to every household in the
City. The survey’s 29 percent response rate is indicative of a very high level of interest and
engagement. Rolling Hills has also continued to work with housing advocacy groups and has
provided information to its Commissions and the City Council and disseminated information to
the community.
162
2014-2021 UPDATE OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Contact: Meredith T. Elguira
tel: (310) 377-1521; email: Melguira@cityofrh.net
October 1, 2013 (Draft for HCD Review)
February 10, 2014 (Adopted/ not certified)
April 17, 2020 (Revised Draft)
March 26, 2021 (Revised for HCD re-submittal)
April 2021 Draft for City Council Adoption
163
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rolling Hills City Council
Jeff Pieper, Mayor
Bea Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tem
James Black, M.D., Councilmember
Leah Mirsch, Councilmember
Patrick Wilson, Councilmember
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Brad Chelf, Chair
Gregg Kirkpatrick, Vice-Chair
Sean Cardenas, Commissioner
Jana Cooley, Commissioner
Matt Seaburn, Commissioner
City Staff
Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager
Meredith T. Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Stephanie Grant, Planning Clerk
Consultants
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting (Housing Element)
Anna Choudhuri, CSG Consulting (CEQA)
164
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
i
FOREWORD
This document has been prepared to comply with the requirements of California
Government Code Sections 65580-65589, which mandate that all California cities and
counties adopt a Housing Element to address local and regional housing needs. Th e
Housing Element is part of the Rolling Hills General Plan and covers the time period
2014-2021. State law requires that the Housing Element is updated every eight years
and submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for
certification.
Certification of the Housing Element is based on a determination that the City has
complied with a variety of State laws addressing regional issues such as affordability,
fair housing, density, housing type, overcrowding, and homelessness. These laws apply
universally to all cities, including those with limited services and land capacity.
As a community within the Greater Los Angeles region, the City of Rolling Hills is
obligated to provide for its “fair share” of regional housing needs as determined by the
Southern California Association of Governments. Cities without certified Housing
Elements are subject to legal and financial penalties, the loss of eligibility for grants
which help fund City operations, and even the potential loss of local control over building
and land use decisions. For these reasons, it is in the City’s best interest to strive for a
compliant element.
In adopting this Element, the City has endeavored to balance State mandates with the
overarching goal of preserving the semi-rural, equestrian character of Rolling Hills. The
Housing Element responds to local as well as regional needs, including the need to
preserve the community’s environment, minimize further exposure to wildfire and
landslide hazards, and recognize infrastructure and public facility constraints.
165
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
ii
2014-2021 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills General Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................ i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... v
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
A. Community Overview ................................................................................................... 1
B. Purpose of the Element ................................................................................................ 3
C. Legislative Requirements .............................................................................................. 4
D. Scope and Content ........................................................................................................ 5
E. Relationship to other General Plan Elements .......................................................... 5
F. Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions ........................................................ 6
G. Public Participation ......................................................................................................... 7
H. Sources of Information ................................................................................................. 9
II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 11
A. Population Characteristics ......................................................................................... 11
1. Population Change............................................................................................................. 11
2. Age Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 12
3. Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................................. 14
4. Employment ........................................................................................................................ 15
B. Household Characteristics ......................................................................................... 15
1. Household Type ................................................................................................................. 15
2. Overcrowding ..................................................................................................................... 16
3. Household Income ............................................................................................................. 16
4. Special Needs Groups ...................................................................................................... 19
C. Housing Characteristics .............................................................................................. 26
1. Housing Growth ................................................................................................................. 26
2. Housing Type ...................................................................................................................... 27
3. Age and Condition of Housing Stock ............................................................................ 27
4. Housing Costs ..................................................................................................................... 28
D. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion ................................................................. 32
166
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
iii
III. CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION ................................. 33
A. Market Constraints ...................................................................................................... 33
1. Land Costs ........................................................................................................................... 33
2. Construction Costs ............................................................................................................. 33
3. Financing .............................................................................................................................. 34
B. Governmental Constraints ........................................................................................ 34
1. Land Use Controls ............................................................................................................. 34
2. Constraints for Different Housing Types ..................................................................... 36
3. Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls .................................................................. 45
4. Fees and Improvements ................................................................................................... 46
5. Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures .................................................. 48
6. Building Code Standards ................................................................................................. 49
C. Contractual Constraints ............................................................................................. 49
D. Infrastructure Constraints .......................................................................................... 51
1. Streets ................................................................................................................................... 51
2. Wastewater Disposal ....................................................................................................... 51
3. Stormwater Runoff ............................................................................................................ 52
4. Water .................................................................................................................................. 52
E. Topographic Constraints .......................................................................................... 53
F. Geologic Constraints................................................................................................... 53
G. Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................ 57
IV. HOUSING ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ................................................... 58
A. Local Housing Assessment ......................................................................................... 58
B. Regional Housing Assessment ................................................................................... 58
V. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................. 60
A. Availability of Sites for Housing ................................................................................ 60
B. Ability to Meet RHNA Allocation ............................................................................ 69
C. Opportunities for Energy Conservation ................................................................. 70
D. Financial Resources ...................................................................................................... 72
VI. HOUSING PLAN ...................................................................................... 75
A. Review of Prior Housing Element Performance ................................................... 75
B. Goals and Policies ....................................................................................................... 78
C. Housing Implementation Plan .................................................................................... 80
D. Summary of 2014-2021 Quantified Objectives ..................................................... 92
167
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
iv
Page
APPENDIX A:
Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site .......................................... A-1
APPENDIX B:
Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Findings ................................................................................. A-2
Figures Page
1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Slope Setbacks on PVUSD site ............................................................................................... 41
3. Seismic Hazards .......................................................................................................................... 54
4. Liquefaction and EQ-Induced Landslide Zones – Northern ............................................. 55
5. Liquefaction and EQ-Induced Landslide Zones – Southern.............................................. 56
6. Vacant Land Inventory Map ..................................................................................................... 61
Tables
1. Population in City, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013 ............................................... 12
2. Population by Age Group, Rolling Hills, 2010 .................................................................. 13
3. Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin, 2010 .............................................. 14
4. Household Type, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County ............................................... 16
5. Los Angeles County 2013 Area Median Income and Income ....................................... 17
6. 2010 Rolling Hills, Surrounding Cities, County-Household Income ........................... 18
7. 2010 Rolling Hills Household Income ................................................................................ 18
8. City of Rolling Hills Age of Housing Stock ....................................................................... 28
9. Median Housing Values: Rolling Hills and Neighboring Cities ...................................... 29
10. Affordable Housing Prices and Rents by Income Group ............................................... 31
11. City of Rolling Hills Development Standards ................................................................... 35
12. Summary of Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Housing ...................................... 40
13. City of Rolling Hills Development Fees ............................................................................. 47
14. RHNA New Housing Construction Needs by Income Group .................................... 59
15. Inventory of Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites ................................................................ 62
16. City of Rolling Hills Future Residential Development Potential .................................. 63
17. Federal and State Housing Programs ................................................................................. 73
18. City Progress toward Implementing 2006-2014 Element .............................................. 76
19. Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................................ 93
20. Housing Element Action Plan .............................................................................................. 94
168
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Housing Element addresses housing needs, opportunities, constraints, policies, and programs
in Rolling Hills for the 2014-2021 planning period. As a semi-rural hillside community, Rolling
Hills’ ability to provide housing is limited by geologic, topographic, wildfire, environmental, and
infrastructure constraints. Within the framework of these constraints, the City endeavors to
promote housing opportunities for all households.
This Housing Element Update reflects the City’s continuing efforts to retain and expand housing
opportunities in the community. For the duration of this planning period, the City of Rolling Hills
commits to a series of actions to support a variety of housing types serving persons of all incomes.
These actions continue from the last planning period and strive toward the following
accomplishments:
1. Provide housing information to the community’s senior citizens and low- and moderate-
income households.
2. Enforce code violations within residential neighborhoods.
3. Facilitate new construction by working closely with housing developers, property owners,
and builders.
4. Partner with non-profit developers and affordable housing sponsors to support affordable
housing development on identified housing sites, facilitate construction of affordable
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), and
establish programs to promote affordable units.
5. Monitor the City’s land supply for new affordable housing opportunities.
6. Promote reasonable accommodations for the disabled.
7. Provide opportunities for special needs housing, such as transitional and supportive
housing and emergency shelter.
8. Support energy conservation and sustainable development measures.
9. Support fair housing counseling and monitoring.
169
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
vi
170
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. COMMUNITY OVERVIEW
The City of Rolling Hills is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large
lot residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.98 square miles of
land on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles (Refer to Figure 1, Vicinity
Map).
The land use pattern was established with the original subdivision and sale of parcels that began
in 1936. The community is comprised of single-story California ranch style homes with three-
rail fences and equestrian facilities in a wooded setting, developed around the hilly terrain and
deep canyons of the City.
From its inception in 1936, the emphasis in Rolling Hills has been to create and maintain a
residential community that would respect its unique landform constraints. The City’s minimum
lot size requirements were established in recognition of these constraints, which include:
1. Geologic and topographic constraints, including landslide hazards
2. Fire-safety constraints
3. Lack of urban infrastructure, specifically sewer
4. Biological resource constraints, including sensitive animal habitats and species
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Source: Google Maps Screenshot, 2020
171
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 2
These constraints are described below.
Geologic and Topographic Constraints
Rolling Hills has been described as having the most severe terrain of any jurisdiction in Los
Angeles County. Its landscape is comprised of a system of rolling hills, steep canyons and blue-
line streams. Slopes of 25 to 50 percent are present on virtually every remaining undeveloped
parcel in the City.
Expansive soils and geologic hazard conditions continue to place constraints on development
within the City. Portions of the City are located over an ancient landslide, which from time to
time reactivates and affects the land. It is impossible to predict when and if a property will be
affected. One of the reasons the City insists on minimal grading is to minimize land disturbance
and exacerbation of soil instability. Because of these geologic conditions, the City has experienced
recent major landslides and erosion, further limiting the developable area within its boundaries.
In the past eight years, three private properties experienced earth movement where a portion of
the property slid, requiring the property owners to do extensive and expensive slope restoration
work. Recent geological exploration on an 8-acre vacant property where a home was being
proposed revealed unstable conditions and an ancient landslide. Pursuant to the Los Angeles
County Building Code, before the property owner could be allowed to proceed with
construction, extensive remediation was required.
Fire Safety Constraints
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, all land in the City of
Rolling Hills was upgraded in 2008 from “High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” to “Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, more restrictive fire safety standards have been
adopted in the City Building Code. Examples of the new standards include requirements to box
in eave projections (common to all ranch style homes in Rolling Hills), install double paned
windows, and use heavy timber construction materials and other construction materials approved
by the California Fire Marshal. Professionally designed landscaping meeting Fire Department fuel
modification standards (including fire-resistant plants around structures) also is required. The
new fire zone designation and related standards are placing additional constraints on new
development, resulting in higher design and building costs.
In addition to the higher fire hazard rating, current firefighting capabilities in the City are limited
by the California Water Company due to their distribution system and aging infrastructure and
the City’s topography.
Infrastructure Constraints
Only a few parcels on the western periphery of the City are served by a sewer system.
Consequently, most new development must utilize septic tanks for disposal of sanitary waste.
Recent engineering studies indicate that due to the terrain and unstable geological conditions of
the City, the cost of a sewer system would be prohibitive for a small city with limited financial
resources. In 2013, there was an attempt to form a sewer assessment district pursuant to
172
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 3
Proposition 218 (Cal Const. art. XIIID, § 4) for properties abutting Johns Canyon Road in the City,
but the effort failed due to the high cost of installing the sewer line. The prohibitive cost of sewer
line installation, in conjunction with recent active landslide activity and high cost of septic
installation, continues to constrain development in the City.
Biological Resource Constraints
Environmental constraints that limit development in Rolling Hills include sensitive animal habitats
and species that are listed or being considered for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and
Wildlife and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos
Verdes Blue butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego
Horned Lizard, and Brackishwater Snail. The community is also underlain with blue-line streams
that are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Within the context of these constraints, the City has actively pursued avenues to support
residential development and facilitate affordable housing opportunities. Specifically, the City has
adopted amendments to its Zoning Ordinance to allow for manufactured housing units and a
variety of other housing types and has worked collaboratively with adjacent communities to
address regional affordable housing needs. Additionally, the City amended Chapter 17.28 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code to allow construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) in compliance with the provisions of Government Code
Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. As part of this Housing Element Update, it has also amended its
General Plan to allow for multi-family housing and amended its Zoning Ordinance to permit
emergency shelters, single room occupancy housing, transitional and supportive housing, and to
require reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. It has also created opportunities
and incentives for affordable housing, as required by the Government Code. The City has
conducted these efforts in compliance with State Housing Element Law as summarized below.
B. PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
The provision of adequate housing for families and individuals of all economic levels is an
important public goal. It has been a focus for state and local governments for more than five
decades. The issue has grown in complexity due to rising land and construction costs, as well as
increasing competition for physical and financial resources in both the public and the private
sectors.
In response to this concern, the California Legislature amended the Government Code in 1980.
The amendment instituted the requirement that each local community include a specific analysis
of its housing needs and a realistic set of programs designed to meet those needs. This analysis is
to be set forth in the Housing Element and incorporated in the General Plan of each municipality.
173
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 4
C. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
The legislative requirements for Housing Element are prefaced by several statements of State
policy set forth in Section 65580 of the Government Code as follows:
The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of
decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including
farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.
(b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government
and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate
the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels.
(c) The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires
the cooperation of all levels of government.
(d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to
facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for
the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
(e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government
also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and
community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local
governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.
(f) Designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and
available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locality's housing need
for all income levels is essential to achieving the state's housing goals and the purposes
of this article.
State law further requires each municipality to accomplish the following tasks:
• Identify and analyze the current and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
• Evaluate the current and potential constraints to meeting those needs, including identifying
the constraints that are due to the marketplace and those imposed by the government.
• Inventory and assess the availability of land suitable for residential use.
• Establish a series of goals, objectives, policies and programs aimed at responding to identified
housing needs, market and governmental constraints, and housing opportunities.
174
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 5
D. SCOPE AND CONTENT
The Housing Element consists of five major components:
• An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends.
• A summary of the existing and projected housing needs of the City’s households.
• A review of the potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints to meeting
the City’s identified housing needs.
• An evaluation of the resources available to achieve the City’s housing goals.
• A statement of the Housing Plan for the years 2014 through 2021 to address the City’s
identified housing needs, including the housing goals, policies and programs.
This Element was initially adopted in 2014 and included these required components. The 2014-
2021 Housing Plan has guided the City’s housing programs for the last six years and has resulted
in significant accomplishments. Revisions to the Plan adopted in 2021 ensure that the Plan is fully
compliant with State Government Code requirements and provide additional guidance through
the end of the planning period. The Action Plan in Chapter VI identifies programs that have
already been completed during the eight-year planning period as well as programs that are
underway or yet to be completed.
E. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The Government Code requires internal consistency among the various elements of a General
Plan. Section 65300.5 of the Government Code states that the General Plan and the parts and
elements thereof shall comprise an integrated and an internally consistent and compatible
statement of policies.
The Rolling Hills General Plan contains the following six elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Housing; 3)
Circulation; 4) Open Space and Conservation; 5) Safety; and 6) Noise. The General Plan is
internally consistent. Policy direction introduced in one element is reflected in other Plan
elements. For example, residential development capacities established in the Land Use Element
and constraints to development identified in the Safety Element are reflected in the Housing
Element. The Housing Element builds upon the other General Plan elements and is consistent with
the policies and proposals set forth by the Plan.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the City will annually review its progress in
implementing this Housing Element. This review will help ensure consistency between this
Element and the other General Plan Elements.
175
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 6
F. RELATIONSHIP TO PRIVATE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
Most of the developable property in the City is subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions
(CC&Rs) adopted by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a non-profit California
Corporation and homeowners association that shares the boundaries of the City. RHCA is
governed by elected Rolling Hills community residents and oversees and enforces implementation
of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs run with each property in perpetuity and cover all properties in the
City except those listed below:
1. City Hall Complex
2. Tennis Court Facility
3. PVP Unified School District
4. Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center
CC&Rs represent private contractual obligations between homeowners and are usually
established at the time a subdivision or community is built. Development in Rolling Hills has been
governed by CC&Rs since the community was planned in the 1930’s. The RHCA and the CC&Rs
existed and were in force prior to the City incorporation, which occurred in 1957. The City of
Rolling Hills has no jurisdiction over the RHCA or the content or implementation of the CC&Rs.
The CC&Rs limit the density on most parcels to one residence per one-acre and two-acre lots.
Any construction, remodel, and grading for a building, fence or structure is required under the
CC&Rs to adhere to traditional or California ranch and equestrian architectural styles and
aesthetics. The uses and purposes of all perimeter easements around each property are required
to be dedicated to the RHCA and maintained for the purposes of ingress, egress, construction,
and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed as roadways, bridle trials, storm drains, utility
access and drainage.
In some instances, State law may supersede the authority of CC&Rs. For example, AB 670 (Cal
Civil Code 4751—effective January 1, 2020) limits CC&Rs from placing unreasonable limitations
on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). To the greatest extent feasible, the programs in this Housing
Element reflect the requirements of State law while maintaining the integrity of the CC&Rs.
176
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 7
G. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PROJECT TIMELINE
Section 65583(c)(9) of the Government Code states that the local government shall make “a
diligent effort . . . to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in
the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." For purposes
of the Housing Element law, “community” means a city (Gov. Code § 65582(a)).
To gather public input in its Housing Element Update, the City of Rolling Hills conducted a public
workshop before the Planning Commission on September 26, 2013 which was open to all
members of the community. At that meeting, the Commission with assistance from City staff and
the housing consultant, discussed the Housing Element Update. The public was invited to
comment and offer suggestions for new housing programs. Public comments included questions
from the Planning Commission regarding the feasibility of meeting the affordable housing goal
given the City’s topographic and infrastructure constraints. In addition to widely noticing and
advertising this meeting to Rolling Hills residents via the City’s newsletter, notices also were
posted at City Hall and in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and were provided to the cities of
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita, the County of Los Angeles, the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Unified School district, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Center Library District and
the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission.
Following the Planning Commission Hearing, public feedback was incorporated into the
document. A Draft Element was submitted to HCD for review on October 15, 2013. HCD
issued a response letter on December 11, 2013 indicating that the document required revision
prior to certification. Revisions were made in response to State comments, and a revised Draft
Element was recommended by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2014 and adopted by the
City Council on February 10, 2014. Public comment was invited and encouraged at both
meetings, which were advertised and noticed following City procedures. The adopted Element
was submitted to HCD on March 3, 2014. On May 30, 2014, HCD made a determination that
the adopted Element had not adequately responded to earlier State comments and required
further revision.
The City of Rolling Hills continued to solicit public input on housing issues between 2014 and
2019 while implementing the policies and actions in its adopted Element. These policies and
actions facilitated production of new housing, conservation and improvement of existing housing,
and new affordable housing opportunities through revisions to the City’s Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) requirements. In an effort to fully comply with State requirements and obtain State
certification, the City met with HCD representatives in 2019 to develop a timeline for revising
the previously adopted Element.
On November 25, 2019, a public meeting with the City Council was held to discuss the path
toward achieving a compliant Housing Element. The meeting was highly attended by residents
inquiring as to potential suitable sites and possible development impacts. Several potential sites
were discussed and it was announced at the meeting that further analysis and outreach would be
conducted to determine the suitability of each of the identified sites. As with the earlier meetings
in 2013 and 2014, the 2019 meeting was widely noticed, including an advertisement in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News, an announcement in the City’s newsletter, an email to the City’s
177
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 8
interested parties list, and posting at City Hall. Persons of all income levels and housing
circumstances were included in the noticing.
Revisions to the adopted Housing Element continued into 2020, along with further
communication with HCD and the public. In September 2020, the City retained a consultant to
facilitate additional revisions and to bring a revised document to the Planning Commission and
City Council for adoption. Additional public hearings were necessary to revise the Municipal
Code to provide for reasonable accommodations in housing. These occurred on October 20
(Planning Commission) and November 9 (City Council). Public hearings were then held to amend
the Municipal Code to create an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone; allow multi-family housing,
emergency shelter, and single room occupancy housing; make conforming amendments to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan; and certify a CEQA Initial Study-Negative Declaration for
these actions. The Planning Commission convened its hearing on December 22, 2020 and the
Council convened its hearing on January 25, 2021. Both meetings were widely noticed and
advertised, and residents of Rolling Hills and neighboring Rancho Palos Verdes participated and
provided testimony. Subsequent public hearings on the Overlay Zone were held on February 5
(Planning Commission) and February 8 and February 22, 2021 (City Council).
The City also implemented housing outreach measures in 2020 to ensure that Rolling Hills
residents were informed of the steps the City was taking to attain a compliant Housing Element,
as well as new opportunities for ADUs. In October 2020, the City mailed a survey to every
household in the City seeking opinions about ADUs, information on ADU potential, and the
feasibility of an affordable ADU program. The response rate was nearly 30 percent and the
findings will shape ADU programs that help the City meet its lower-income housing needs. Based
on the responses to the survey, all economic segments of the community have been involved.
The public has also been engaged in adoption of the revised Element in 2021. Meeting notices
and advertisements have been provided, and the public was encouraged to attend and participate.
Draft copies of the revised Housing Element were posted to the City’s website prior to its
adoption. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Revised Draft Element on XX,
2021 and the City Council adopted the Element on XX, 2021.
The City continues to encourage and support participation of all economic segments of the
community. Staff regularly solicits input from other public agencies, housing developers and non-
profit housing organizations for strategies and information on how to best meet its affordable
housing goals. Staff will convene additional workshops, surveys, and public meetings as part of its
next Housing Element Update. In addition to its regular noticing practices, Staff will use social
media and print media to inform the public of workshops and meetings.
178
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 9
H. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
A number of data sources were used to create the Rolling Hills Housing Element. These
include:
• City of Rolling Hills General Plan, current.
• City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, current.
• City of Rolling Hills Revised Final Environmental Impact Report: General Plan Update and
Zoning Ordinance Revision, April 1990.
• City of Rolling Hills Planning Department building permit records, August 2013.
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), adopted November 26, 2012.
• Department of Finance Population and Housing data, January 2013.
• 1990, 2000, 2010 U.S. Census Reports, plus 2020 American Community Survey.
• City of Rolling Hills Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Assembly Bill Nos.: 68, 670, 671, 881 and Senate Bill No. 13.
• Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone and related General Plan Amendments
Various other informational sources were also referenced and are cited where they appear
within the text.
179
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION Page 10
180
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 11
II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A successful strategy for improving housing conditions must be preceded by an assessment of
housing needs. This section of the Housing Element reviews the major components of housing
needs, including trends in Rolling Hills’ population, households, and the type of housing available.
These trends reflect both local and regional conditions. Data in this chapter is generally based on
conditions as of 2013, providing the baseline for the eight-year RHNA planning period (2014-
2021). Where appropriate, updated data from later in the planning period has been cited or
referenced.
The analysis is broken down into four major subsections:
• Section A, Population Characteristics, analyzes the City of Rolling Hills in terms of individual
persons and attempts to identify any population trends that may affect future housing needs.
• Section B, Household Characteristics, analyzes Rolling Hills in terms of households, or living
groups, to see how past and expected household changes will affect housing needs.
• Section C, Housing Characteristics, analyzes the housing units in Rolling Hills in terms of
availability, affordability, and condition.
• Section D, Assisted Housing At Risk of Conversion, analyzes housing units that have expiring
use restrictions, such as project-based Section 8 contracts and early tax-credit financing
contracts.
This assessment of Rolling Hills’ housing needs is used as the basis for identifying appropriate
policies and programs in this Element.
A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Rolling Hills’ population characteristics are important factors affecting the type and extent of
housing needs in the City. Population growth, age, race/ ethnicity and employment characteristics
are discussed in this section.
1. Population Change
Rolling Hills had a resident population of 1,860 according to the 2010 Census, and a population
of 1,884 in 2013, according to the State of California Department of Finance, City/County
Population and Housing Estimates. In terms of population, Rolling Hills is the fourth smallest city
in Los Angeles County. The City has been largely built-out for the past forty years.
As illustrated in Table 1, the City had a 1970 population of 2,050 and a 1980 population of 2,049. By
1990, the City’s population had dropped to 1,871. This decrease population lost as a result of the
181
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 12
damage from the Flying Triangle Landslide, in which ten homes were destroyed in the southern
portion of the City.
The City’s population remained stagnant from 1990 to 2000 and decreased by 0.6 percent
between 2000 and 2010. The 2013 California Department of Finance estimates a slight increase
of 1.3 percent since 2010. By comparison, the County of Los Angeles population increased by
3.0 percent from 2000 to 2010, from 9,519,330 to 9,818,605.
Limited growth in the City's population demonstrates the diminishing supply of parcels available for
development. Opportunities for new residents to move into Rolling Hills have occurred primarily
through redevelopment of the City's original housing stock and changes in ownership.
Table 1
City of Rolling Hills
Population: 1970,1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013
Year Population Percent Change from
Previous Year
1970 (a) 2050 −
1980 (a) 2049 0
1990 (b) 1871 -8.7
2000 (c) 1,871 0.0
2010 (d) 1,860 -0.6
2013 (e) 1,884 1.3
Sources: (a) City General Plan; (b) 1990 Census; (c) 2000 Census; (d) 2010 Census;
(e) State of California Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 01, 2013
2. Age Characteristics
The age structure of a population is an important factor in evaluating housing needs and planning
for future housing development. For example, if a city is experiencing an outmigration of young
adults (ages 25-34), there may be a shortage of first-time homebuyer opportunities and/or well-
paying employment opportunities. If a city has a substantial elderly population, special housing
types or services may be needed, such as assisted living facilities, housing rehabilitation programs,
paratransit, meals on wheels, and home health care services, in order to enable seniors to remain
in the community. Table 2 shows the number and percentages of Rolling Hills residents in each age
group according to Census 2010. The table also shows the median age for the City and County
of Los Angeles.
Rolling Hills is a maturing community. During the past 30 years, its median age increased from
38.2 in 1980 to 45.5 in 1990 to 53 in 2010. By comparison, the 2010 Los Angeles County
median age was 35.9 years.
182
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 13
Table 2
Population by Age Group: City of Rolling Hills, and Median Age for
City and Los Angeles County Census 2010
City of Rolling Hills
Age Range # of Persons % of Population
Under 5 years 44 2.4
5 to 9 years 100 5.4
10 to 14 years 143 7.7
15 to 19 years 165 8.9
20 to 24 years 61 3.3
25 to 29 years 39 2.1
30 to 34 years 21 1.1
35 to 39 years 39 2.1
40 to 44 years 92 4.9
45 to 49 years 168 9
50 to 54 years 162 8.7
55 to 59 years 156 8.4
60 to 64 years 157 8.4
65 to 69 years 138 7.4
70 to 74 years 117 6.3
75 to 79 years 105 5.6
80 to 84 years 84 4.5
85 years and
over
69 3.7
City Median Age - 2010 53.0
County Median Age - 2010 35.9
183
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 14
3. Race and Ethnicity
As shown in Table 3, the 2010 Census reported that 77.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ population
was White, which compared to 50.3 percent for the County overall. Rolling Hills’ Black or
African American population at 1.6 percent was lower than the County Black or African
American population at 8.7 percent. American Indian or Alaskan Native comprised very small
percentages of both the City and County population—0.3 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively.
Asians comprised 16.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ population, compared to 13.7 percent for the
County. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander also comprised very small percentages of the
City and County population—0.1 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively. An estimated 1.3
percent of Rolling Hills’ residents indicated that they are of “other race”; for the County, the
percentage of people identifying themselves as “other race” was notable larger at 21.8 percent.
Rolling Hills’ residents who identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino comprised 5.5 percent
of the City population. For the County, this percentage was much larger, with 47.7 percent of
the population identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino.
Table 3
Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin,
for City and County Census 2010
City of Rolling Hills Los Angeles County
Race # of
Persons % of Total # of Persons % of
Total
One Race 1,800 96.8 9,379,892 95.5
White 1,437 77.3 4,936,599 50.3
Black or African American 29 1.6 856,874 8.7
American Indian and Alaska Native 5 0.3 72,828 0.7
Asian 303 16.3 1,346,865 13.7
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2 0.1 26,094 0.3
Other Race 24 1.3 2,140,632 21.8
Two or More Races 60 3.2 438,713 4.5
TOTAL 1,860 100.0 9,818,605 100.0
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 102 5.5 4,687,889 47.7
184
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 15
4. Employment
The 2010 Census shows that 54 percent of Rolling Hills’ residents were in the labor force. Of these
workers, 89.1 percent commuted outside the City to work, while 10.9 percent worked from
their homes.
Most of Rolling Hills’ workers (71.1 percent) were employed in management, professional and
related occupations. An estimated 20.4 percent worked in sales and office jobs; 4.3 percent in
service industries; 3.9 percent in natural resources, construction and maintenance; and 0.3
percent in production transportation, and material moving occupations.1
There is no commercial or industrially zoned land in the City. City Hall is located on the only
institutionally zoned land in the City. Consequently, employment is limited to home-based
occupations and jobs at City Hall and the Rolling Hills Community Association office, Los Angeles
County Fire Station #56, and property maintenance and personal assistance care workers. No
significant change in the number of jobs in Rolling Hills is expected in the future.
B. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Information on household characteristics is an important indicator of housing needs. Income and
affordability is best measured at the household level, as are the special housing needs of certain
groups such as large families and female-headed households. As an example, if a community has
a substantial number of young family households whose incomes preclude home purchase, the
city may wish to initiate a home-buyer assistance program or participate in or publicize the
programs that are available elsewhere.
The Bureau of the Census defines a "household" as “all persons who occupy a housing unit, which
may include families, singles, or other." Boarders are included as part of the primary household
by the Census. Families are households related through marriage or blood. A single-person
household refers to an individual living alone. "Other" households reflect unrelated individuals
living together (e.g., roommates and unmarried partners). Persons living in retirement or
convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not considered households.
1. Household Type
As shown in Table 4, there were a total of 663 households in Rolling Hills according to the 2010
Census. Most of these households (81.3 percent) are families, compared to 67.7 percent family
households for the County.
Rolling Hills’ average household size is 2.81 persons per household, slightly lower than the 2.98
persons per household for the County. Family households are somewhat larger, 3.08 persons per
household for the City and 3.58 persons per household for the County.
1 American Community Survey, Table S2406, 2019
185
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 16
Table 4
Household Type
City of Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County (2010 Census)
City of Rolling Hills Los Angeles County
Household Type
No. of
Households
% of Total No. of
Households
% of Total
Families 539 81.3% 2,136,977 68.2%
Non-family 124 18.7% 996,797 31.8%
Total 663 100.0% 3,133,774 100%
Average Household Size
(all households) 2.81 2.98
Average Family
Household Size 3.08 3.58
2. Overcrowding
Overcrowding is another indicator of housing affordability. Unit overcrowding is caused by the
combined effect of low earnings and high housing costs in a community and reflects the inability of
households to buy or rent housing that provides sufficient living space for their needs. The
Census defines overcrowded households as units with greater than 1.01 persons per room,
excluding bathrooms, hallways and porches.
According to the 2010 Census, there is no overcrowding in Rolling Hills. There are no
households reporting more than one person per room. By comparison, 12 percent of Los
Angeles County households reported incidences of overcrowding and 4.9 percent of Los
Angeles County households reported incidences of severe overcrowding (more than 1.5
persons per room). A low incidence of overcrowding in Rolling Hills is expected to continue
through the current planning period.
3. Household Income
An important factor in housing affordability is household income. While upper income
households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, low and moderate- income
households are more limited in the range of housing they can afford.
State-Defined Income Categories
According to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the area median income
for a four-person household in Los Angeles County was $64,800 in 2013.2 California law and some
2 Correspondence from Lisa Bates, Deputy Director, Division of Housing Policy Development, State of California Department
of Community Development, February 25, 2013.
186
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 17
federal housing programs define several income categories based on a percentage of the area
median income (AMI) determined by HUD and HCD, as follows:
• Extremely Low Income - 30 percent of the area median income and below
• Very Low Income - between 31 percent and 50 percent of the area median income
• Lower Income - between 51 and 80 percent of the area median income
• Moderate Income - between 81 and 120 percent of the area median income.
These income ranges are used to determine eligibility for various subsidized housing programs.
Households earning more than 120 percent of the area median income are considered “Above
Moderate Income.” The 2013 income limits for these categories by household size are presented
in Table 5, as follows:
Table 5
Los Angeles County 2013 Area Median Incomes and
Income Limits Adjusted by Household Size
Maximum Income by Household Size
Income Category 1 Person
Household
2 Person
Household
3 Person
Household
4 Person
Household
Extremely Low Income $17,950 $20,500 $23,050 $27,650
Very Low Income $29,900 $34,200 $38,450 $42,700
Lower Income $47,850 $54,650 $61,500 $68,300
Median Income * $45,350 $51,850 $58,300 $64,800
Moderate Income $54,450 $62,200 $70,000 $77,750
* Income limits for extremely, very low and lower income levels are set by HUD based on historical income information;
median and moderate income levels are set by HCD based on mathematical averages of County income. Consequently,
numbers presented for lower income are higher than median income numbers.
Source: CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development, February 25, 2013.
Income limit data is updated annually to reflect increases (or decreases) in wages and the income
characteristics of the population in a given area. Incomes in California and Los Angeles County
increased significantly during the first six years of the 2014-2021 period. By 2020, the upper limit
for four-person lower-income households in Los Angeles County grew from $68,300 to $90,100,
an increase of 32 percent. For a four-person very low-income household, the income limit
increased from $42,700 to $56,300, and for a four-person extremely low-income household, the
threshold increased from $27,650 to $33,800.
These changes are important, as they are used to calculate the monthly housing costs considered
“affordable” to each income group. The benchmark for housing affordability is typically 30% of
monthly income. Based on HCD limits in 2020, “affordable” housing for a four-person household
in Los Angeles County would cost no more than $2,252 monthly for a lower income household
and $1,407 monthly for a very low-income household. This includes utilities and other related
housing costs.
187
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 18
Census 2010 Estimates of Household Income
According to Census 2010 estimates, median household income in Rolling Hills was $223,750,
compared to $56,226 for the County. Rolling Hills’ higher median household income reflects the
single family, large lot nature of the community. Table 6 shows the median income for Rolling
Hills, neighboring cities and the County as reported by the 2010 Census.
Table 6
City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, and Surrounding Cities –
2010 Census Median Household Income
Median Household Income – all households
Rolling Hills $223,750
Rolling Hills Estates $151,757
Palos Verdes Estates $159,038
Rancho Palos Verdes $116,643
Lomita $61,327
Los Angeles County $56,226
Table 7 shows the percent of Rolling Hills’ households by income range. Approximately 15.0
percent of Rolling Hills’ households report income below $50,000 per year, a level that generally
correlates to lower-income. Approximately 6.0 percent of Rolling Hills households report
income below $25,000 per year, a level that generally correlates to extremely low-income
households. Based on the 2010 Census estimate of 663 households, this could mean that as many
as 39 Rolling Hills households are extremely low income.
Table 7
Rolling Hills Household Income 2010 Census
2010 Income Percent of Households Cumulative Percent
less than $10,000 2.3% 2.3%
$10,000 to $14,999 0.7% 3.0%
$15,000 to $24,999 2.9% 5.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 5.9% 11.8%
$35,000 to $49,999 3.1% 14.9%
$50,000 to $74,999 2.6% 17.5%
$75,000 to $99,999 4.9% 22.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 14.4% 36.8%
$150,000 to $199,999 9.3% 46.1%
$200,000 or more 53.9% 100.0%
Because of the very high value of houses in Rolling Hills, it is likely that most of the approximately
40 households with declared incomes under $25,000 have other financial assets that allow them
to continue to live in Rolling Hills. Census data indicates that 50 percent of Rolling Hills
homeowners over age 65 do not have a home mortgage. The Census further indicates that about
188
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 19
half of the persons living below the poverty line in the City are older adults. These factors point
to a need for programs that assist lower-income seniors in home-sharing, opportunities for care
givers to live on-site, and creation of accessory dwelling units for supplemental income.
4. Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty finding decent, affordable housing
due to special circumstances. These “special needs" groups include older adults and the elderly,
large families, disabled persons, female-headed households, farm workers, and the homeless.
Under State law, the housing needs of each group are required to be addressed in the Housing
Element. The identified special needs groups are defined below:
Older Adults and Frail Elderly
The special needs of many older households result from their fixed incomes, higher rate of physical
disabilities and common need for assistance from others. In 2010, 513 residents (27.9 percent of
Rolling Hills’ population) were 65 or older. The number of households with at least one senior
resident was substantially higher. The Census identified 340 households with at least one
member over 65, representing 51.3 percent of all Rolling Hills households. By comparison,
countywide, 10.9 percent of County residents were 65 or older, and 24.4 percent of County
households had members 65 years or older.
Persons over 85 (often used as a proxy to estimate the “frail elderly” population) represented
3.7 percent of Rolling Hills’ population in 2010. This is one of the fastest growing segments of
the population, increasing to 4.7 percent of Rolling Hills’ population by 2020 based on US Census
data.
Many senior households are likely to be on fixed low incomes and are at greater risk of housing
over payment. In terms of housing, seniors typically require smaller, more affordable housing
options and/or assistance with accessibility and home maintenance. They often require ramps,
handrails, lower cupboards and counters to allow greater access and mobility for wheelchairs or
walkers. Because of limited mobility, some older adults may need to live close or have
transportation assistance to shopping and medical facilities.
According to the 2020 American Community Survey 23.2 percent of Rolling Hills residents over
65 have disabilities, which include sensory, physical and mental disabilities.
As discussed above, the median age for the City is much higher than the County—53.0 years
compared to 35.9 years. Although most of Rolling Hills older adults are upper income, there is
expected to be a continued need for accessible housing and senior related services throughout
the planning period.
City Approach to Meeting Elderly Needs: In previous years, the City of Rolling Hills has
assigned a portion of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation to the
adjacent city of Lomita to support its senior center and senior housing developments. In recent
189
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 20
years, the City of Lomita has not requested Rolling Hills’ funds for senior housing. Most recently,
due to the administrative burden associated with maintaining a CDBG program, the City no longer
participates in the program. To continue to help elderly residents find needed services, the City
has a list of local senior facilities available at City Hall. These facilities are listed below.
In addition, the City recognizes the benefits that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) can provide
to older residents, including the opportunity for a caregiver to reside on-site, thereby helping the
homeowner age in-place. ADUs can also create a source of income and a sense of security for
older residents. They can even provide an opportunity for homeowners seeking to downsize to
a smaller home while remaining on their properties and within Rolling Hills.
SENIOR FACILITIES NEAR ROLLING HILLS
Organization Street Address
CARSON
• Carson Senior Assisted Living 345 E. Carson Street
• Carson Senior Center 801 East Carson Street
• Samoan American Senior Citizen 23742 Main
TORRANCE
• Keep Safe Coalition 4733 Torrance Blvd
• Bartlett Senior Center 1318 Cravens Avenue
• Torrance YMCA Senior Center 2900 W. Sepulveda
• Herman Tillim 3614 W. Artesia Blvd
• Torrance Memorial Advantage Program 3330 W. Lomita Blvd
• Vistas Innovative Hospice Care 990 W. 190th
• RSVP 1339 Post Avenue
• Torrance South Bay YMCA Senior Program 1900 Crenshaw
• South Bay Senior Service 3246 Sepulveda Blvd
• South Bay Senior Service 2510 W. 237th Street
• H.E.L.P. 1404 Cravens Avenue
WILMINGTON
• Wilmington Senior Center 1148 N. Avalon
• Mahar House Community Center 1115 Mahar Avenue
• Harbor Area Senior Center 1371 Eubank Avenue
• Wilmington Jaycees Foundation 1371 Eubank Avenue
HARBOR CITY
• Harbor City Senior Center 24901 Frampton
190
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 21
Organization Street Address
SAN PEDRO
• Anderson Memorial Senior Center 828 S. Mesa Street
• San Pedro Service Center 769 W. Third
• Salvation Army Sage House 138 S. Bandini Street
• Japanese Community Pioneer Center 1964 W. 162nd Street
• Toberman Senior Club 131 N. Grand Avenue
REDONDO BEACH
• RB Community Center 200 N. Pacific Coast
• Meals on Wheels 32 Knob Hill Avenue
• Beach Cities Health Group 514 N. Prospect
• Redondo Beach Senior Center 3007 Vail Avenue
MANHATTAN BEACH
• Joslyn Center 1601 Valley Drive
• Manhattan Beach Senior Center Same as above
• Manhattan Heights Senior Same as above
HAWTHORNE
• Hawthorne Senior Center 3901 El Segundo Blvd
GARDENA
• Behavioral Health Services, Medicine Education Program 15519 Crenshaw Blvd
• Special Services Group Care Project 14112 S Kingsley Dr
• Asian Community Service Center same as above
• Gardena Service Center 1670 162nd Street
• Second Time Around 13220 Van Ness
• Sociable Seniors 1957 W. Redondo Bch
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
• Peninsula Seniors 30928 Hawthorne Blvd
PALOS VERDES ESTATES
• St. Margaret Mary Church Senior Club 25511 Eshelman
EL SEGUNDO
• El Segundo Senior Center 3339 Sheldon Street
191
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 22
Disabled Persons
Physical and mental disabilities can hinder access to housing as well as the income needed to pay
for housing. The proportion of physically disabled individuals is increasing nationwide due to
overall increased longevity and lower mortality rates. Mentally disabled individuals include those
disabled by a psychiatric illness or injury, including schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease, AIDS-
related infections and conditions related to brain trauma. Disabilities tabulated by the Census
include sensory, physical and mental limitations.
A tabulation of disabled persons in Rolling Hills is not included in the 2010 Census. However,
according to the 2000 Census, 152 of all Rolling Hills residents (8.1 percent of the City
population) were identified as disabled. Disabilities of these residents included each of the
categories tabulated by the Census, with most persons having physical disabilities. In addition,
the American Community Survey (a Census program that estimates population characteristics
between the decennial censuses) includes disability data for Rolling Hills covering 2015-2019.
Based on the 2000 Census data, Rolling Hills’ 152 disabled residents included 15 (or 9.9 percent)
aged 5 to 20 years old, 58 (or 38.1 percent) aged 21 to 64 years old, and 79 (or 52.0 percent)
aged 65 years or older. Of the disabled adults aged 21 to 64, 88 percent were employed outside
the home, compared to 65 percent of non-disabled adults.
The 2000 Census identified 18 percent of Los Angeles County’s population as disabled. Of these
disabled County residents, 10 percent were aged 5 to 20 years old, 67 percent were aged 21 to
64 years old, and 23 percent were aged 65 years or older. Of the disabled County adults aged 21
to 64, 54 percent were employed outside the home, compared to 69 percent of non-disabled
adults aged 21 to 64.
The 2014-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data for Rolling Hills indicates that 161
Rolling Hills residents (10.6 percent of the population) have a disability. A majority are seniors,
with 33.8 percent of the population over 75 (94 residents) reporting one or more disabilities.
The most common disabilities are ambulatory (103 residents, including 82 persons over 65),
hearing (56 residents, including 50 persons over 65), and cognitive (31 persons, including 10 over
65). Approximately 61 residents have a self-care limitation, including 44 residents over 65. These
residents may require daily assistance from caretakers or family members.
While many elder disabled residents have the financial means to adapt their homes for decreased
mobility, or to retain on-site care, some may need financial assistance. In addition, it is important
that planning and building codes support adaptations to homes (such as wheelchair ramps and
lower counter heights) that meet the needs of aging households and others with disabilities in
the community.
Pursuant to SB 812 (Lanterman Act), cities must include in their Housing Elements an analysis of
the special housing needs of the disabled including persons with developmental disabilities. The
Harbor Regional Center, located in Torrance, provides services to Rolling Hills’ residents with
developmental disabilities pursuant to the Lanterman Act. The Harbor Regional Center is a
private, not-for-profit corporation that serves over 10,000 people with developmental disabilities,
192
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 23
and their families, who reside in the South Bay, Harbor, Long Beach, and southeast areas of Los
Angeles County.
Within Rolling Hills, the Harbor Regional Center served one child aged 3-years old, one child
aged 4-years old, one child aged 5-years old, three children aged 7-years old, one child aged 8-
years old, two children aged 9-years old, two children 10-years old, one child aged 11-years old,
three children aged 12-years old, and two children aged 13-years old.3
City Approach to Meeting Disabled Needs: The City recognizes that regardless of income,
disability can block adequate access to housing. The City has adopted Resolution 699 that certifies
its recognition of the American with Disabilities Act and adopts necessary mitigation efforts to
assist its disabled residents. It has also adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance to ensure
that disabled residents may enhance or modify their homes in a way that meets their needs.
Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater
needs for day care, health care, and other facilities. Female-headed households with children in
particular tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing availability for this group.
According to the 2010 US Census, Rolling Hills has three female-headed households with children
18 years or younger. These three households, which comprise less than one-half of one percent
of all Rolling Hills households, are likely to be above-moderate income. Countywide, female-
headed households with children 18 years or younger comprise eight percent of total households.
Of these County households, 13 percent live in poverty. The equivalent data for Rolling Hills
indicates there are no female-headed households with children below the poverty line.
Because the very small number of female-headed households in Rolling Hills, as well as their income
characteristics, they are not expected to have special housing needs that require City programs.
City Approach to Meeting Female-Headed Households Needs: Because female headed
households are not an identified need in Rolling Hills, the City does not have active programs or
policies to address this need.
Large Households
Large households are identified in State housing law as a “group with special housing needs based
on the generally limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units.” Large
households are defined as those with five or more members. As noted in Table 4 above, Rolling
Hills has a smaller average household and family size than the County. Only 12.8 percent of the
City’s households have 5 or more members, compared to 16 percent in Los Angeles County as
a whole. Also, no City housing units meet the definition of overcrowded.
3 Nancy Spiegel, Director of Information and Development, Harbor Regional Center, 21231 Hawthorne Blvd., Torrance CA
90503; September 5, 2013.
193
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 24
Rolling Hills has the housing stock to accommodate large households. According to the 2010
Census, the average number of rooms per housing unit in the City is 6.9 compared to 4.6 for the
County. Large family households in Rolling Hills are expected to be predominately upper income
and adequately housed in the City's larger single- family homes. This information indicates that in
Rolling Hills large households do not represent a special needs group.
City Approach to Meeting Large Households Needs: Because large households are not an
identified need in the Rolling Hills, the City does not have active programs or policies to address
this need.
Farm Workers
The special housing needs of many agricultural workers stem from their low wages and seasonal
nature of their employment. An estimate of the "farm worker" population in the City is
extrapolated from individuals who categorize their employment as "farming, fishing or forestry” in
the 2010 Census.
Based on this estimate, there is one Rolling Hills’ worker who identified him/herself as employed
in this farming category. Because of the high median income in the City, this worker is expected
to be of above moderate income. There are no designated agricultural uses in or adjacent to Rolling
Hills. Consequently, farm workers are not a special housing needs group in Rolling Hills.
City Approach to Meeting Farmworker Needs: Because farm workers are not an identified
need in the Rolling Hills, the City does not have active programs or policies to address this need.
Homelessness
During the past decades, homelessness has become an increasing problem throughout the state.
Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include the general lack of housing affordable to
low- and very low-income persons, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below
the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies to the poor, and the de-institutionalization of the
mentally ill.
According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) 2013 Greater Los Angeles
Homeless Count Executive Summary, there are 59,233 homeless persons in Los Angeles County.
There are currently over 80 homeless shelters and numerous other emergency shelters,
transitional housing facilities, hospital emergency rooms, motels that assist Los Angeles County
homeless.4 The homeless facilities closest to Rolling Hills include Beacon Light Mission in
Wilmington that currently provides 7 temporary beds for homeless men plus meals.5 While no
one has been turned away from the dining tables in over a year, the beds are usually full. The
Mission finds that the majority of its clients are people searching for work in the Harbor area.
4 https://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/cgi-bin/id/city.cgi?city=Los%20Angeles&state=CA; accessed September 22, 2013.
5 http://beaconlightmission.org/; accessed September 22, 2013.
194
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 25
Other nearby homeless facilities include the American Family Housing (AFH), a nonprofit
organization that provides emergency, transitional and permanent housing. AFH operates in Los
Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties and is currently helping 1,170 persons each day
with shelter.6 In the South Bay area of Los Angeles, it operates a 20- unit two-story apartment
complex that features an outdoor play area and indoor children's recreation room. Occupants
can stay at the shelter for up to 90-days. During that stay, the occupants meet with caseworkers
and attend workshops on various topics, including budgeting, parenting and nutrition. They
receive assistance on building a resume and seeking employment as well as free and reduced-cost
childcare.
Harbor Interfaith Shelter in San Pedro provides housing to people each day in its emergency,
transitional and low-income permanent housing. In 2012, it provided housing services to 18,000
persons.7 The shelter also provides meals, personal counseling, and educational and vocational
services. Toberman Settlement House is a non-profit neighborhood center providing services to
low-income residents of Los Angeles. Its efforts are aimed at helping individuals and families move
from poverty to self-sufficiency. Founded in 1903, Toberman House is the oldest charity in the
city of Los Angeles, and the oldest United Methodist mission project in the Western U.S. It was
originally located in Echo Park, but moved to Boyle Heights in 1917, then San Pedro in 1937.
Toberman House offers a wide range of social services, ranging from state-licensed K through 5
childcare, and afterschool care, to a senior's club.
Recent contacts with each of these agencies indicate that they are fully occupied but have no record
of patrons who have listed Rolling Hills as their previous place of residence. Part of the reason
for this is that the City is not located along a major street, with other services or businesses,
which would attract transient and homeless persons. Additionally, Rolling Hills' gated entries,
which are monitored by the Rolling Hills Community Association and the rugged terrain provide
a difficult environment for the homeless.
A “point in time” count of homeless residents in Greater Los Angeles is conducted annually by
the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. Data for 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
counted no homeless residents in Rolling Hills.
City Approach to Addressing Homelessness: Senate Bill 2 of 2007 (SB2) requires that
jurisdictions quantify the need for emergency shelters and determine whether existing facilities
are adequate to serve the need. No homeless persons have been identified in or being from
Rolling Hills. Consequently, there is no quantified need for emergency shelters in Rolling Hills.
SB2 further requires that every city and county in California, regardless of the size of its
homeless population, provide at least one zoning category in which emergency shelter is
permitted “by right”—in other words, without discretionary approval from the local
government. At least one emergency shelter site must be identified in each city, and the
Housing Element must confirm that the site has adequate capacity to meet the identified need.
As addressed later in this document, the City of Rolling Hills met this requirement in February
6 https://afhusa.org; accessed September 22, 2013.
7 https://www.harborinterfaith.org/; accessed September 22, 2013.
195
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 26
2021 through its creation and mapping of an Affordable Housing Overlay District where
emergency shelter is permitted by right.
Outside of Rolling Hills, there are over 80 emergency shelters plus numerous other facilities
assisting homeless persons in the Los Angeles area, with the Beacon Light Mission in Wilmington
being the closest to Rolling Hills. The City is committed to coordinating with and homeless service
providers and meeting local homeless needs. A list of nearby social service agencies and shelters is
maintained by the City Clerk. In addition, the Sheriff Department directs homeless individuals
throughout the County to local shelters.
Provisions for transitional and supportive housing, and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel units
are addressed in Chapters III and VI of this Housing Element.
C. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
A housing unit is defined as a house, apartment, mobile home, or single room occupied as a
separate living quarter or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as a separate living quarter. Separate
living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons
in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common
hall. A community's housing stock is the compilation of all its housing units.
1. Housing Growth
Rolling Hills has been built out for the last forty years. The supply of buildable land has become
increasingly constrained by fires, landslides and identification of biologically sensitive species. Since
1990, the City has experienced a net gain of 10 units. Rolling Hills’ housing supply has grown from
a 1990 Census count of 674 units, to a 2000 Census count of 675 to a 2010 census count of 693
units. This represents a growth rate of 2 percent over 20 years, or less than two-tenths of one
percent per year.
While the limited availability of land suitable for residential development has resulted in only
nominal increases in the City's housing stock, additional residential development has been
occurring through redevelopment of existing units. Much of the City's original housing stock was
built in the 1950s and was typified by 3,000 to 4,000 square-foot ranch style homes. As in many
communities with a strong market for residential development and limited available land, Rolling
Hills' older housing stock is gradually being replaced with much larger, expansive units averaging
6,000 to 9,000 square feet in size, according to City building permit records. This trend of
residential recycling can be expected to continue and potentially increase as less vacant land is
available for development.
196
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 27
2. Housing Type
Rolling Hills is a community of single family houses. According to the 2010 Census, there are 693
single family units and no multi-family units. Some of these homes include guest houses and a few
contain permitted Accessory Dwelling Units. Per the Municipal Code, occupancy of guest houses
is limited to persons employed on the premises, the immediate family of the occupants of the
main residence or the temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. No temporary
guest may remain in occupancy for more than thirty days in any six-month period. A resident
needs a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house and is prohibited from renting out the guest
house. (RHMC Section 17.16.210(A)(5)(f).) Prior to 2018, these limitations effectively prohibited
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the City.
In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the
construction of ADUs and JADUs to help increase the housing stock in the City. This includes
potential conversion of guest houses to ADUs.
AB 167 amended Government Code Section 65583(c)(7) to require local governments, as part
of their housing elements, to develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs
at affordable rents. In addition SB 1069 required all cities and counties to allow ADUs, provided
they met specific standards, and SB 13 limited the extent of development impact fees on ADUs.
The City’s ADU requirements are discussed in the next chapter of this Element, and ADU
opportunities are addressed in Chapters V and VI.
3. Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Most homes begin to exhibit signs of decay when they approach thirty years of age. Common
repairs needed include new roofs, wall plaster and stucco. Homes thirty years or over with
deferred maintenance require more substantial repairs, such as new siding, plumbing or multiple
repairs to the roof, walls, etc. As illustrated in Table 8, the majority of Rolling Hills' housing (51
percent) was constructed before 1960.
The fact that a large majority of the City's housing stock is owner-occupied, combined with the
high quality of residential construction, has resulted in excellent upkeep of the City's units.
According to the City code enforcement files, no significant housing condition problems have been
identified.
Code enforcement in the City is the responsibility of the Planning and Community Services
Department. In 2019, the City added a new position in the Planning and Community Services
Department strictly for code enforcement. In response to complaints, the Code Enforcement
Officer makes site inspections in the community. Any code enforcement violations noted by the
Officer or called in by a resident are typically handled by a site inspection and phone call to the
resident causing the violation. If the phone call fails to resolve the violation, the Officer will follow-
up with a letter. The code violations regarding residential structural deficiencies in the City of
Rolling Hills are monitored by the Officer and Building Inspector. Both City representatives
monitor the violations until the issues are resolved.
197
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 28
City Housing Maintenance Efforts: As noted above, the City encourages the conservation and
maintenance of its housing stock and works with its homeowners to support home improvements and
code enforcement activities.
Table 8
City of Rolling Hills Age of Housing Stock 2010 Census
Years
# of Units
% of Total Units
Cumulative % of
Total Units
1939 or earlier 33 4.8% 4.8%
1940-1959 324 46.7% 51.5%
1960-1969 115 16.6% 68.1%
1970-1979 110 15.9% 84.0%
1980-1989 40 5.8% 89.8%
1990-1999 30 4.3% 94.1%
2000-2004 18 2.6% 96.7%
2005+ 23 3.3% 100.0%
Total 693 100%
4. Housing Costs
Housing costs are driven by the price of raw land, infrastructure (e.g. sewer and water),
construction, supply relative to demand, and financing rates. The diminishing supply of developable
land in Rolling Hills and the rapid rise in residential real estate prices that has occurred throughout
the Southern California region, have driven up the cost of both ownership and rental housing in
Rolling Hills.
Ownership Housing
All ownership housing in Rolling Hills is single family homes. Minimum lot size as established by
the RHCA is one acre. The value of these homes varies based on the type, size and location.
According to the 2010 Census, 90.8 percent of houses in Rolling Hills are valued at over
$1,000,000. Recent for sales data for September 2013 shows a median for-sale housing price of
about $5,500,000.8
As shown in Table 9 below, Rolling Hills’ housing prices are similar to most of its neighboring
communities.
8 Zillow.com; accessed 9/30/2013.
198
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 29
Table 9
City of Rolling Hills Median Housing Values 2010 Census
City Median Sales Price 2010
Rolling Hills $1,000,000+
Rolling Hills Estates $1,000,000+
Palos Verdes Estates $1,000,000+
Rancho Palos Verdes $ 950,000
Lomita $495,000
Rental Housing
According to the 2010 Census, 97.5 percent of the City’s housing units were owner- occupied,
with 2.5 percent renter-occupied. Census data from 2014-2019 indicates there are 27 renter
households in the city. Because of the large estate lots and limited supply of available housing in
the community, rental rates are currently between $3,500 per month and $9,900 per month.9
There are also a limited number of Accessory Dwelling Units that are more affordable.
Vacancy Rates
The residential vacancy rate, a translation of the number of unoccupied housing units on the
market, is a good indicator of the balance between housing supply and demand in a community.
When the demand for housing exceeds the available supply, the vacancy rate will be low.
Concurrently, a low vacancy rate drives the cost of housing upward to the disadvantage of
prospective buyers or renters.
In a healthy housing market, the vacancy rate would be between 5.0 and 8.0 percent. These vacant
units should be distributed across a variety of housing types, sizes, price ranges and locations
within the City. This allows adequate selection opportunities for households seeking new
residences.
According to the 2010 Census, Rolling Hills’ owner-occupied housing units have a vacancy rate of
5 percent. This rate indicates that the housing market is relatively healthy with some room for
buyers to find a suitable unit or negotiate a lower purchase price.
Housing Affordability and Overpayment
Federal and state guidelines specify that households should not spend more than 30 percent of
their gross income on housing. Census information indicates that 13.0 percent of Rolling Hills’
renter households and 34.0 percent of owner households paid more than 30 percent of their
incomes on housing.
9 Zillow.com; accessed 9/30/2013.
199
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 30
Table 10 estimates the maximum housing costs affordable to Very Low Income, Low Income and
Moderate Income households based on HCD established income criteria at the start of the eight-
year Housing Element planning period. In the case of rent, the 30 percent assumes utilities are
included in the monthly rental cost. Utilities may include water, sewer, trash pickup, electric and
gas, and may add well over $100 to the monthly cost of a rental unit, exclusive of heating and
cooling.
In the case of purchase, the 30 percent includes payment on mortgage principal and interest, plus
property tax, homeowner insurance and utilities. To purchase a home, the buyer typically needs
to put 20 percent of the housing cost down at the time of purchase.
As indicated in Table 10, maximum housing costs affordable to an Extremely Low Income four-
person household are $136,015 to purchase a home and $691 per month to rent a home. For a
Very Low Income four-person household, maximum costs are $210,048 to purchase a home and
$1,068 per month to rent a home. For a Low Income four-person household, the maximum
affordable housing costs are $335,979 to purchase a home and $1,708 per month to rent a home.
For a Median Income four- person household, the maximum affordable housing costs are
$318,762 to purchase a home and $1,620 per month to rent a home. For a Moderate Income
four-person household, the maximum affordable housing costs are $382,465 to purchase a home
and $1,944.00 per month to rent a home. By the later part of the planning period in 2020, these
thresholds had increased by roughly 30 percent. However, housing prices and rents in Rolling
Hills were still out of range for lower- and moderate-income households.
As presented above, the current cost to purchase a home in the City begins at about $2,225,000.
With 20 percent down, this price would require a $399,800 down payment and a monthly
payment of about $8,350. These costs, as indicated in Table 10, are well above the reach of
Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Median and Moderate Income households.
Single family homes in Rolling Hills rent for more than $3,500 per month. These rents are well
above the reach of Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income households. Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) may provide more affordable options for a number of lower- and moderate-income
Rolling Hills households.
As discussed under Section B.3 above, because of the very high value of houses in Rolling Hills, it
is likely that households with declared incomes in the lower income ranges have other financial
assets that allow them to continue to live in Rolling Hills or have paid off their mortgages. Data
from the American Community Survey for 2014-2019 indicated that only seven households in
the City of Rolling Hills were paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent, despite
average monthly rents that exceed $3,500. These residents would be unlikely to qualify for
federal or state sponsored housing programs or have a need for other affordable housing options.
200
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 31
Table 10 County of Los Angeles
Affordable Housing Prices and Rents by Income Group: 2013
1 Person
Household
2 Person
Household
3 Person
Household
4 Person
Household
Extremely Low Income (per
month)
$1,496
$1,708
$1,921
$2,304
Maximum Home Purchase Price $88,299 $100,843 $113,387 $136,015
Maximum Home Rental Rate $449 $513 $576 $691
Very Low Income (per month) $2,492 $2,850 $3,204 $3,558
Maximum Home Purchase Price $147,083 $168,236 $189,142 $210,048
Maximum Home Rental Rate $748 $855 $961 $1,068
Low Income (per month) $3,988 $4,554 $5,125 $5,692
Maximum Home Purchase Price $235,382 $268,832 $302,529 $335,979
Maximum Home Rental Rate $1,196 $1,366 $1,538 $1,708
Median Income (per month) $3,779 $4,321 $4,858 $5,400
Maximum Home Purchase Price $223,084 $255,059 $286,787 $318,762
Maximum Home Rental Rate $1,134 $1,296 $1,458 $1,620
Moderate Income (per month) $4,538 $5,183 $5,833 $6,479
Maximum Home Purchase Price $267,849 $305,972 $344,342 $382,465
Maximum Home Rental Rate $1,361 $1,555 $1,750 $1,944
Source: Incomes per month derived from HCD, reference Table 6 above.
1) Rental affordability based on 30% of income. Assumes utilities included
2) Home purchase based on monthly payment of 30% of income, with 20% down, 4.75% interest rate for 30 years.
Assumes tax, insurance and utilities are included.
201
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Page 32
D. ASSISTED HOUSING AT RISK OF CONVERSION
State law requires the City to identify, analyze and propose programs to preserve housing units
that are currently deed restricted to low-income housing use and will possibly be lost as low-
income housing as these deed restrictions expire. There are no identified at-risk housing units in
the City. No low-income housing units in the City have been constructed with the use of federal
assistance programs, state or local mortgage revenue bonds, redevelopment tax increments, in-
lieu fees, or inclusionary housing ordinance or density bonuses. As a result, there is no housing
at risk of losing its subsidized status.
202
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 33
III. CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION
A variety of factors adds to the cost of housing in Rolling Hills and constrains the provision of
affordable units. These include market, governmental, contractual, infrastructure, topographic,
geologic, and environmental constraints. Potential and actual constraints to the development,
maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities also impact housing
production and availability.
The extent to which these constraints are affecting the supply and affordability of housing in the
City of Rolling Hills is discussed below.
A. MARKET CONSTRAINTS
The most significant factor affecting the affordability of housing within the City of Rolling Hills is
the market. With the desirability and limited supply of hillside land, houses in a hillside community
like Rolling Hills are highly valued. These costs are further driven by high construction costs,
labor costs, and construction liability concerns.
1. Land Costs
The single largest cost associated with building a new house in Rolling Hills is the cost of land.
Land costs include the cost of the site, site improvements, and all costs associated with obtaining
government approvals. Like the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula, land costs are extremely high in
Rolling Hills due to proximity to the Pacific coast, dramatic topography that tends to require large
lots, and opportunities for canyon, ocean and city views. Average cost for an undeveloped,
unimproved parcel of residential land in the City was $544,000 per acre.1 A scan of Zillow.com
in Fall 2020 showed only one vacant for-sale lot in the City: a 7-acre parcel for $1.4 million.
In addition to raw land costs, required site improvements contribute to the cost of land in the
City. The remaining vacant parcels in the City have severe topographic and/or geologic
constraints that necessitate significant grading to accommodate development. The extremely high
land costs make conventional construction of lower income housing in the City very challenging.
The City has very limited resources and not eligible for most state or federal funding sources.
There are no commercial enterprises in the City—therefore the City does not receive any sales
tax income, which could otherwise provide a revenue source for housing programs.
2. Construction Costs
A major cost associated with building a new house is the cost of building materials. These typically
comprise between more than 50 percent of the sale price of a home. According to construction
industry indicators, overall construction costs rose over 30 percent during the past decade, with
rising energy costs and competition for building materials from overseas markets as significant
1 http://www.zillow.com/rolling-hills-ca/#/homes/for_sale/Rolling-Hills- CA/pmf,pf_pt/6822_rid/33.902336,-
117.647095,33.356915,-118.670197_rect/9_zm/; accessed September 22, 2013.
203
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 34
contributors. Typical residential construction costs for high quality homes like those found in
Rolling Hills were approximately $330-500 per square foot at the start of the eight-year planning
period and continued to accelerate through 2020.
Construction of septic tanks adds tremendous cost to the construction of homes. Additionally,
residential amenities (e.g., pools, fireplaces, porches) and high-end construction materials further
increase the cost of construction. Labor is another major cost component in building a house,
constituting an estimated 17 percent of the costs of constructing a single-family dwelling.
Construction costs are generally controlled by the market, while project amenities and
construction materials are generally selected at the discretion of the property owner and/or
developer. As required by State law, the City Zoning Ordinance allows for manufactured housing
units to reduce residential construction costs. Section 17.12.130 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code defines manufactured homes and mobile homes as “single family dwellings”; as such, they
are subject to the same standards as wood-frame construction.
3. Financing
Home mortgage interest rates have been at historic lows during the past ten years. At the start
of the eight-year planning period, there had been a sharp rise in foreclosures in the subprime
mortgage market. Increases in interest rates coupled with declining property values in the Los
Angeles region had caused many homeowners to default on their mortgages. Unable to recoup
their investments, a number of lenders had to shut down or file for bankruptcy.
Property values have largely recovered from the losses of the Great Recession, but the mortgage
crisis made qualifying for a home loan more difficult. Although 30- year fixed rate mortgages are
still available at less than 5.0 percent, the income and down payment requirements are more
stringent. There are also fewer flexible loan programs to bridge the gap between the amount of
a required down payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds.
B. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Housing affordability is affected by government constraints as well as private sector constraints.
Actions by the City can have an impact on the price and availability of housing. Land use controls,
site improvement requirements, building codes, fees and other local programs intended to
improve the overall quality of housing may have the unintended consequence of serving as a
constraint to housing development.
1. Land Use Controls
Land use controls are established by the City's General Plan Land Use Element, Zoning
Ordinance, and Community Association Building Regulations. These controls respond to the
unique physical, health, and safety aspects of the City. Because of infrastructure, geologic and
environmental constraints, most land in the City has developed at a density less than that
permitted by City zoning.
204
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 35
The Rolling Hills Land Use Element provides for two residential categories: Residential Agricultural
Suburban - one acre minimum (RAS-1) and Residential Agricultural Suburban - two acre minimum (RAS-
2). Land use policies support retention of the City’s rural residential and equestrian character,
recognizing the City’s heritage as well as its natural constraints. Policies also call for buffering between
uses, preservation of views, and minimizing exposure to landslides, wildfires, and other hazards. These
are appropriate policies, given the severe environmental and safety hazards in the community.
The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance establishes development standards for the City’s zoning
districts. These correspond to the land use categories listed above, and also include a Public
Facilities (PF) zone and two overlay districts. As summarized in Table 11, building coverage is
limited to twenty percent of the net lot area. Total lot coverage (structures and hardscape) is
limited to thirty-five percent of the net lot area; maximum disturbed area is limited to forty
percent of the net lot area; and building height is restricted to one story.
A minimum of two covered parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling unit. This
parking requirement can easily be met on the City's large residential parcels. The parking standard
is appropriate given the high number of automobiles per household in Rolling Hills, and the fact
that there are no sidewalks, curbs or gutters on the private streets, which are too narrow to
permit on-street parking. There is also no public transit service in the City. The City has
incorporated Zoning Ordinance standards to allow the development of manufactured homes in
its residential zones.
Table 11
City of Rolling Hills Summary of Development Standards
Setbacks
Front Yard 50 feet from front easement line* in RA-S-1 and RA-S-2 Zones
Side Yards 20 feet from property line in RA-S-1 Zone
35 feet from property line in RA-S-2 Zone
Rear Yard 50 feet from property line in RA-S-1 and RA-S-2 Zones
Density RA-S-1: one-acre minimum
RA-S-2: two-acre minimum
Structural Lot Coverage 20% of net lot area maximum
Total Lot Coverage 35% of net lot area maximum
Building Pad Coverage 30% of coverage
Maximum Disturbed Area 40% of net lot area
Maximum Height Single-story
*Note: Most property is Rolling Hills is subject to perimeter easements varying in width around each property boundary and road
easements, granted by the property owner to the RHCA, a private corporation, or another person or entity for the purpose of
construction and/or maintenance and use of streets, driveways, trails, utility lines, drainage facilities, open space, and/or a combination
of these uses. The RHCA requires that all easements must be kept free of buildings, fences, plantings or other obstructions.
Source: City of Rolling Hills
205
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 36
The development standards in Table 11 do not present constraints to the construction of single
family homes. Even a “small” substandard lot of 200’ x 200’ (40,000) square feet would be allowed
16,000 square feet of buildable area after required setbacks are subtracted. The allowable
structure coverage on such a lot would be 8,000 square feet, providing more than enough space
for a residence and detached accessory structures. The requirement for single-story
construction has not constrained single family construction, given the ample building footprint
accommodated on each site. In fact, single-story construction has enabled many older adults in
Rolling Hills to age in place.
2. Constraints for Different Housing Types
Section 65583 and 65583.2 of the Government Code require cities to plan for a “variety of types
of housing, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for
agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and
transitional housing.” Accordingly, the Rolling Hills Housing Element includes provisions for each
of these housing types in the city, with the exception of housing explicitly reserved for agricultural
employees, since this was not identified as being a need in the city.
At the start of the eight-year planning cycle (2014), the regulations in Table 11 governed all
residential development in Rolling Hills. Over the last seven years, the City has enacted new land
use controls consistent with State law that allow a variety of housing types and make the
development of affordable units more feasible.
Accessory Dwelling Units
The adoption of the following bills below made it mandatory for every city in California to allow
the development of accessory dwelling units. The bills provided strict regulations on how much
power local jurisdictions and homeowners associations have over development standards. The
new ADU laws’ objective is to increase the housing stock everywhere in the State to help alleviate
the affordable housing crisis. HCD is mandated to come up with programs to incentivize property
owners to build ADUs.
Assembly Bill No. 671, Chapter 658:
This bill would require a local agency to include a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of
accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent for very low, low-, or moderate-income
households in its housing element. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community
Development to develop a list of existing state grants and financial incentives for operating,
administrative, and other expenses in connection with the planning, construction, and operation of
accessory dwelling units with affordable rent, as specified. The bill would require the department to post
that list on its internet website by December 31, 2020.
Assembly Bill No. 881, Chapter 659:
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or,
if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified
standards and conditions. Existing law requires the ordinance to designate areas where accessory dwelling
units may be permitted and authorizes the designated areas to be based on criteria that includes, but is
not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on
traffic flow and public safety. This bill would instead require a local agency to designate these areas
based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic
206
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 37
flow and public safety. The bill would also prohibit a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy
for an accessory dwelling unit before issuing a certificate of occupancy for the primary residence.
Assembly Bill No. 670, Chapter 178:
The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling
units in single-family and multifamily residential zones by ordinance, and sets forth standards the
ordinance is required to impose with respect to certain matters, including, among others, maximum unit
size, parking, and height standards. Existing law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the
creation of junior accessory dwelling units, as defined, in single-family residential zones and requires the
ordinance to include, among other things, standards for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit,
required deed restrictions, and occupancy requirements.
Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and
operation of common interest developments. Existing law prohibits the governing document of a common
interest development from prohibiting the rental or leasing of any separate interest in the common
interest development, unless that governing document was effective prior to the date the owner acquired
title to their separate interest. This bill would make void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or
condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer
or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that
effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or
junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the above-
described minimum standards established for those units. However, the bill would permit reasonable
restrictions that do not unreasonably increase the cost to construct, effectively prohibit the construction of,
or extinguish the ability to otherwise construct, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit
consistent with those aforementioned minimum standards provisions.
Senate Bill No. 13, Chapter 653:
(9) Existing law requires the planning agency of each city and county to adopt a general plan that
includes a housing element that identifies adequate sites for housing. Existing law authorizes the
department to allow a city or county to do so by a variety of methods and also authorizes the
department to allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units, as specified. This bill
would state that a local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate
sites for housing in accordance with those provisions.
In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the
construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and
JADUs). Prior to 2018, these housing types were not permitted, although zoning regulations did
permit construction of guest houses for temporary use. As a result of prior allowances for guest
houses, the City has a large inventory of structures and spaces that can be easily converted to
ADUs or JADUs. Given the large size of Rolling Hills homes; the large parcels and common
presence of accessory structures, barns, stables, and other outbuildings, and the relatively small
household sizes, the City is well positioned to accommodate a substantial number of ADUs and
JADUs.
Chapter 17.28 allows ADUs and JADUs ministerially – in other words, with a building permit
only – in a number of scenarios. These include instances where the unit is within the footprint
of an existing single family dwelling, or an accessory structure, including an allowance for up to
150 additional (net new) square feet for ingress and egress. The unit must also have exterior
access independent of the single family dwelling and side and rear setbacks that meet building and
fire codes. In addition, detached ADUs are permitted by right (e.g., building permit only) if they
are 800 feet or less, no more than 16 feet tall, and have side and rear setbacks of at least four
feet. Applications for ADUs and JADUs must be acted on within 60 days from the date the City
receives a completed application.
207
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 38
Once completed, ADUs may not be used for short-term rentals (less than 30 days). They may
not be sold separately from the primary dwelling. They are not subject to an owner-occupancy
requirement (in other words, both the primary home and ADU may be rented).2
ADUs that exceed the 800 square foot limit also are permitted but are subject to an ADU permit
requirement in addition to a building permit. These units may be as large as 1,000 square feet
and may have up to two bedrooms. Such units may not exceed 50% of the floor area of the
primary dwelling or cause the floor area ratio on the site to exceed 0.45 or lot coverage by
structures to exceed 50% of the property.
The City’s ADU standards incorporate State standards for parking, which waive parking
requirements for ADUs near a public transit stop. This is generally not applicable in Rolling Hills,
since the community is not served by transit. Per State law, the Code allows for carports and
garages to be converted to ADUs without replacement parking. Where this situation does not
apply, one space is required for each ADU, and tandem parking is permitted.
ADUs are also subject to basic architectural standards, including compatibility with the design of
the primary dwelling. The ADU is also subject to a minimum length and width of 10 feet, and a
minimum ceiling height of seven feet. Landscape screening requirements apply to units that are
near adjacent parcels. If the ADU changes the building exterior or involves a new structure, it is
subject to design review by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
(see Page 50 for further discussion).
ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from all impact fees. Units larger than 750 square
feet may only be charged impact fees that are proportionally related to the square footage of the
unit. The Code also includes waivers for utility connection fees for most ADUs, thereby reducing
construction and operating costs. Moreover, the Code provides the option for a conditional use
permit for ADUs that do not conform to the basic development standards of Chapter 17.28.
Overall, these requirements do not constrain or inhibit ADU or JADU construction. The
regulations reflect State regulations and create ample opportunities for homeowners to earn
extra income while providing a new dwelling unit for a tenant, employee, caregiver or family
member. Given the large lot sizes in the city, the setback standards, FAR standards, and lot
coverage limits still allow for generous ADU footprints. Likewise, the single story requirement
is consistent with the requirement for single family homes. The “bonus” 150 square feet for
JADU ingress/egress creates an incentive for such units. The requirement to provide a parking
space is consistent with State law, since there is no transit in Rolling Hills—and is not a constraint
given the large lot sizes and substantial driveway space available on most lots.
While no constraints have been identified, there are opportunities to provide incentives for
ADUs that have yet to be realized. As noted in Chapter VI, the City will pursue future programs
to encourage ADU construction, including ADUs for very low and low income households.
2 JADUs (units created within the floorplan of an existing home) are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement unless the
property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization.
208
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 39
Multi-Family Housing
In February 2021, the City amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family
housing within the City limits. New policies in the General Plan Land Use Element expressly
support a range of housing types in the city, including multi-family housing. An Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone has been established on the General Plan Map, corresponding to the Rancho Del
Mar Continuation High School site. The General Plan indicates that multi-family housing is
permitted in the Overlay and must be constructed at a density of 20-24 units per acre, which
conforms to the State’s “default density” requirements under AB 2348.
The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance has been amended for consistency with the General Plan and
provides the regulatory standards for multi-family housing. The Rancho Del Mar Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone affirms that multi-family housing is permitted on the site. Sixteen units of
affordable multi-family housing—in other words, housing that is deed restricted to low and very
low-income households—are permitted by right in this zone. With State-mandated density
bonuses, the actual number of units on the site could potentially be higher. The Ordinance
identifies an area within the 31-acre site, located on the west side of the property near the
primary access road, as the location for these units.
Additional information on the Affordable Housing Opportunity Zone may be found in Chapter
V. The text below focuses on the multi-family development standards, and the extent to which
they may constrain multi-family housing.
As noted above, the allowable density range for the Zone is 20-24 units per acre. Numerous
projects—both market-rate and affordable—have been developed in this density range in Los
Angeles County in recent years. The range can accommodate apartments, condominiums,
townhomes, row houses, clustered units, manufactured homes, and small detached cottages. All
of these housing types would be permitted under the regulations prescribed by the Overlay Zone.
As noted in Chapter V of this Element, the Overlay Zone includes multiple potential building sites
that are level, easily accessed, served by utilities, and suitable for multi-family construction. A
preferred location within the Overlay has been identified for affordable housing based on
topography, access, and land use compatibility. This area is vacant, relatively flat, and
unconstrained.
Development standards for multi-family housing within the Overlay Zone are conducive to higher
density construction. These standards require 5-foot front and side setbacks and a 10-foot rear
setback. Encroachments such as decks, balconies, awnings, porches, and stairways may extend
into the setback areas, and architectural features such as eaves and cornices are also permitted
in the setbacks. There are no lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratio limits. A 28’ height
applies, allowing two-story construction. This is the only place in Rolling Hills where two-story
construction is permitted.
An initial set of development standards was prepared for the Overlay Zone for review by the
State Department of Housing and Community Development. Following comments from the
State, the standards were revised to eliminate potential constraints. These are noted in the
bulleted list below:
209
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 40
• Minimum dwelling unit sizes were initially proposed at 500 square feet for a studio, 650 square
feet for a one-bedroom, 800 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 1,000 square feet for a
three bedroom. Based on feedback from the State, these were reduced to 250 square feet
for a studio, 400 square feet for a one-bedroom, 650 square feet for a two-bedroom, and
900 square feet for a three-bedroom. The adopted minimums are well below typical unit
sizes in Los Angeles County and do not pose a constraint.
• The first draft of the Ordinance required 150 square feet of common open space per unit.
Following the State’s review, this was reduced to 100 square feet per unit. Thus, a 16-unit
project would be required to set aside just 1,600 square feet of common open space—at a
density of 20 units per acre, this would represent less than 5 percent of the development site
and would not be a constraint.
• Table 12 shows parking requirements for multi-family housing. The standards do not pose a
constraint, considering the absence of any public transit in Rolling Hills. Only one space per
unit is required, which would equate to 16 spaces (plus 2 guest spaces) in a 16-unit affordable
project. The spaces do not have to be covered or in a garage, further reducing development
costs. At 180 square feet per parking space, the total area dedicated to parking in a 20 unit
per acre project would represent 3,240 square feet—which would represent roughly nine
percent of a development site. The access driveways would likely require another 5,000
square feet, but the total area dedicated to ingress, egress, and parking would still leave ample
room for open space, landscaping, and building footprints.
Table 12
City of Rolling Hills
Summary of Parking Requirements for Multi-family Housing
Housing Type Spaces Required Per Unit Guest
Parking
Multi-Family (Affordable) One space per unit 10% of total
Senior Housing 10 units or less--One per unit; 11 units or more--0.5 per unit 10% of total
Single Room Occupancy 0.5 space per unit, plus 1 space for each staff on-duty None
Emergency Shelter 1 space for each staff on-duty None
• No parking is permitted in the 20’ front setback area (at the driveway location). This would
not be a constraint given the large size of any parcel that would be created in the future to
accommodate multi-family development. Moreover, the front yard setback for structures is
only five feet, which creates more space for the building envelope and encourages parking
to be placed to the rear or side of the parcel, potentially within the setback.
• The Overlay Zone ordinance gives the Planning Commission and City Council the authority
to further reduce parking if it is found that alternative parking is available, including street
parking and shared parking with an adjacent use.
210
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 41
The development standards require that multi-family housing be located at least 50 feet from the
toe of the slope within the Overlay District. As discussed in Chapter V, the area within the
Overlay District identified as the desired location for affordable housing is west of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA) facility. This area begins at the toe of the slope and
extends site extends north to the site access road, a distance of 337 feet. Effectively, structures
would not be permitted on the rear 50 feet, leaving 287 feet of remaining lot depth for multi-
family structures (see Figure 2). The slope restriction would not impact the east-west dimension
of the buildable area. Thus, a substantial area of the future parcel would be developable and
available to support multi-family construction. Moreover, the 50-foot setback area could be used
for parking, which would provide additional flexibility in site planning.
Because affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in the Overlay Zone, the City has
adopted a number of design standards to ensure that new development is compatible with
adjacent uses. These address residential frontages (facades, etc.), usable open space standards,
public space amenity requirements, and operational standards. Such standards have the potential
to create a development constraint if they are too onerous or add to the cost of housing.
The residential frontage standards require that the ground floor be no more than five feet above
the ground surface. This is easily attained, since the preferred housing site is relatively flat. The
standards establish a 10’ floor to floor height, which is consistent with the overall 28’ height limit
as well as typical residential construction standards and interior ceiling heights. Entrances and
windows are required along the front façade, and entrances to individual units may either be
direct to the exterior, or to an interior hallway. Stoops and porches may be located on the
exterior, and projecting elements (bay windows, eaves, balconies) may extend into setback areas.
Street tree, landscaping, and lighting requirements apply, but these do not constrain development.
Figure 2: Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site
211
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 42
The usable open space standards likewise do not represent a constraint. These requirements
call for an amenity such as a children’s playground or clubhouse in multi-family projects. The
amenity may be indoors or outdoors and may not include parking areas, streets, or driveways.
Projects are also expected to include amenities such as pedestrian walkways, landscaping, bike
storage racks, and screened trash enclosures, and would need to comply with building code
standards for interior noise. These are common requirements in California communities and do
not represent a constraint.
Emergency Shelters
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to permit emergency
shelters “by right” in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. Although the annual homeless count
for Los Angeles County has indicated there are no unsheltered residents in the community, every
city in California is required to identify a zone where at least one year-round emergency shelter
is permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit (Govt Code Section
65583(a)(4)(A)). The Government Code further requires that emergency shelters be subject to
the same standards that apply to residential and commercial development in that zone, except
that certain objective standards prescribed by the State may apply.
Rolling Hills has adopted standards for shelters that meet the requirements of the Government
Code and facilitate emergency shelter construction or conversion. The Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone encompasses over 31 acres of public property, most of which is underutilized.
There are opportunities to create shelters by converting existing buildings, constructing new
buildings, or using temporary facilities such as portables or tiny homes. This use is permitted by
right, with no discretionary permit required by the City. There are no limitations on where
shelters may locate within the boundary of the Overlay Zone. Since shelter beds do not
constitute “dwelling units”, an emergency shelter would not be considered part of the 16 units
permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not affect the number of allowable multi-family units
in the Zone.
The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and subsequently revised those
standards to ensure that they are compliant with the Government Code and do not present a
constraint to emergency shelter development. These standards include:
• Shelters must be at least 300 feet apart, as allowed by the Government Code
• Parking for staff must be provided. There are no supplemental parking requirements
based on the number of beds (see Table 12).
• A maximum of 12 beds applies. This is comparable to the maximums that apply in
nearby cities, including those with unsheltered populations.
• The standards allow, but do not require, shelters to include a dining room, commercial
kitchen, laundry room, recreation room, child care facilities, and support services (the
Code indicates these may be provided, but they are not mandatory)
• At least five percent of the shelter area must be dedicated for on-site waiting and intake,
and an equivalent (or larger) area is required for exterior waiting
• Shelters must comply with building code, plumbing code, and trash enclosure
requirements—the same standards that apply to other uses in the Overlay Zone and in
the underlying base RAS-2 Zone.
212
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 43
Consistent with the Government Code, an application to operate an emergency shelter requires
submittal of a management and operations plan that addresses hours of operation, staffing levels,
maximum length of stay, and security procedures. The application would require approval by the
City Administrator, based on satisfaction of the conditions listed above and review for compliance
with Building, Fire, and other applicable regulations.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) housing in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. These are facilities with
individual rooms or small efficiency apartments designed for very low-income persons. There
are no limitations on where SROs may locate within the boundary of the Overlay Zone. A
Conditional Use Permit is required.
The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and subsequently revised those
standards to ensure that they do not present a constraint to SRO development. These standards
include:
• A minimum of six units and a maximum of eight units
• Maximum occupancy of two persons per unit
• Each room must include a water closet (Toilet plus sink)
• Each room must include a kitchen sink with a disposal (but not necessarily a full kitchen)
• Each unit must have a closet
• Full kitchens (i.e., with range, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) and full bathrooms (with
shower/bath) may be provided in each unit but are not required. If these facilities are
not included in each unit, then shared facilities are required on each floor.
• 0.5 parking spaces are required per unit, plus one space for each employee on duty (see
Table 12)
• Occupancy is for 30 days or more
The City initially proposed including a requirement for 24-hour on-site management, and a
requirement for elevators in the event the building was two stories. Both of these requirements
were removed following HCD’s feedback that they were potential constraints. Requiring 24-
hour management requirement could be a constraint for a 6-8 unit facility. As a result, on-site
management is not required on a 24-hour basis. Given that the building would only be two
stories, the requirement for elevators was removed. Since SRO rooms would not be classified as
independent “dwelling units”, they would not be considered part of the 16 units permitted by the
Overlay Zone and would not reduce the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone.
Supportive, Transitional, and Employee Housing
Supportive housing is a type of rental housing that includes on-site supportive services such as
medical assistance or treatment of chronic health conditions or disabilities. Transitional housing
is a type of supportive housing but is specifically intended for unsheltered residents who are
transitioning to permanent housing. Supportive and transitional housing is not associated with a
specific structure type—single family homes can be used in this manner, and so can multi-family
buildings.
213
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 44
Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires cities to treat transitional and supportive
housing as residential uses that are only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In other words, a City cannot hold a single
family home used as supportive housing to a different standard for parking, setbacks, floor area,
etc. than a single family home occupied by a family or other type of household.
Public Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 requires the City to treat employee housing for
six or fewer people the same as other single family housing in each zoning district. For example,
if a corporation in another city purchased a home in Rolling Hills and allowed its employees to
live there, the use would be treated like any other single family home.
Rolling Hills presently has no Code language that limits transitional, supportive, or employee
housing or imposes any special restrictions on such housing. However, these housing types are
not expressly acknowledged in the Municipal Code. An action program in this Housing Element
recommends that definitions of transitional, supportive, and employee housing be added to the
Municipal Code within six months of Housing Element adoption, acknowledging that such housing
is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the
same type in the same zone, as required by State law.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Recent changes to state law, including Government Code Sections 65583(a)(5) and 65583(c)(3),
address the provision of accessible housing for disabled persons. These changes also require that
the Housing Element address methods for removing any governmental constraints that are
identified.
The City of Rolling Hills adopted Resolution 699, which certifies the City’s recognition of the
American with Disabilities Act and adopts necessary mitigation efforts to assist disabled residents.
The City has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code. As long as construction is
consistent with the Building Code, residents are permitted to provide any disabled access or
amenity improvements necessary to reduce barriers. Access to homes via ramps is permitted.
One-story construction throughout the community removes a major barrier for persons with
disabilities and facilitates access for persons with mobility limitations. Accessibility improvements,
universal design changes, and other accommodations for persons with disabilities are processed
administratively in conjunction with the building permit process and are permitted in both of the
City’s residential zones.
An analysis of housing constraints for disabled residents performed earlier in the 2014-2021
planning period found that the City did not have formal reasonable accommodation procedures
for residents. Such procedures establish a process through which persons with disabilities can
request reasonable accommodations to the jurisdiction’s codes, rules, policies, practices or
services so that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy or use a dwelling. In November 2020,
the City Council approved reasonable accommodation procedures, including application
requirements, review procedures, findings, and provisions for noticing and advertising the
opportunity.
214
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 45
Residential Care Facilities and Definition of “Family”
The City permits small residential care facilities that serve 6 or fewer clients in every residential
zone. Regarding business licenses, the City follows California Health and Safety Code Section
1566.2 for residential facilities with six or fewer persons. The code says that they shall not be
subject to any business taxes, local registration fees, use permits, fees, or other fees.
The Rolling Hills Municipal Code also includes a definition of “family.” Overly restrictive
definitions may pose a housing constraint, but in this instance the definition is broad and inclusive.
According to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, “family” means:
“one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying
a boarding, rooming or lodging house, hotel or club. Family may include domestic servants.”
3. Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls
State law requires the City to consider not only the impact of individual development standards,
but also the cumulative effects of these standards on the cost and supply of housing. For example,
it is possible that a particular setback requirement may appear reasonable on its own but may
limit development opportunities when combined with height and lot coverage limits. Sometimes,
the combined effect of different development controls can require more expensive construction
or result in frequent zoning variances.
Because of the very large lot sizes in Rolling Hills, the zoning standards do not create an adverse
cumulative impact on development costs or the housing supply. A decade ago, the City
recognized the potential for such an impact in several areas where lot sizes are smaller than the
one-acre minimum required by the RAS-1 district. An Overlay Zoning District (OZD-1) was
created for these areas in 2012, allowing smaller front and side yard setbacks. The zone was
mapped on Middleridge Lane North and Williamsburg Lane in the northwestern part of the city,
and on Chuckwagon Road and Chesterfield Drive in the eastern part of the city. Approximately
75 lots are covered by this Overlay. The reduced setbacks have facilitated continued single family
home improvements in these areas without requiring Variances. No changes to the OZD-1
Overlay are proposed in this Housing Element.
As noted earlier, the combination of front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a rectangular one-acre
lot would still allow for a buildable area of over 16,000 square feet. Most parcels are considerably
larger than one acre and have buildable areas that exceed 20,000 square feet. FAR and lot
coverage limits likewise allow ample structure coverage, and homes larger than 10,000 square
feet can be built without Variances on most lots. The one-story height limit tends to produce
building footprints that are quite large—but still within the 20% structure coverage requirement.
Each residence is required to have two covered parking spaces (three, if an ADU or guest
quarters are on-site). This requirement is modest given the typically large home size and does
not constrain building construction.
The land use controls also do not present a cumulative constraint to ADU construction. Almost
every parcel in the City has the land area or built floor area to support an ADU, and many homes
already have spaces that could be easily converted to ADUs. The ADU and JADU regulations
215
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 46
adopted in 2018 were drafted to work in tandem with the controls for the RAS-1 and RAS-2
districts and have laid the foundation for substantial ADU production in the coming years.
There are no cumulative land use constraints to multi-family development. The new Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone standards have been tested to ensure they are internally consistent and
can support housing in the 20-24 unit/acre range. The Affordable Housing Overlay Zone allows
multi-family housing to be either owner or renter occupied. New housing units in this zone
must be affordable. The affordability requirement is not a constraint to development, as the
site is publicly owned and represents a unique opportunity for reduced land and construction
costs. Designation of market-rate multi-family housing sites is not appropriate in Rolling Hills
due to the absence of sewer infrastructure, constrained land supply, and opportunities for
other types of market rate housing in the city.3
4. Fees and Improvements
Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the costs of
processing permits and providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools, and
infrastructure. Most of these fees are assessed through a pro rata system based on the square
footage or value of the project, the staff time required for processing, and the magnitude of the
project’s impact.
A summary of residential development fees in the City is presented in Table 13. Costs required
for all residential development projects are indicated. These costs include various City fees,
school impact fees, water service fees, environmental review fees and a RHCA fee. Additional
fees may be required for projects with special circumstances, such as residential developments
requiring greater discretionary reviews, geotechnical studies, or use permits. Rolling Hills is one
of 13 cities that contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety for
plan checking, building permits, and building inspection. A local surcharge is applied to building,
plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits. Applicants have the option of paying a higher permit
fee for expedited permitting by a consulting firm contracted by the City.
Fees for City review under the Site Plan Review process for a typical new house in Rolling Hills
average between $1,700 and $2,450. The plan check and building permit fees are based on the Los
Angeles County adopted schedule of fees, plus the City’s administrative costs. The fee schedule
also covers records searches, inspections, and review of grading plans. The cost of a building
permit is based on project value, with the unit cost diminishing as value increases. In 2020, a
project with a valuation of $500,000 required a permit fee of $12,000 (including energy and
disabled access check). Electrical, mechanical, and plumbing fees would be added to this total.
There are no local surcharges or special fees associated with multi-family housing. On a per unit
basis, permitting costs would be substantially lower for multi-family units than for new single
family units. This is due to the smaller size of multi-family units and to multi-family housing being
permitted “by right” within the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, with no applicable
administrative fees. The City’s fee structure has not historically distinguished between single and
multi-family construction, as multi-family housing only recently became a permitted use.
3 Rolling Hills has identified a number of cities in California with certified housing elements that limit allowable multi-family
housing to affordable units, including Hidden Hills, Hillsborough and Los Altos Hills.
216
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 47
Los Angeles County typically updates its fees annually based on the consumer price index and
other factors. However, City of Rolling Hills fees and surcharges have remained unchanged for
the past fifteen years and are in line with or lower than development fees in Los Angeles County
and other local communities. For example, the Los Angeles County 2013 fee schedule indicates
that the cost for a Negative Declaration is $3,022 (compared to $1,000 for Rolling Hills), the cost
for a tentative tract map is $21,436 (compared to $1,500 for Rolling Hills), and the cost for a
zone change is $12,844 (compared to $2,000 for Rolling Hills).4 This information demonstrates
that Rolling Hills’ development fees do not present an excessive constraint to development. Rolling
Hills does not charge impact fees for the development or maintenance of roads because these
facilities are privately owned and maintained by the Rolling Hills Community Association.
Table 13
City of Rolling Hills
Summary of Residential Development Fees
(February 2013)
Type of Fee Cost
All new residential development
Building Permit Based on building valuation, per the County Building Code.
Plan Check Fees Based on building valuation. Assessed by County of Los
Angeles.
Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Permits County assessment based upon the number of fixtures,
outlets, switches, and panels.
Park and Recreation Fund Fee Each new residence pays 2% of the first $100,000 in building
valuation, plus an additional .5% for the remaining balance.
School Fee $2.63 per square foot of habitable living space.
Site Plan Review $1,500
Water Service Option 1: $600 Hydrant Meter Deposit, plus service charge
for the amount of water used during construction.
Option 2: No hook-up fee. Meter fees determined by the
size of meter and the number of fixtures. Does not
include service charge for amount of water used during
construction.
Geotechnical fee 0.42% of valuation of proposed structure, up to $3588
RHCA $.20 per $100 of assessed valuation
Special circumstance fees
Traffic Commission Review $300
Zone Change/Amendment $2,000
View Impairment Committee Review $500
Variance $1,250
Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 + County fees plus 20%
Tentative Tract Map $1,500 + County fees plus 20%
Negative Declaration $1,300
Environmental Impact Report City Consultant fee plus 20%
Source: City of Rolling Hills, September 2013
4 http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/general/fee_20130301.pdf; accessed January 2, 2014.
217
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 48
School fees are collected by the Palos Verdes Unified School District based on the square footage
of construction. A local Park and Recreation Fund Fee is collected base on building valuation.
Projects are also subject to a fee from the Rolling Hills Community Association based on 0.2
percent of estimated valuation (e.g., $200 on a $100,000 project). In total, fees for a typical
project are roughly equivalent to five percent of total construction costs, excluding utility
connection fees. Fees do not constrain development in Rolling Hills, but they do add to the cost
of housing, which is already expensive in the City. Programs to reduce processing and permitting
fees for ADUs could be considered, as they could incentivize ADU production.
5. Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures
As a small city with a limited number of vacant lots, Rolling Hills has permit processing times that
are faster than most cities. However, the City’s staff capacity is limited, requiring that some
permit processing functions are contracted out. The City’s website provides comprehensive
information for applicants seeking permits, including on-line portals for applications, payment, and
checking progress on permit status. Most permitting activity is for improvements to existing
residences rather than new housing units.
All projects in Rolling Hills that require a building permit—regardless of size or value—must be
approved by three entities: the City of Rolling Hills, the Rolling Hills Community Association, and
the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department (in its role as the contracted building
authority for the City). Most projects can be approved ministerially—in other words, by staff—
provided they meet the development standards in the Municipal Code.
Examples of projects eligible for administrative review include residential additions less than 1,000
square feet, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, remodels, foundation
repair, and re-roofing. Such projects are required to submit two sets of plans, various checklists,
and calculations of existing and proposed square footage, lot coverage, and impervious surface
coverage. Administrative review applications typically take several days to process. The City
collects no fees for over the counter review—such fees are assessed when the project is
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Larger projects may also require review by
the LA County Health Department for the adequacy of the septic system, and the Fire
Department for fuel modification.
Single family residential development is permitted “by-right” in both the RAS-1 Zone and RAS-2
Zone. However, Planning Commission and City Council hearings are required for new homes.
For a new home, an initial consultation with staff is strongly encouraged at the start of the
process. Once an application is received, it is reviewed for completeness, including required
calculations, elevations, and site plans. The Planning Commission routinely conducts several
meetings for a new home, including an initial project review meeting, a field trip, and a meeting
to forward the application to the City Council. Likewise, the Council conducts an initial meeting,
a field trip, and a meeting to forward the plans to the RHCA. All meetings are publicly noticed.
The RHCA has an Architectural Committee that reviews plans for new homes and large additions
to ensure that easements are kept free and clear of structures, including fences and other
obstructions.5 Projects are submitted to LA County Building and Safety following RHCA review.
5 School District and City-owned property is exempt from this requirement.
218
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 49
Projects that require Variances to development standards or Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)
also require Planning Commission hearings. CUPs are required for large horse stables and
corrals, detached garages, tennis courts, and a number of other large-footprint site features.
From start to finish, the process from submittal of plans to approval of permits may take six
months or longer for a brand new home. However, there are very few vacant lots in Rolling
Hills and the number of applications for new homes (or home demolition and replacements)
rarely exceed one or two per year. Applications for ADUs, major remodels, residential additions,
and accessory structures are more common, and are processed more rapidly. ADUs, JADUs,
and other ministerially approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process.
Two to three months is typically required to complete the processing of a new home application
in both the RAS-1 Zone and RAS-2 Zone. This timing complies with the time limit requirements
established by Sections 65943 and 65950 of the Government Code and does not present an
excessive constraint to development. Applications for ADUs, JADUs, and other ministerially
approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process.
6. Building Code Standards
As discussed above, effective July 1, 2008, all land in the City of Rolling Hills was deemed to be a
“Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, several more restrictive fire safety
standards have been adopted in the City Building Code that apply to all new development in the
City. The new fire zone designation and related standards are expected to place additional
constraints on new development, especially higher building costs. However, these standards are
mandated by the State, and were not self-imposed by the City.
C. CONTRACTUAL CONSTRAINTS
Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both City-enforced zoning and privately
enforced CC&Rs. Most properties in Rolling Hills are subject to the CC&Rs established in 1936
by the Palos Verdes Corporation. The CC&Rs set forth two classifications of property and
restrict the development and use of property within each classification to either only single family
or single family and limited public use. Neither classification allows for the development of multi-
family housing or commercial, office or industrial activity. The CC&Rs establish minimum parcel
and dwelling unit sizes, and require approval by the RHCA Architecture Committee for all new
development. AB 670 and AB 68, which became effective on January 1, 2020, allow homeowners
to add an ADU to their property even if the CC&Rs specify otherwise. Consequently, the CC&Rs
are no longer a constraint to ADU construction.
Exceptions to CC&R controlled land include the City Hall Campus, Tennis Court Facilities, PVP
Unified School District, Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center, Los Angeles County Fire
Station, and scattered public open space sites. Opportunities for multi-family housing and non-
residential uses are limited to these properties. The RHCA does not have design review or
building permit review authority on these sites.
219
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 50
Potential for Constraints Related to Accessory Dwelling Unit Review
While State law prohibits HOAs, including Associations such as RHCA, from disallowing or
unreasonably restricting Accessory Dwelling Units, it does not expressly prohibit design review
of proposed ADU applications by such entities. HOAs may still approve improvements or
alterations, provided the process is fair, reasonable, and expeditious. In its review of the
Rolling Hills Housing Element, the State of California noted the potential for RHCA review to
be a constraint to ADU development, since it represents an extra step in the permitting
process. An analysis of the process is consequently required.
Since 2018, the City of Rolling Hills has had a ministerial process for ADU approval that is
consistent with State law. Projects meeting the dimensional requirements in the Municipal
Code (which are consistent with State standards) are approved without a public hearing or
discretionary review by the City. However, projects modifying the exterior of a home or
adding a new structure are reviewed by the RHCA Architectural Committee, even when they
are ministerially approved by the City. The purpose of this review is to verify that the
structure is harmonious with the ranch-style architecture of Rolling Hills, rather than to
evaluate the merits of the project or its off-site impacts. According to the Committee’s own
guidelines, it “will not require modifications to working drawings that materially change the
massing of the project.”
City staff has worked closely with RHCA staff to ensure that their design review process is
coordinated with City permitting, streamlined, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions
on applicants. In practice, every ADU application approved by City staff has subsequently been
approved by the RHCA Architectural Committee.
The RHCA Architectural Committee is comprised of five members, including three Association
members and two licensed architects. Committee meetings occur twice monthly, on the first
and third Tuesdays. The meetings are not considered “public hearings” since RHCA is not a
public agency, but they are open to all members of the Association and are subject to
Association bylaws. The Committee does not make findings on cases, but rather confirms that
the building height of the improvement does not exceed the maximum height allowed, and that
the architectural style is similar to the primary residence.
The RHCA office is adjacent to City Hall and there is ongoing coordination between the two
entities. When an application for an ADU is submitted to the City, the City advises the
applicant to proceed to RHCA immediately afterwards to initiate project review. Projects are
typically forwarded to the RHCA Architectural Committee within two weeks and are typically
approved at the initial meeting; if modifications are required, the plans are typically approved at
the second meeting two weeks later. The review occurs concurrently with the City permitting
process, avoiding potential delays.
An action program in this Housing Element encourages continued coordination with the RHCA
to ensure that the process adheres to State housing laws.
220
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 51
D. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the limited availability of infrastructure,
specifically streets, sewer, storm water and water facilities.
1. Streets
Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Since the 1930s, the community’s internal street
network has been designed to establish a rural, equestrian character. This historic aspect of the
city’s infrastructure is one of Rolling Hills’ defining features. The road network is typified by
winding roads with a 15- to 25-foot paved cross-section lacking in curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
Narrow road width, coupled with steep grades and very low densities, effectively precludes public
transit within the City. Access is also gate-controlled at three entry points.
The City's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes, such
as higher-density housing. A number of properties—including City Hall, the Retreat Center, and
the PVUSD site, are accessed from roads outside the City gates. These parcels are less
constrained by street access but could require ingress and egress improvements (resurfacing,
driveways, etc.) in the event a change of use was proposed. Such improvements are typical for
any development and would not adversely affect expected construction costs.
2. Wastewater Disposal
With the exception of a school site and thirteen residences that have individually or collectively
(through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction's sewer
systems, there is no sanitary sewer system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual
septic tanks and leach lines. Septic systems are generally designed to serve a single family residence
and are not conducive to multi-family housing. This is particularly true given the geologic, slope,
and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. To meet water quality and runoff requirements, high-density
housing typically requires a viable sewer connection.
The City has commissioned a number of sewer feasibility studies over the past several decades.
Most recently, an engineering study determined that a conventional gravity sewer system is not
feasible in the City. A hybrid approach consisting of a low-pressure sewer system and a gravity
sewer system was explored. The study determined that due to the terrain and unstable geological
conditions of the City the cost of such a system would be prohibitive given the City’s small size
and limited financial resources. The study was presented to the residents, and due to the high
cost of construction of such a system, the residents were not interested in funding such a project
through an Assessment District or any other method. Based on the feasibility study it is very
unlikely that the development constraints associated with wastewater disposal will be removed
during the current planning period.
221
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 52
The Palos Verdes Unified School District site is connected to a wastewater treatment line that
was installed when the school was initially constructed. Collection lines were sized to
accommodate a school campus with several hundred students, and associated maintenance
facilities—a higher level of demand than is associated with current uses on the site. Given the
availability of sewer service to this site and the high cost of extending sewer services elsewhere,
it is the most suitable property for multi-family housing in the City.
In some instances, septic systems may present a constraint to ADU development. This is
generally not an issue for JADUs or smaller ADUs that repurpose existing habitable space, but a
new detached ADU that adds floor space may require increasing the capacity of a septic system.
A program in this Housing Element proposes further evaluation of this constraint, and possible
ways to assist homeowners in addressing it.
3. Storm Water Run-off
To comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for Municipal Storm
Water and Urban Runoff Discharges Within the County of Los Angeles6, the City has retained an
engineering firm to help the City control run-off from domestic and construction activities, to
implement best Management practices (BMPs), and to reduce waste. These activities are intended
to reduce development constraints associated with storm water quality. In general, stormwater
requirements are not a development constraint, but may add to the cost of construction due to
the measures required to contain runoff and prevent erosion and sedimentation from
development sites.
4. Water
As noted above, water infrastructure is owned and maintained by California Water Service
(CalWater). Additional development beyond that anticipated by the City General Plan could
reduce water pressure and compromise firefighting capabilities. Because of Rolling Hills’ steep
and varied terrain and aging infrastructure, this constraint is unlikely to be reduced during the
current planning period. The Palos Verdes Unified School District property is unique in this
regard, as its water system reflects the initial use of the site as a public school campus with several
hundred students and associated maintenance facilities.
The introduction of ADUs in Rolling Hills could potentially impact water demand in the City. The
California Water Company has no plans to upgrade the aging water system. As ADUs are created,
it will be important to consider potential impacts on water distribution lines and fire fighting
capacity. Several factors work to mitigate the impacts of ADUs on the water system. First, the
population of Rolling Hills has declined by roughly 200 since 1980. Thus, the addition of ADUs
may not increase the total number of residents in the City. Second, water conservation measures
have been implemented—and continue to be implemented—to reduce water flows and water
demand.
6 Order No. 01-182 of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board as amended by Order R4- 2006-0074.
222
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 53
E. TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS
Slopes of 25 to 50 percent are present on virtually every remaining undeveloped parcel in the
City. Development on such severely sloped parcels requires substantial grading and modification
to the natural terrain, which adds significantly to the cost of development. The extreme
topography present in Rolling Hills serves as a significant constraint to the development of
affordable housing.
F. GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS
Expansive soils and geologic hazards continue to place constraints on development within the
City. As depicted in Figure 3, Seismic Hazards, the majority of land in the City is located in
earthquake-induced landslide areas. These are areas where previous landslide movement has
resulted in permanent ground displacement. The California Division of Mines and Geology
designates these areas as seismic hazards requiring mitigation.
As summarized in the City of Rolling Hills Hazard Mitigation Plan, Rolling Hills is located very
near to the Palos Verdes Fault. In the case of a seismic event on that fault, Rolling Hills is expected
to experience very strong ground shaking that could be devastating to the City and the nearby
region. The Newport-Inglewood Fault is located a few miles east of the City of Rolling Hills.
Although not as violent as the Palos Verdes Fault scenario, damaging ground shaking is possible.
Due to the proximity of these faults to the urbanized area of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the
City’s essential and critical service providers could experience long term impacts.
Liquefaction is a secondary effect of earthquake hazards. Liquefaction occurs when ground shaking
causes wet granular soils to change from a solid state to a liquid state. This results in the loss of
soil strength and the soil's ability to support weight. Buildings and their occupants are at risk
when the ground can no longer support these buildings and structures.
The California Geological Survey has identified areas most vulnerable to liquefaction. In the City
of Rolling Hills, there are numerous identified liquefaction zones, as well as areas subject to
earthquake-induced landslides, as shown on Figures 4 and 5.
223
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 54
Figure 3: Seismic Hazards
224
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 55
Figure 4. Liquefaction and EQ-Induced Landslide Zones in the City of Rolling Hills – Torrance Quadrangle
(Key: Green indices area prone to liquefaction following earthquakes; Blue indicates area prone to landslides following earthquakes)
225
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 56
Figure 5. Liquefaction and EQ-Induced Landslide Zones in the City of Rolling Hills – San Pedro Quadrangle
(Key: Green indicates area prone to liquefaction following earthquakes; Blue indicates area prone to landslides following earthquakes)
226
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Page 57
Building at the head of a landslide can decrease the bedrock strength along an existing or potential
rupture surface and “drive” the landslide down slope. Improper grading practices can also trigger
existing landslides. Because of these geologic hazards, the City limits land disturbance and other
actions that would exacerbate soil instability. Ground instability, particularly if higher density
development is constructed, would contribute to potential risks to human life as well as to
physical structures. The Safety Element of the General Plan sets forth policies to restrict new
development and expansion of existing development in areas susceptible to landslides.
The City has developed a Site Plan Review Process through which most development must be
reviewed and approved by the City to prevent erosion and landslides and preserve Rolling Hills’
natural hillside topography. The City’s grading requirements prohibit extensive grading and
recontouring of existing terrain. The City has adopted the County of Los Angeles grading
standards with some modifications necessary to ensure slope stability. The City requires that all
soil from grading be balanced on-site, which is necessary because export of materials is not
practical due to the narrow roadways and fragile road surfaces. The RHCA also restricts the use
of the streets for soil export due to potential impacts on street condition and public safety.
Because of the public safety concerns associated with these geologic conditions, this constraint
is unlikely to be reduced during the current planning period.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Rolling Hills supports a variety of plant and wildlife species. Many of these species are either listed
or under consideration for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly,
the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and
Brackishwater snail. The community is also underlain with blue-line streams that are under the
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Development that encroaches into areas of sensitive biological resources must provide mitigation
satisfactory to the overseeing federal and state agencies. Typical mitigation requires the
preservation of habitat area, further restricting the potential land available for development.
Because of the federal and state regulations restricting development in Rolling Hills, this
constraint is unlikely to be reduced during the current planning period.
227
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 58
IV. HOUSING ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Housing Element law requires cities to meet both local and regional housing needs. Rolling Hills’
local housing needs are discussed in Sections II and III above. Rolling Hills’ regional housing needs
are established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and are
summarized below.
The Housing Plan presented in Section VI establishes specific policies and programs to address
these identified needs.
A. LOCAL HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Local housing needs, as discussed in Section II, have been identified based on input from available
federal Census and state data, City Planning and Building Department records, and community
input.
Census data indicates that the City has a large population of older adults, including empty nesters
and persons with mobility limitations and other disabilities. The Census estimates that 8.3
percent of the City’s households consist of seniors (persons over 65) living alone, while nearly
one-quarter of the City’s seniors have one or more disabilities. Although available data suggests
that that most of these residents are financially secure, some households would benefit from
assistance, including opportunities for on-site care, home maintenance, home sharing, or
supplemental income through an accessory dwelling. Chapter VI includes programs for
addressing these needs.
B. REGIONAL HOUSING ASSESSMENT
State law requires jurisdictions to provide for their “fair share” of regional housing needs. Every
eight years, each metropolitan region of California is assigned a total housing need by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It is then up to the regional
Council of Governments—in this case SCAG—to disaggregate the total need to the cities and
counties within each region. For the Fifth Cycle, the 191 cities and six counties in the SCAG
region were assigned a total of 412,137 units. Rolling Hills’ share of this total was determined by
SCAG to be six (6) units, including two very low-income units, one low-income unit, one
moderate-income unit, and one above moderate-income unit.
Government Code Section 65584.09(a) prescribes that a City that did not have a compliant
element during the prior cycle (in this case the Fourth Cycle, which was 2006-2014), must zone
or rezone sites to accommodate the unmet need from the prior planning period. For the low-
and very low-income allocation, this means identifying suitable sites to accommodate the prior
cycle RHNA “by right” (i.e., without a conditional use permit) at a density of at least 20 units per
acre. Adequate sites must also be at least 0.5 acres in size and capable of supporting 16 units of
housing.
228
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 59
These requirements apply to Rolling Hills because the City did not have a compliant Housing
Element during the 2006-2014 Fourth Cycle.
Rolling Hills’ RHNA for the Fourth Cycle was 22 units, including six very low-income units and
four low-income units. The City’s allocation also included four moderate-income units and eight
above moderate-income units. The Government Code’s “carry-over” requirement means that
the 10 low- and very low-income unit allocation from the Fourth Cycle must be added to the
three low- and very low-income unit allocation for the Fifth Cycle, for a total of 13 low- and very
low-income units. The City is required to plan for these 13 units by identifying one or more sites
where they are permitted “by right” on a site zoned for a density of at least 20 units per acre.
Table 14 summarizes the Fourth and Fifth Cycle Allocations and includes a “total” column
indicating the housing needs that must addressed by this Element. The City is required to
demonstrate capacity for 28 units, including eight very low-income units, five low-income units,
five moderate-income units, and 10 above moderate-income units. State law requires that the
“very low” component be further broken down into “extremely low” (30% of median income or
lower) and “very low” (30-50% of median income) categories. The eight units have been evenly
allocated across these two income groups.
Table 14
RHNA New Housing Construction Needs by Income Group for the City of Rolling Hills
(2014-2021)
Income Category 4th Cycle Housing Unit
Construction Need by
Income Group
5th Cycle Housing Unit
Construction Need by
Income Group
Total Need
Extremely Low
(0-30% County median income)
3 1 4
Very Low
(31-50% County median income)
3 1 4
Low
(50-80% County median income)
4 1 5
Moderate
(80-120% County median income)
4 1 5
Above Moderate
(over 120% County median income)
8 2 10
Total Housing Unit
Construction Need
22 6 28
Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012)
229
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 60
V. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
This section of the Housing Element evaluates potential opportunities to meet the City’s Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It also discusses opportunities for energy conservation in
residential development and potential financial resources to support the provision of affordable
housing.
A. AVAILABILITY OF SITES FOR HOUSING
Consistent with Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 66683.2(h) an inventory of parcels
with the potential for future housing has been prepared. The inventory has been evaluated both
in terms of the number of units permitted by zoning and the realistic capacity to accommodate
residential development. Parcels that are currently developed but have the potential for further
housing units are also discussed. Such units could occur through subdivision of large lots into
two or more parcels, or the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Many of the remaining
vacant parcels are characterized by physical constraints, which preclude their development. These
constraints are primarily related to severe topography, wildfire hazards, and/or landslides.
Vacant Land
Figure 6 illustrates vacant parcels in the City; the parcels are listed in Table 15. The table identifies
35 vacant, privately-owned lots and two lots with homes under construction or approved for
new homes. Some of the vacant parcels have been identified as inappropriate for residential or
any other development because of geologic constraints, limited access, or very steep terrain.
Twelve of the vacant parcels, located in the southern portion of the City, are in the Flying Triangle
Landslide area. Three of the vacant parcels, located in the western portion of the City, have
extreme geological constraints.
While some the parcels listed in Table 15 are substantially larger than the minimum lot size
allowed by zoning, subdivision into multiple lots is not presumed. The buildable area on these
lots is limited and in some cases could not accommodate more than one single family home due
to steep slopes. In fact, the acreage cited in Table 15 is based on County Assessor parcel maps
which already subtract out easements corresponding to flood hazards and other restrictions
imposed by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Approximately 22 vacant parcels have been
identified as potentially available for development. These parcels have the capacity to
accommodate the 10 “above moderate” income units included in the City’s RHNA.1
1 In fact, the number of “above moderate” income units needed is less than 10 as five new homes were built in the Fourth
Cycle and several more have been built in the Fifth Cycle.
230
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 61
Figure 6: Vacant Land Inventory Map
231
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 62
Table 15:
Inventory of Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites
APN Location Zoning Acres Units Notes
7569-022-006 East of 5300 Crest RAS-2 2.20 1 Parking lot for Mary and Joseph
Retreat Center
7570-025-022 North end of Johns Canyon Rd RAS-2 1.68 1
7570-024-014 Storm Hill Lane extension RAS-2 11.64 1
Actual area is 34.7 acres, but
much of the property is restricted
due to hazards and easements
7570-024-015 Storm Hill Lane extension RAS-2 10.10 1
Actual area is 17.4 acres, but
much of property is restricted
due to hazards and easements
7570-024-016 Storm Hill Lane extension RAS-2 6.04 1 7.6 acre site, with restricted use
areas
7569-020-004 8 Middleridge Ln S RAS-2 3.46 1 New house approved
7569-013-020 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 2.00 1 excludes flood hazard area and
easements
7569-013-018 South of 18 Pine Tree Ln RAS-2 2.20 1 excludes flood hazard area and
easements
7569-013-017 North of 10 Pine Tree Ln RAS-2 2.41 1 excludes easements
7569-004-026 B/w 35 and 45 Saddleback Rd RAS-1 3.39 1 excludes easements
7561-001-020
B/w 2954 and 2956 PV Dr
North RAS-1 1.03 1
7569-001-036 B/w 6 and 14 Roadrunner RAS-1 1.00 1
7569-012-022 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 2.30 1 excludes easements
7569-012-025
Portuguese Bend, NW of
Saddleback RAS-2 3.51 1
7567-001-017
Portuguese Bend, W of Poppy
Tr RAS-1 3.05 1 excludes easements
7567-001-018 1 Poppy Trail RAS-1 4.59 1 New house under construction
7567-014-013 Landlocked s/ of 26 Port. Bend RAS-2 3.79 0 landlocked and constrained
7567-014-031 Landlocked e/ of 27 Georgeff RAS-2 6.85 0 landlocked and constrained
7567-006-025 N/ end of Chuckwagon Rd RAS-2 3.53 1
7567-006-001 15 Chuckwagon RAS-1 2.20 1
7567-015-036 North of 1 Georgeff RAS-2 4.56 1
7567-011-020 B/w 17 and 29 Crest Rd East RAS-2 6.53 1
7567-011-017 54 Portuguese Bend Rd RAS-2 2.67 0 severely constrained, slide area
7567-012-020 53 Portuguese Bend Rd RAS-2 1.60 0 severely constrained, slide area
7567-012-019 SW of 56 Portuguese Bend Rd RAS-2 0.96 0 slide area--also awkward parcel
shape
7567-012-038 62 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 1.84 0 severely constrained, slide area
7567-012-036 64 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 1.71 0 severely constrained, slide area
7567-012-035 66 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 1.64 0 severely constrained, slide area
7567-012-026 End of Wrangler Road RAS-2 1.82 0 very low assessed value--
constrained parcel
232
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 63
APN Location Zoning Acres Units Notes
7567-017-017 West of 5 Ranchero Road RAS-2 4.28 0 landlocked and constrained
7567-017-045 17 Cinchring Road RAS-1 1.52 0 landlocked and constrained
7567-009-007 5 Southfield Drive RAS-1 1.61 1
7567-010-013 East of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 1.24 1
7567-010-015
North of 3 Packsaddle, adj to -
013
RAS-1
1.49 0 landlocked
7567-013-007 West of 73 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 7.09 0 severely constrained, slide area
7567-013-005 West of 73 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 19.84 0 severely constrained, slide area
TOTAL 137.37 22 Includes 2 approved homes
Table 16 summarizes the vacant land inventory by zoning district. There are eight vacant
parcels in the RAS-1 zone and 14 vacant parcels in the RAS-2 zone. Based on the one-acre
zoning that applies in the RAS-1 district and the acreage of the parcels, the eight RAS-1
parcels have a theoretical capacity of 18 units. Based on the two-acre zoning that applies in
the RAS-2 district and the acreage of the parcels, the 14 RAS-2 parcels have a theoretical
capacity of 52 units. However, the theoretical capacity of the lots far exceeds the realistic
capacity due to environmental constraints and hazards. The realistic capacity is estimated to
be 22 units, which equates to one dwelling unit per lot. As noted, two homes are under
construction or have approved plans, leaving 20 remaining vacant lots with the capacity for
above moderate-income housing.
In addition to having the capacity for single family homes, these properties are also capable
of supporting Accessory Dwelling Units. ADUs are permitted by right in both the RAS-1
and RAS-2 district.
Table 16
City of Rolling Hills Future Residential Development Potential
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INCREASE IN
DWELLING UNITS
Zone Total
RA-S-1 8
RA-S-2 14
TOTAL 22
Source: City of Rolling Hills,2020.
Lot Splits
There are a number of parcels in Rolling Hills with lot sizes that are more than double the
minimum acreage required by zoning. Some of these parcels could theoretically be subdivided
into two or more lots. However, the potential for lot splits is limited due to the configuration
233
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 64
of the lots as well as environmental hazards. Many of the city’s larger lots have limited street
frontage and irregular dimensions that would make it difficult to divide them. Moreover, the
platting pattern responds to topography, and the larger lots are often steep and geologically
constrained, making them difficult to subdivide. Their division could result in lots with no
buildable area, street frontage, or access. While a limited number of new homes could occur as
a result of future lot splits, a capacity estimate has not been made due to the constraints inherent
in the community’s topography and hazards. The supply of vacant lots is sufficient to meet the
above moderate income RHNA without relying on lot splits.
Underutilized or Redevelopable Land
While Rolling Hills’ above moderate income (or “market rate”) RHNA can be met on vacant
land, the City’s moderate, low, and very low income RHNA will need to be accommodated
through a combination of development on underutilized and redevelopable land, and through
new accessory dwelling units. It would be difficult to meet the need for moderate, low, and very
low income housing on vacant sites, given wildfire and landslide hazards, the high cost of land and
construction, the lack of urban services, and historical patterns of development in the community.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are discussed in the next section of this Housing Element.
ADUs will enable the City to meet the RHNA requirement for moderate income units during
the planning period. In future Housing Element cycles, the City will strive to meet a greater share
of its lower income housing allocations through ADUs. However, as noted in the Introduction,
the City is required by State law to meet its Fifth Cycle low and very low income allocation
through rezoning for multi-family housing, since it did not have a certified Element during the
Fourth Cycle.
The sites discussed below are evaluated for their suitability to accommodate 13 multi-family
units. The 13 units represent the sum of the Fourth and Fifth cycle low and very low-income
allocation. To meet statutory requirements under the State Government Code, the 13 units
must be permitted at a density of at least 20 units per acre. Additional State requirements for
affordable housing sites indicate that suitable sites must be capable of accommodating at least
16 units. Thus, the City’s 13- unit assignment is rounded up to 16 units “by default” for the
purposes of the State-mandated rezoning.
An evaluation of the potential for 16 multi-family units is included below. The focus is on non-
residential properties that are outside the jurisdiction of the Rolling Hills Community Association.
Residential properties on the south side of Palos Verdes Drive North also are addressed.
Non-residential properties in Rolling Hills are limited to the City Hall Complex, Tennis Court
Facilities, Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center, PVP Unified School District site, Los
Angeles County Fire Station, and scattered public open space sites.
The City Hall Complex, Tennis Court Facilities, Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center,
and PVP Unified School District are the most viable housing opportunity sites and are discussed
in more detail below. In particular, the PVP Unified School District site has been identified as
being the most logical and realistic option, given its size, location, terrain, access, ownership, and
234
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 65
current land use. Other governmental owned properties are developed with recreational uses,
and some are located on steeply sloping properties or have limited access.
1. City Hall Complex (APN 7569-003-904) – 1.22 acres zoned Public Facilities
The City Hall complex is located off of Palos Verdes Drive North at the main entrance to the
City. The parcel is currently developed with three structures: City Hall, the Rolling Hills
Community Association Administration Building and an accessory structure that houses an
emergency generator. The site is surrounded by a steep canyon to the east, residence to the
south, and a guardhouse and tennis courts to the west. The parcel is located on the southeast
corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. Palos Verdes Drive North is a
high-volume arterial, consisting of one lane each way that traverses three cities on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula. It is one of two main roads that lead in and out of the City of Rolling Hills.
Portuguese Bend Road leads to the main entrance gate of the City and is another arterial road
that leads in and out of the City. Given the small size of the site and its active community and
civic uses, this site is less practical than some of the others identified.
2. Tennis Court Facility – 0.86 acres zoned Public Facilities (APN 7569-015-900)
The tennis court site is located across from City Hall on the southwest corner of Palos Verdes
Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. The site is surrounded by residences to the south and
west and streets to east and north. While the site could feasibly be developed with housing, its
function as a community amenity and open space makes it a less than ideal site.
3. Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center (APN 7569-022-006) – 2 acres zoned RAS-2
The parcel is located on the west end of the City. It is surrounded by residential development to
the south, a school facility to the east and Crest Road to the north. The parcel immediately west
of the site contains the Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center and is in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes. The Retreat Center is located on two parcels and spans the City limit line, with
part of the parking lot and entrance drive in Rolling Hills.
The flat parking lot area, which is just under an acre in size, offers room for development. The
remaining area is on a slope and would be difficult to develop without grading. Additionally, the
retreat center itself could be converted to accommodate a higher density housing project. Staff
has had conversations with the property owners about the use of the site and intends to
investigate it further in the future. The parcel is outside of the Association’s gates which minimizes
the potential impacts of a higher density housing development in the case of emergency.
4. Privately-owned Parcels Along Palos Verdes Drive North
These are privately owned parcels that have frontage along Palos Verdes Drive North. These parcels
are outside of the City gates but are located within the City of Rolling Hills. The parcels are
generally developed with single family homes that are accessed from internal streets within Rolling
Hills—several are large enough to be subdivided, which would create new vacant parcels with
frontage and access from Palos Verdes Drive. The area is zoned for one-acre lots but includes a
few parcels that could be divided. Rezoning could also be considered here.
235
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 66
These parcels are surrounded by single family residential developments on all sides with an arterial
separating them from properties in the City of Rolling Hills Estates to the north. The arterial serves
as one of the main thoroughfares traversing the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The road section in front
these parcels is two lanes with a median separator. Developing these sites could present ingress
and egress constraints, as well as public safety concerns due to wildfire hazards. If multi-family
housing was pursued in this area, General Plan Amendments would be required as the potential
for density transfers is limited.
5. PVP Unified School District (APN 7569-022-900)– 31 acres zoned RAS-2
As indicated in Chapter 3, the City has adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on the 31-
acre property located at 38 Crest Road. This property is owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District (PVPUSD). A significant portion of the site is vacant or underutilized.
Appendix A of the Housing Element provides a detailed evaluation of the site, demonstrating that
it is the most suitable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills and provides the City’s best
opportunity to meet its requirements for low- and very low-income units. The site is located
outside the jurisdiction of the RHCA, is outside the Rolling Hills security gates, and is one of the
largest properties in Rolling Hills. It includes multiple areas that are vacant and underutilized,
relatively flat, and well buffered from adjacent uses. The site is also one of the only properties in
Rolling Hills that is served by a public sewer system, substantially reducing potential development
costs and addressing an infrastructure constraint that makes affordable housing cost-prohibitive
in much of the city.
The PVPUSD site is currently home to Rancho Del Mar High School, a small continuation school
with an enrollment of 46 students in 2020. The Beach Cities Learning Center also occupies a
portion of the school building. Excluding the adjacent playing fields and lawn, the school campus
occupies just six percent of the 31-acre site. The only other active use on the property is a Palos
Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA) maintenance facility.
The Rancho Del Mar site was initially developed as an elementary school in 1960. The school
closed in 1980 and was repurposed as a continuation high school in 1986. The continuation
school was initially intended as a temporary use and the possibility of residential development on
the site has been considered in the past. Enrollment at the continuation school has been steadily
declining and has dropped 40 percent in the last five years alone. Sale of the school property (or
a portion of the property) could generate significant revenue for the School District.
The analysis in Appendix A identified five potential development areas on the site, including the
school itself (in the event it is closed), the ballfield east of the school, an open lawn area adjacent
to the school, a vacant area between the school and the PVPTA facility, and an undeveloped area
west of the PVPTA facility. Each of these areas is at least one acre in size. The area west of the
PVPTA facility is the largest of the five areas and is considered the most viable location for multi-
family housing. It is the closest location to the site entry on Crest Road and could easily be
developed without interrupting activities at either the school or the transit facility. Accordingly,
the Overlay Zone identifies this area as the location for future affordable housing.
236
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 67
The site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and a zoning designation
of RAS-2. Both designations allow one unit per two acres, or 16 units on the entire site. In
February 2021, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay designation on its General Plan
Land Use Map, along with the Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on its Zoning
Map. Both of these designations require transfer of the allowable number of units to a subarea
within the site where densities of 20-24 units per acre are required. Such development is
permitted by right, provided the development complies with the objective development and
design standards contained in the Overlay Zone (see discussion in Chapter 3).
The PVPUSD site also provides opportunities for emergency shelter and single room occupancy
(SRO) hotels. Emergency shelter is permitted by right, subject to specific development standards
that have been adopted by the City. SROs require a conditional use permit and are also subject
to development standards. These provisions create opportunities for extremely low income
households, as well as low and very low income households.
As noted in Appendix A, the City has met with the School District and confirmed that there are
no prohibitions or limitations on multi-family and special needs housing on School District
property. In fact, the District has expressed interest in developing housing for teachers in the
past; such units would meet income criteria for low or very low income units. Programs in this
Housing Element support the site’s future development and ongoing communication with the
School District regarding its disposition.
For the purposes of the Housing Element analysis, the site has been determined to have the
capacity for 16 units affordable to very low and low income households, thus meeting and
exceeding (by 3 units) the combined 4th and 5th cycle lower income RHNA for Rolling Hills.
Opportunities for State density bonuses also exist, given the affordability requirements for new
housing.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Opportunities
Chapter 3 of this Housing Element describes the requirements for ADUs and Junior ADUs
(JADUs) in Rolling Hills. The City adopted an ADU Ordinance compliant with State law in
February 2018, and amendments to that Ordinance in February 2020 to reflect additional State
laws that facilitate ADU development in all California cities. ADUs that meet adopted
development standards are permitted ministerially—that is, without Planning Commission or City
Council action. The analysis in Chapter 3 concluded that the City’s adopted standards, fees, and
procedures for ADUs are supportive of their future development.
ADUs are the most practical approach to meeting Rolling Hills’ affordable housing allocations
given the characteristics of the City’s housing stock, the constraints to higher density housing,
and the City’s demographics. While the City has created affordable housing opportunities on the
PVUSD site, the ADU ordinance provides opportunities for incremental, smaller-scale housing
that meets the needs of individual households, often without even requiring construction of new
buildings or creation of new habitable space. The City’s large parcels, large home sizes, and large
senior population are all conducive to ADU production. The only jobs in the City are home-
237
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 68
based service positions (au pairs, care givers, caretakers, gardeners, personal assistants, etc.),
making ADUs a logical and sustainable solution to meeting local housing needs.
In Fall 2020, the City surveyed all of its households to identify the extent of ADUs (permitted
and unpermitted), the potential for ADUs to meet affordable housing needs, and attitudes toward
ADUs in general. A paper survey with return postage was mailed to every address in the City.
Nearly 30 percent of the City’s households replied, providing an excellent foundation for
evaluating possible new policies and regulations. The survey was completely anonymous. The
full survey, including an analysis of the replies, is included as Attachment B of the Housing Element.
The survey found mixed opinions about ADUs, with some households supporting their
development and others opposed. Those supporting ADUs cited their potential as housing for
care givers, domestic employees, family members, and seniors seeking to age in place. Those
opposed cited concerns about privacy, parking, security, impacts on community character, and
the erosion of local control over land use decisions. Some of the concerns regarding parking,
privacy, tenants, etc. may be resolvable by including specific elements in ADU strategies and
providing more outreach and opportunities for public discussion. A large number of the survey
respondents felt they “needed more information” before weighing in on some of the questions.
While public opinions are mixed, the survey indicated that the potential for ADUs is very high in
Rolling Hills. Some of the findings are summarized below:
• 25 percent of the respondents indicated they had an accessory structure on their property
with a kitchen, bath, and habitable space.
• More than 10 percent (21) of the respondents indicated they had another household living
on their property, including paying tenants (3), care givers (7), and relatives (11).
• The rents reported for ADUs (where rent was being collected) were within State affordability
thresholds for low- and very low-income households
• Roughly half of the occupants of ADUs in Rolling Hills meet State definitions of low, very low,
and extremely low-income households.
• 24 percent of the respondents indicated they would consider developing an ADU and 15
percent indicated they might consider developing an ADU in the future.
• 54 percent indicated they would not consider developing an ADU. Loss of privacy and not
wanting to deal with tenants were the most common reasons selected.
• When asked how residents would use an ADU if they had one, 8 percent said they would
rent it to a tenant, 24 percent said they use it for a care giver or home employee, and 31
percent said they would use it for a family member
• 13 percent of the respondents indicated they would be amenable to a deed restriction that
limited the rent of the ADU to a lower income household; another 10 percent said they might
be amenable. Most of the respondents favored short affordability terms (5 years—or until
point of sale) and were less interested if the restriction was longer.
• When asked about incentives for creating “affordable” ADUs, the most popular choices were
reduced fees and expedited permitting.
238
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 69
For its Fifth Cycle housing element, the City is presuming that ADUs will meet the requirement
for five moderate income units. Based on the data above, the actual potential is higher and also
extends to the very low- and low-income ranges. In October 2020, a scan of “Craigslist” ads for
rental housing identified one ADU in (or immediately adjacent to) Rolling Hills renting for $1,200
a month, a rate that would meet affordability criteria for a low income household.
The City of Rolling Hills is committed to facilitating construction of ADUs. The City has
conducted, and will continue to conduct, site visits to assist owners in identifying sites on their
properties to build ADUs and provide additional information when needed. It is currently taking
the City approximately two to four weeks to approve ADUs. The City is also working with the
RHCA to facilitate the approval process.
B. ABILITY TO MEET RHNA ALLOCATION
As indicated in Chapter 4, the RHNA prepared by SCAG identifies a housing need for Rolling
Hills of six units for the Fifth (2014-2021) Cycle. The City is also subject to a “carry over”
requirement of 22 units from the Fourth Cycle (2006-2013), for a total of 28 units. The analysis
above indicates that the City has the capacity to meet this allocation. This is based on the
following assumptions:
• Above Moderate Income Housing: The City has 22 vacant lots zoned RAS-1 or RAS-2
with the capacity for one dwelling unit each. This is sufficient to meet the need for above
moderate income or market-rate housing.
• Moderate Income Housing: The City of Rolling Hills currently has approximately 700
housing units. Based on Municipal Code amendments adopted in 2020, ADUs and JADUs are
permitted in every home. The City’s 2020 ADU survey indicates that as many as half already
have space that could be converted into an ADU. The ADU survey also indicates that rents
for ADUs would be affordable to Moderate Income households (and in many cases to Low
and Very Low Income households). If an ADU were added to only one percent of the City’s
housing stock, Rolling Hills would exceed its allocation of five moderate income units. The
City has already approved several ADUs during the Fifth Cycle.
• Low and Very Low Income Housing: The City has met its requirement to provide
capacity for Low and Very Low Income units through the creation of the Rancho Del Mar
(RDM) Affordable Housing Opportunity Overlay district. The Overlay allows the
construction of 16 affordable multi-family units “by right” with no discretionary approval
required. As previously noted, the site is one of the few in Rolling Hills with a public sewer
system and is relatively unconstrained compared to sites in the rest of the city.
• Extremely Low Income Housing: The City has provided opportunities for extremely
low income households by permitting emergency shelters by right in the RDM Overlay Zone
and by allowing Single Room Occupancy hotels in the Overlay Zone. In addition, some of the
ADUs that could be created in the future may meet eligibility criteria for Extremely Low
239
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 70
Income housing, to the extent they are offered without rent or are occupied by elder family
members or others with very limited income.
C. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of
opportunities for residential energy conservation. Energy costs are considered part of monthly
housing expenses when calculating affordability and can be a cost burden, particularly for seniors
on fixed incomes. The large size of many Rolling Hills homes and the high percentage of seniors
indicates that this may be an important consideration in the City.
In 1974, the California state legislature created the California Energy Commission to deal with the
issue of energy conservation. Since that time, the Energy Commission has set conservation
standards for new residential and nonresidential construction. These standards, known as Title
24, are periodically updated to reflect new technology and new targets for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. The new standards, implemented by the City as part of the recently adopted California
Green Building Code, specify energy saving design for walls, ceilings and floor installations, as well
as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards, and
the use of nondepleting energy sources, such as solar energy and wind power.
Through the Site Plan Review process and the Building Code (Title 15 of the Municipal Code) ,
the City requires energy conservation in all buildings. The City has also adopted a Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code) that requires landscaping to be
water wise and plants to be drought tolerant.
In addition, the Rolling Hills General Plan establishes a policy to permit the use of solar panels to
maximize energy efficiency. In the past few years, the City of Rolling Hills has approved 42 solar
panel requests from residents. Other residential energy design standards can be applied to reduce
energy costs, including:
• Glazing - Glazing on south facing exterior walls allows for winter sunrays to warm the
structure. Avoidance of this technique on the west side of the unit prevents afternoon sun
from overheating the unit.
• Landscaping - Strategically placed vegetation reduces the amount of direct sunlight on the
windows. Incorporation of deciduous trees in landscaping along the southern area of units
reduces summer sun, while allowing penetration of winter sun to warm the units.
• Building Design - The implementation of roof overhangs above southerly facing windows shield
the structure from solar rays during the summer months.
• Cooling/Heating Systems - The use of attic ventilation systems reduces attic temperatures
during summer months. Solar heating systems for swimming pool facilities save on energy
costs. Natural gas is conserved with the use of flow restrictors on all hot water faucets and
showerheads.
240
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 71
• Weatherization Techniques - Weatherization techniques such as insulation, caulking, and
weatherstripping can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55 percent and for heating
as much as 40 percent. Weatherization measures seal a dwelling unit to guard against heat gain
in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter.
• Efficient Use of Appliances - Appliances can be designed and used in ways that increase their
energy efficiency. Unnecessary appliances can be eliminated, and outdated appliances can be
replaced with more energy-efficient models. Proper maintenance and use of the stove, oven,
clothes dryer, clothes washer, dishwasher, and refrigerator can also reduce energy
consumption. New appliance purchases of air-conditioning units and refrigerators can be
made on the basis of efficiency ratings. The State prepares a list of air-conditioning and
refrigerator models that detail the energy efficiency ratings of the product.
• Outdoor Lighting Ordinance – The City has adopted standards for outdoor lighting through
its Municipal Code (Section 17.16.190(E)). Energy efficient lighting is required for most
outdoor lighting, and outdoor lighting is prohibited in many instances to retain dark skies and
the community’s rural character.
• Efficient Use of Lighting - Costs of lighting a home can be reduced through purchase of light
bulbs, which produce the most lumens per watt, avoidance of multi-bulb mixtures and use of
long life bulbs and clock timers on security buildings.
In 2008, the City had adopted Resolution No. 1040, providing for a City of Rolling Hills Natural
Environment and Sustainability Committee. The committee was composed of nine resident
members and was appointed by the City Council to develop and recommend environmentally
sustainable policies, practices and programs for Rolling Hills and provide outreach to residents and
bring in educational programs to the City. Several Committee recommendations were
incorporated as City policies prior to the Committee’s dissolution.
As a member of SCAG, the City also participates in the Regional Comprehensive Plan to achieve
a sustainable future. The City is a member of the South Bay Council of Governments Green Task
Force. The City also has joined ICLEI, which is a membership association of local governments
committed to advancing climate protection and sustainable development.
The City’s commitment to energy efficiency is carried forward in the Housing Implementation
Plan (2014-2021) of this document.
241
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 72
D. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Conventional affordable housing usually requires a variety of state and federal tax credits and
subsidies, locally-generated funds from housing programs, and active participation by the non-
profit development sector. This type of development would be extremely challenging in Rolling
Hills given the very high cost of land and construction, the community’s topography and natural
hazards, the City’s small size and limited resources, and the absence of a public sewer system on
most parcels. The only site where such housing would be financially feasible is the PVUSD site,
given that it is publicly owned and has infrastructure and street access.
Elsewhere in the city, the availability of Federal and State funding sources would be subject to
many limitations. Many types of government assistance are conditioned upon the existence of
populations in need of assistance or housing stock conditions requiring repair or rehabilitation.
The absence of high-need populations in Rolling Hills renders the City ineligible for many types of
assistance. The housing stock is in excellent condition and there are few properties that would
be eligible for rehabilitation assistance. The City's limited financial resources further preclude the
use of City General Fund monies for assistance.
High housing values in the City and an extremely limited rental supply also preclude the use of
the Section 8, Housing Voucher Assistance Payments Program. Under that program, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides subsidies to landlords under
certain conditions. Only housing units with rents at or below maximum rent levels set by HUD
for each county are eligible to receive subsidies. Rents in the City far exceed maximum allowable
levels payable under the Section 8 Program.
Since inception of the CDBG program in 1979, the City of Rolling Hills has used its CDBG funds
to provide over $225,000 to local communities for housing rehab programs and for construction
of Section 8 housing. Between 2008 and 2011, Rolling Hills received a total of $25,331 in CDBG
funds, an average of $6,333 per year. The City transferred these funds to the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes for their Senior Citizens Home repair program. However, the cost of administering
the program made it infeasible for the City of Rolling Hills to continue participating.
Despite these constraints, the City is amenable to exploring future funding sources and
supporting applications that would facilitate housing rehabilitation and development. Programs
that assist lower income seniors in energy conservation, septic system improvements, and minor
home repair could be considered. Programs that underwrite ADU production could be explored
in the future.
Table 17 summarizes potentially available funding sources as a reference to City staff and potential
developers:
242
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 73
Table 17
Federal And State Housing Programs And Their Applicability In Rolling Hills
Program Comments
Federal Programs
Section 8 Provides rent subsidies to low-income renters. This source cannot be
used in Rolling Hills because rents on housing in the City far exceed
maximum rent levels required for participation in the program.
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Provides for payment contracts on units needing substantial rehabilitation.
This source is inapplicable in Rolling Hills because no housing in the City
has been identified as in need of rehabilitation.
Section 8 New Construction Provides funding for the construction of housing affordable to lower-
income persons. High land costs and legal and environmental
constraints would likely preclude the development of projects in Rolling
Hills that would be eligible for such funding.
Section 202 Provides private/non-profit funding for senior housing and supported
services. High land costs and legal and environmental constraints make the
development of projects that would be eligible for such funding infeasible
in Rolling Hills.
Section 106(b) – Seed Money Loans Provides interest free loans to non-profit housing sponsors for pre-
construction costs. Currently used only in connection with Section 202
above.
State Programs
California Housing Finance Agency Provides loans to housing sponsors for construction. Direct Lending or
rehabilitation of housing projects containing over five units. Program could
be applied for by Rolling Hills' developers within the Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone (AHOZ)
California Housing Finance Agency Provides financing for rehabilitation and purchase of Home Ownership and
Home Improvement (HOHI) housing by low and moderate-income
persons in areas that are in need of rehabilitation. Absence of housing in
need of rehabilitation and very high acquisition costs preclude use in Rolling
Hills.
California Self-Help Housing Program Provides grants and loans to assist low and moderate income families to
build or rehabilitate their own homes. High land costs and home values
make use of this program in Rolling Hills unlikely.
Mobile Home Park Assistance Provides financial and technical assistance to mobile home park residents.
No mobile home parks exist in Rolling Hills.
HCD Homelessness Programs
(Emergency Solutions and Housing,
Housing for a Healthy CA, Emergency
Solutions Grants, Multi-family Supportive
Housing) and OES Programs (Specialized
Emergency Housing, Transitional Housing,
etc.)
Provides grants for homeless shelters and direct subsidies to people
experiencing homelessness. County data does not indicate a need for
emergency shelter in Rolling Hills.
Predevelopment Loan Program Provides predevelopment loans for low-income housing projects. This
source could be used by nonprofit developers in the City.High land costs
and environmental and infrastructure constraints render the
development of eligible projects infeasible on most sites in the City.
243
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 74
Program Comments
Senior Citizen Shared Housing Provides grants to assist seniors find shared housing arrangements. Rolling
Hills provides informational brochures on shared housing referral services
offered at neighboring cities. Rolling Hills provides the brochures using local
funds.
Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP) Provides low-interest long-term deferred payment loans for the
construction of affordable housing developments ; could be considered in
Rancho Del Mar AHOZ area.
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA)
Provides funding for predevelopment, development, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental
housing that is affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, or moderate-
income households, including ADUs for households with up to 150% of
AMI in high-cost areas. Could be applied to facilitate ADU construction
throughout Rolling Hills, as well as construction in the AHOZ area.
Deferred Payment Rehabilitation Loans Provides loans for the rehabilitation of low and moderate-income housing.
Not applicable in Rolling Hills because of absence of targeted housing.
Government Code Section 65915-Density
Bonuses
Requires local governments to offer density bonuses or other incentives
in exchange for the development of low- income housing. State
requirements would apply to future development in the Rancho Del Mar
AHOZ.
Affordable Multi-Family Revenue Bonds
(CA Public Finance Authority)
Provides access to tax-exempt bonds for for-profit and non-profit
developers building senior and low-income multi-family housing. Could be
applied in the AHOZ area but not elsewhere. Limited availability and
competitive funds could limit practical use.
Single-Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds Allows for the issuance of bonds for below market loans for low and
moderate-income homebuyers. The high costs of homes in the City make
them unaffordable to persons targeted in this program.
244
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 75
VI. HOUSING PLAN
Chapters II to V of the Housing Element evaluated housing needs, constraints, and opportunities
in Rolling Hills. Chapter VI evaluates the accomplishments of the last adopted housing element,
and then presents the City's Housing Plan. The Plan sets forth the goals, policies, and programs
to address Rolling Hills' identified housing needs.
A. REVIEW OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE
State Housing Element law requires communities to assess the achievements of adopted housing
programs as part of the update to their housing elements. These results should be quantified
where possible but may be qualitative where necessary. These results need to be compared with
what was projected or planned in the previous element. Where significant shortfalls exist between
what was planned and what was achieved, the reasons for such differences must be discussed.
The 2006-2014 Rolling Hills Housing Element established programs to address the following four
housing goals:
• Provide for housing which meets the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills' residents
• Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills
• Provide housing services to address the needs of the City's senior citizen population
• Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin or color
A number of programs were set forth in the 2006-2014 Housing Element to achieve these goals.
As summarized in Table 18, the City has actively pursued avenues for supporting residential
development and facilitating affordable housing opportunities, despite the constraints that limit
development opportunities in Rolling Hills.
245
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 76
Table 18
City of Rolling Hills Progress Toward Implementing the 2006-2014 Housing Element
Programs
Programs Accomplishments
Goal 1: Provide for housing which meets the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills' residents.
Manufactured Home Program: Permit
manufactured homes on all buildable, single
family lots in the City.
The City has amended its Zoning Ordinance to provide for
manufactured homes and continues to permit this program. No
request for a manufactured home was submitted to the City
during the past planning period.
Facilitate New Construction: The City will
continue to work with and assist housing
developers and builders to enable new housing
to be built in the City.
The City has continued to work with and assist developers and
builders. Five new units and seven replacement units were
constructed during the 2006-2014 planning period. In 2012,
the OZD-1 overlay zone was created to facilitate construction
on narrow and shallow lots in parts of the City. Reduced
setback standards apply in this area.
Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills.
Code Enforcement: In the event that a
violation of City codes or regulations is
discovered, the City works with the County
and the Association to remediate the violation.
The City continues to promote code enforcement in cases of
violations. An educational program including information
brochures has been implemented to discourage violations. A
program to accomplish compliance also has been implemented.
Approximately thirty violations have occurred in the City and
only six of them consisted of residential structural deficiencies.
These were all corrected during the past planning period. Code
enforcement is intended to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, and is not considered a constraint to the development
of affordable housing.
Ground Instability: Continue to explore
possible solutions to ground instability
problems.
The City has continued to work with property owners and
geotechnical consultants to establish construction regulations
and to explore other potential solutions to ground stability
problems. Despite these efforts, certain property in high-risk
landslide areas remains unbuildable.
Neighborhood Sponsored Sewer Districts:
Promote and facilitate the development of
homeowner sponsored sewer districts.
The City retained a consulting engineer to assess the feasibility
of establishing a citywide sewer system. Because of the geologic
and topographic constraints, the city’s low density, high
construction costs, and limited revenues, installation of a sewer
system has been deemed infeasible. There is ongoing
consideration for extending sewer service to individual
properties or subareas within the city.
Housing Repair on Landslide Sites: Continue
to allow the repair of damaged structures and
remedial grading in landslide areas.
The City continues to allow repair of damaged structures
and remedial grading in landslide areas with special
permits.
Home Improvement Program for eligible low
and moderate-income residents.
In keeping with its commitment to support housing element
objectives and low income housing needs, Rolling Hills assigned
its CDBG funds to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Home
Improvement Programs for eligible low and moderate income
residents to provide grants and zero percent deferred loans to
correct hazardous structural conditions, eliminate blight, and
improve disabled access.
246
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 77
Table 18, page 2
Program Accomplishments
Goal 3: Provide housing services to address the needs of the City's senior citizen population.
Shared Housing Program: Actively market the
two area shared housing programs – Focal
Point at the South Bay Senior Services in
Torrance and Anderson Senior Center in San
Pedro - which assist seniors in locating
roommates to share existing housing in the
community.
Informational brochures advertising existing shared housing
programs are available at the public counter. Records on the
number of matches that have occurred during the planning
period are not available.
Reverse Mortgage Program: Inform residents
about the advantages of reverse mortgages. A
reverse mortgage is a deferred payment loan
or a series of such loans for which a home is
pledged as security and can offer a viable
financing alternative to many of Rolling Hills'
elderly homeowners.
The City offers referral services to seniors interested in
pursuing a reverse mortgage.
Elderly Services: Rolling Hills will continue to
provide information to its elderly residents
concerning available senior services.
In keeping with its commitment to assist its elderly
residents find needed services, the City maintains a list of
local senior facilities at City Hall.
Goal 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin or color.
Fair Housing Program: As a means of
increasing public awareness of legal rights
under fair housing laws, the City will advertise
services offered by the Fair Housing
Foundation, including housing discrimination
response, landlord-tenant relations, housing
information and counseling, and community
education programs.
As a past participating city in the Community Development
Block Grant Program, Rolling Hills cooperated with the Los
Angeles office of the Fair Housing Foundation to enforce fair
housing laws. Informational brochures about the Foundation
are available at the City of Rolling Hills public counter and local
library.
247
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 78
B. GOALS AND POLICIES
As part of this General Plan update, the goals and policies of the past Housing Element were
reviewed as to their appropriateness in addressing the community's housing needs. The following
goals and policies reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential
development and avenues for facilitating affordable housing opportunities, despite the constraints
that limit development opportunities in Rolling Hills. These policies will serve as a guide to City
officials in daily decision making.
GOAL 1: Provide for housing which meets the needs of existing and future
Rolling Hills' residents.
Policy 1.1: Evaluate ways in which the City can assist in providing housing to meet special
community needs.
Policy 1.2: Work with other governmental entities to explore the possibility of providing
affordable housing for low and moderate income and senior citizen households in the South Bay
region.
Policy 1.3: Encourage the use of energy conservation devices and passive design concepts that
make use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency, as well as weatherization to reduce
energy costs.
Policy 1.4: Continue to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types in the City, taking
into account existing financial, legal, infrastructure, and environmental constraints. While Rolling
Hills will remain a rural equestrian community, housing opportunities will be provided for all
income groups as required by State law.
Policy 1.5: Ensure effective and informed community participation in local housing decisions.
Policy 1.6: Participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents and
others who may need emergency housing assistance.
GOAL 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in
Rolling Hills.
Policy 2.1: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of existing homes to
maintain optimum standards of housing quality and design.
Policy 2.2: Require the design of housing to comply with the City's building code requirements.
Policy 2.3: Require compatible design to minimize the impact of residential redevelopment on
existing residences.
248
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 79
Policy 2.4: Enforce City housing codes to assure the upkeep and maintenance of housing in the
City.
Policy 2.5: Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(JADUs) in all residential zones. Adopt standards to ensure that ADUs and JADUs are compatible
with the community; minimize visual, parking, traffic, and other impacts; and respect
neighborhood context.
GOAL 3: Provide housing services to address the needs of the City's senior
citizen population.
Policy 3.1: Provide reference and referral services for seniors, such as in-home care and
counseling for housing-related issues, to allow seniors to remain independent in the community.
Policy 3.2: Maintain information regarding shared housing programs as an option for seniors to
share existing housing in the community.
Policy 3.3: Coordinate with lending companies and institutions to educate the City's elderly
homeowners as to the availability of reverse mortgage loans, which allow seniors with limited
income to remain in their homes.
Policy 3.4: Encourage housing opportunities for live-in care givers, domestic employees, and
family members who may assist elderly or mobility-impaired residents who wish to age in place.
GOAL 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national
origin.
Policy 4.1: Affirm a positive action posture, which will assure that unrestricted housing
opportunities are available to the community, and enforce all applicable laws and policies
pertaining to equal housing opportunity.
Policy 4.2: Encourage the development of residential units that are accessible to the disabled or
are adaptable for conversion to residential use by disabled persons. Provide reasonable
accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and procedures for disabled persons to ensure equal
access to housing.
Policy 4.3: Make information on fair housing laws available to residents and realtors in the City
by distributing at the City Hall public counter and on request.
Policy 4.4: Investigate any allegations of violations of fair housing laws.
249
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 80
C. HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (2014-2021)
The goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element to address the City's housing needs are
implemented through a series of housing programs. The Housing Element program strategy
consists of both programs currently in use in the City and additional programs to provide the
opportunity to adequately address the City's housing needs. The following section provides a brief
description of each program, quantified objectives, funding sources, responsible agencies and
implementation time frames. Each of these programs have been developed consistent with HCD
guidelines for developing effective programs and are responsive to the unique constraints facing
Rolling Hills.1 As appropriate, programs that have been completed since the initial draft of this
element in 2014 have been included.
1. Annual Progress Report
As required by State law, the City will create an annual report on the status and progress of
implementing its Housing Element using forms and definitions adopted by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Guidance on the content of the
report is provided by the State Office of Planning and Research. It documents the City’s progress
toward meeting its share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove government constraints
to housing production. The report must be presented to the City Council prior to its submittal
(it may be approved as a consent item).
Quantified Objective: Provide one report per year
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: File by April 1 of each year
2. General Plan Land Use Element Amendments
At the start of the 2014-2021 Housing Element Cycle, the Rolling Hills General Plan only
permitted single family residences in the city. To comply with Government Code requirements
to accommodate a variety of housing types, the City amended the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to permit multi-family housing, emergency shelter and SROs. The Housing Element
and Land Use Element are now internally consistent and support the development of a variety of
housing types. Land use policies allow for by right multi-family development, accessory dwelling
units, and other measures that facilitate housing development in the City. The City provided
CEQA compliance for the General Plan Amendment through an Initial Study and Negative
Declaration
Quantified Objective: Amendment of Land Use Element
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Started in October 2020; Completed in March 2021
1 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/PRO_overview.php; accessed January 2, 2014.
250
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 81
3. Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
The City of Rolling Hills is subject to the provisions of Section 65583.2(h) of the California
Government Code, which require planning for 100 percent of the need for very low and low
income housing for the current RHNA cycle and the previous RHNA cycle since the prior cycle
element was non-compliant. Rolling Hills is obligated to provide by-right zoning to accommodate
13 units of multi-family housing (10 units from the 4th Cycle and 3 units from the 5th Cycle). State
law requires that acceptable housing sites must accommodate at least 16 units—thus the 13 units
has been rounded up to 16 units for this Housing Element. State law further requires that the
sites are zoned to permit at least 20 units per acre.
This program calls for creation of Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ), to be mapped on
the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar site owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. As
documented in Chapter 5 and Appendix A, an analysis of housing opportunities in Rolling Hills
found that this was the most viable location for affordable multi-family housing and one of the
only sites in the city with sewer infrastructure, thus reducing development costs. The AHOZ
retains the General Plan density for the site but requires that the allowable number of units are
clustered at a density of 20-24 units per acre. An analysis of site conditions determined that the
area west of the PVPTA facility (located on the site) was the best location for the density transfer.
The City has confirmed with the School District that the site is acceptable.
Quantified Objective: Zoning for 16 affordable multi-family units
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Completed in February 2021
4. Next Steps for PVUSD Housing Opportunity
The City will work with the Palos Verdes Unified School District and School Board to advance
opportunities for affordable multi-family housing on the Rancho Del Mar property. This could
include subdivision of the property to create a defined parcel west of the PVPTA facility that
could be leased or sold, encouraging the PVUSD to consider teacher housing or PVUSD
employee housing on the site, and identifying funding sources or permit streamlining and fee
reduction measures to make affordable housing more viable. It will also include meeting with
non-profit housing developers about the site and exploring expressions of interest from parties
that may be interested. Specific measures will be determined through an initial meeting with the
Superintendent of Schools following certification of the Housing Element.
Quantified Objectives: Initial City Manager/ School Superintendent Coordination Meeting
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Complete before October 2021
251
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 82
5. Zoning for Emergency Shelter
Section 65583(a)(4)(A) of the California Government Code requires that all cities identify a zone
where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other
discretionary permit. The zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the identified need
in the community. While bi-annual homeless counts have determined there is not an unsheltered
population in Rolling Hills, the City must still provide for at least one shelter.
At the start of the Fifth Cycle in 2014, emergency shelter was not a permitted use in Rolling Hills.
In February 2021, the City adopted provisions for emergency shelters in the Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone. A shelter of up to 12 beds is now permitted, subject to development standards
that are consistent with state requirements. While no shelters are proposed at this time; the
City will continue to work with homeless service providers, adjacent communities, the School
District, and residents to evaluate needs, opportunities, and funding sources.
Quantified Objectives: Adoption of Zoning Provisions for at Least One (1) Emergency
Shelter
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Completed in February 2021
6. Zoning for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels
SROs provide a housing resource for extremely low income households. They consist of small
efficiency units with a water closet and sink, often with shared kitchen and bathing facilities. At
the start of the Fifth Cycle in 2014, SROs were not permitted in Rolling Hills. In February 2021,
the City adopted provisions for SROs in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. SROs of six to
eight units are permitted with a conditional use permit, subject to development standards relating
to unit size, on-site management, and length of stay.
Quantified Objectives: Adoption of Zoning Provisions for SROs
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Completed in February 2021
7. Reasonable Accommodation
Although Rolling Hills has accommodated the needs of persons with disabilities through its
administration of the Building Code and Americans with Disabilities Act, it did not have a formal
Reasonable Accommodation policy. Such a policy is required under the Government Code and
is a pre-requisite for a certified Housing Element. Accordingly, this Housing Element includes
adoption of a formal procedure through which a person with disabilities may request reasonable
accommodation in order to have equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and
California Fair Housing and Employment Act. The Policy covers application requirements, review
252
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 83
authority and a review process, findings and determinations, appeals processes, and other
provisions.
The City of Rolling Hills completed this program in October 2020. It will implement the policy
on an ongoing basis and will provide relevant materials on its website and at City Hall for those
who may interested in requesting Reasonable Accommodation in the future.
Quantified Objectives: Adoption of Reasonable Accommodation Policy
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Completed in October 2020
8. Add Definitions of Transitional and Supportive Housing, and Employee
Housing, to Municipal Code
To comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), the City of Rolling Hills must clarify that
transitional and supportive housing are considered residential uses and are subject to the same
restrictions that apply to the other residential uses that are allowed in a given zoning district. In
other words, a single family home used as a group home for persons with disabilities it is subject
to the same planning and zoning requirements that apply to a single family home used by a
traditional family or any other household. Most local governments have addressed this
requirement by adding definitions to their zoning codes for transitional and supportive housing.
The purpose of this program is to add those definitions to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
(Chapter 17). The definitions would acknowledge that such housing is permitted or conditionally
permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone
as required by State law.
This program also includes a Municipal Code Amendment to add a definition for employee
housing in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). HSC Section 17021.5
states that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer people shall be
deemed a single family structure with a residential land use designation. It further states that
employee housing may not be considered a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory,
or similar term that implies that such housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other
way from a single family dwelling. State law precludes a city from requiring a conditional use
permit, zoning variance or other zoning variance for such housing, and stipulates that the use of
a single family dwelling for six of fewer employees does not constitute a change of occupancy
for building code purposes.
Quantified Objectives: Council Action Adopting Definitions
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director/ City Attorney
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by October 2021
253
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 84
9. Density Bonus Requirements
Section 65915 of the Government Code establishes provisions for density bonuses for affordable
and senior housing projects. Rolling Hills does not currently have density bonus provisions in its
Municipal Code. Historically, the City has not had multi-family housing, nor any site where multi-
family housing could be constructed. With the creation of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone,
a developer could request a density bonus and related concessions from a developer. State
standards would apply in this instance. The City should consider adopting its own density bonus
standards or adopting Code provisions clarifying that State standards apply in the event a request
is received.
Quantified Objectives: Municipal Code amendment related to Density Bonuses
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by October 2021
10. Adopt and Periodically Update Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
At the start of the Fifth Housing Element Cycle (2014), ADUs (rentable to tenants) were not
permitted in Rolling Hills. Although the City allowed guest houses, these were generally used
for visitors, family members, or household employees and did not include kitchens. In 2017, the
State of California adopted legislation requiring that ADUs be permitted in most residential
zoning districts, with provisions for “by right” approval if the units met certain standards.
Additional ADU requirements were adopted by the State in 2019 and became effective in 2020.
Like all cities in California, Rolling Hills was required to allow rental ADUs—and then Junior
ADUs—in accordance with State standards.
Program 10 covers actions taken by the City during the Fifth Cycle related to ADUs, including
adoption of Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code in 2018 and amendment of this Chapter in
January 2020. The City now permits ADUs up to 1,000 square feet or two bedrooms with a
ministerial permit (e.g., a permit that does not require Planning Commission or City Council
action). Units that do not conform to the adopted development standards may be approved with
a conditional use permit. The City has approved 3 ADUs since the ordinance went into effect in
2018 and several more are pending.
Quantified Objectives: Adoption of ADU regulations (Program completed)
Five (5) ADUs between February 2018 and October 2021
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by October 2021
254
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 85
11. ADU Education, Outreach, and Community Engagement
This program covers outreach, education, and community engagement regarding ADUs and
Junior ADUs in Rolling Hills. While ADUs became legal in 2018 and many homeowners have
expressed interest, the procedures, standards, and opportunities may not be widely known to all
residents. The City took a number of outreach steps in 2019 and 2020, including articles about
ADUs in the City newsletter and a survey administered to all residents in October 2020. The
survey responses suggest that continued outreach about ADUs is important.
Additional outreach and engagement measures include links on the Planning Department’s
webpage with more information about ADUs, including Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
The City will also host a community meeting to discuss the possibility of using ADUs and JADUs
to meet the City’s affordable housing requirements, and to address the public’s concerns about
the impacts of ADUs. This meeting also could serve to connect homeowners to local
organizations who can teach them about how to create or rent ADUs, choose the proper tenants,
process paperwork, and advertise their rentals.
This program also includes ongoing data collection on ADUs and JADUs by the City, including
developing a register of permitted ADUs by address. To the extent feasible, the City may
monitor data on rent and occupancy of its ADUs in order to support the counting of these units
as affordable for the purpose of the RHNA and Annual Progress Report.
Additionally, this program includes ongoing coordination with the Rolling Hills Community
Association (RHCA) to keep the Association staff, Board of Directors, and Committees apprised
of State laws on Accessory Dwelling Units and other housing-related issues. This includes
limitations on design review practices or procedures that could be an impediment to ADU
production. In the event a constraint related to the RHCA design review process is identified in
the future, the City will work proactively with the Association to resolve it.
Quantified Objectives: ADU Survey (Program completed—29% response rate)
Website materials and FAQs
ADU Register
Meeting with RHCA staff on ADU design review practices
Funding Source: City General Fund; State LEAP and REAP funds
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Complete FAQs by October 2021 (survey completed in
November 2020. ADU Register started in 2020.)
255
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 86
12. ADU Incentives
Converting guest houses to legal accessory dwelling units could add to the City’s affordable
housing stock. The City will reach out to non-profit organizations (such as Habitat for Humanity)
to evaluate ADU incentives such as fee reductions and streamlined permitting. The City will also
reach out to other cities with successful ADU programs to determine what strategies have been
most effective in incentivizing ADU production and achieving affordability. In addition, the City
will explore ways to address ADU constraints associated with undersized septic systems. The
extent of the problem and possible funding sources for septic system expansion will be identified.
Quantified Objectives: Contact at least five other cities and two non-profits regarding
their experience with ADUs and report back to City Council on
findings
Funding Source: City General Fund/ LEAP and REAP
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by October 2021
13. Multi-Family Zoning Monitoring and Consideration of Additional
Opportunities
There are two components to this program: first, ongoing monitoring of the new Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ), and second, continued consideration of future multi-family
housing opportunities in the City. Each component is addressed below.
Monitoring of the AHOZ is necessary to assess the effectiveness of the newly adopted
regulations and determine if adjustments are needed to address any constraints that may be
identified. The City will work with interested developers and/or non-profits and the School
District to evaluate the need for future changes to the density, height, setback, parking, and
design standards. This monitoring will continue into the sixth cycle Housing Element period.
Changes will be proposed if needed.
The second part of this program is to continue to evaluate opportunities for multi-family
housing in the City, including both market-rate and affordable units. This could include changes
to the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to permit market-rate units in the future, and the
evaluation of other sites in the City with the potential for rezoning to allow market-rate or
affordable multi-family housing. This program will be an important part of the City’s sixth cycle
Housing Element process, as requirements to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” will apply.
Quantified Objectives: One City Council discussion/ informational report on Additional
Multi-Family Opportunities
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Timeframe: By October 2021 (and continuing into 2021-2029 Cycle)
256
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 87
14. Assisting Extremely Low Income Households
Extremely Low Income (ELI) households have incomes that 30 percent or less of the County
median. In 2020, the income thresholds for ELI were $23,700 for a household of one; $27,050
for a household of two; $30,450 for a household of three; and $33,800 for a household of four.
Based on Census data, about 6 percent of Rolling Hills’ households are considered ELI. There
are also household employees and contractors (landscaping, construction, health care,
childcare, etc.) working part-time or full-time who are likely in this income category. The City
will address the needs of ELI households by prioritizing applications for Accessory Dwelling
Units and other housing units that meet the needs of ELI residents, encouraging homeowners
to create opportunities for domestic employees and ELI family members to live “on-site”, and
working collaboratively with non-profits and advocacy groups providing services to ELI
residents. The City will also explore ways to assist elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed
incomes with home maintenance, repair, and retrofit activities.
Quantified Objectives: See Table 19
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: City Planning Director
Implementation Time Frame: Objective covers the period from 2014 through October 2021
15. Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers,
Developers, and Advocates
The City of Rolling Hills periodically receives requests from housing advocates, non-profit
developers, and service providers to disseminate information on affordable housing needs and
opportunities and work collaboratively to address housing issues. For example, the City recently
received a request from Abundant Housing LA, a housing advocacy and education organization,
with recommendations for identifying potential housing sites to meet the future RHNA. This
information was provided to the City Council and Planning Commission for their consideration.
City planning staff regularly field requests from for-profit and non-profit developers, participate
in regional housing meetings and discussions, and work with other cities to explore creative,
effective ways to meet housing needs. In the event a non-profit agency or developer wishes to
submit a grant application that will increase housing affordability for senior or low income Rolling
Hills residents, staff will provide administrative support wherever possible.
Quantified Objective: Hold at least one meeting a year with one or more non-profit
housing sponsor to discuss housing opportunities and strategies in
Rolling Hills
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Convene one meeting before October 2021
257
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 88
16. Shared Housing
Many seniors who prefer to live independently resort to institutionalized living arrangements
because of security problems, loneliness, or an inability to live entirely independently. Seniors in
Rolling Hills have access to two nearby shared housing programs: Focal Point at the South Bay
Senior Services Center in Torrance and the Anderson Senior Center in San Pedro. Both these
centers offer resources to assist seniors locate roommates interested in sharing housing. These
programs make roommate matches between seniors based on telephone requests.
Numerous other home sharing services have emerged over the last decade. These include
SHARE! Collaborative Housing, a public-private partnership supporting shared single family
housing for persons with disabilities in Los Angeles County; Affordable Living for the Aging, which
matches younger single tenants with seniors in Los Angeles County; and Los Angeles County
HomeShare, which serves residents of all ages throughout the County. There are also private
services such as Silverleaf (Long Beach) that facilitate home sharing for a fee.
The City will continue to actively market the availability of these shared housing programs by
providing informational brochures at the public counter and online. It will also strive to obtain
data on how many Rolling Hills households are using home sharing services.
Quantified Objectives: Continue to provide informational brochures advertising shared
housing programs at City Hall and on the City’s website
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: In progress (2014-2021)
17. Reverse Mortgage Program
The City of Rolling Hills will continue to provide information to residents about reverse mortgage
opportunities. Census data indicates that some older adults in Rolling Hills have fixed incomes
but have paid off their mortgages, creating opportunities to draw from the equity in their homes.
Payments from a reverse mortgage can help offset home maintenance and repair costs, as well as
high utility and energy costs. Reverse mortgages are essentially deferred payment loans which
rely on the home as security. There may be downsides associated with high closing costs and
fees. In some cases, the proceeds from reverse mortgages and the repayment terms may be
unfavorable. As such, the City will help older homeowners make informed choices through
referrals to housing counseling services, lenders, and senior service providers.
Quantified Objective: Continue to offer referral services to seniors interested in
pursuing a reverse mortgage
Funding Source: None necessary
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: On-going (2014-2021)
258
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 89
18. Sewer Feasibility and Design Studies
Chapter 3 of this Housing Element identified a housing constraint related to the lack of sewer
service in Rolling Hills. The absence of sanitary sewers makes higher density development
infeasible on all but a few parcels in the City. It also limits the viability of lot splits and minor
subdivisions. Septic systems also create potential water quality issues. Sewer feasibility studies
completed in the past have generally concluded that the cost would be prohibitive given Rolling
Hills small size, low densities, and limited municipal resources.
In 2018, the City commissioned a sewer feasibility study to determine options and costs for
extending sewer lines from the adjoining City of Rolling Hills Estates to a limited number of
properties in Rolling Hills, including City Hall and the Tennis Courts. The study included an initial
phase that explored possible pipe alignments and a second phase with a preferred alignment and
estimated cost. In early 2020, the cost was estimated at $1.1 million. During mid-2020, the City
solicited bids and selected a firm to prepare design plans for the sewer extension.
Quantified Objective: Design and financing plans for sanitary sewer system serving City
Hall, Tennis Courts, and upstream properties
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Private Assessment District
Responsible Agency: City Manager’s Office.
Implementation Time Frame: Complete design plans by 3rd Quarter 2021
19. Storm Water Runoff
Water quality conditions present a potential constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills.
The City is required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit requirements, as outlined by Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges Within the
County of Los Angeles2. The County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit
includes provisions for water quality monitoring and development of outfall structures that
capture runoff and treat discharge before it flows into water bodies such as Machado Lake. The
City has retained an engineering firm to assist in this process, including measures to reduce runoff
from domestic and construction activities, and to reduce waste. These activities are intended to
reduce development constraints associated with storm water quality.
Quantified Objective: Continued implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) pursuant to NPDES requirements
Funding Source: Safe Clean Water Program Measure W
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Update Hydromodification Policy by October 2021
2 Order No. 01-182 of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board as amended by Order R4-2006-0074.
259
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 90
20. Code Enforcement
Code enforcement is an important part of achieving Housing Element Goal 2: maintaining and
enhancing the quality of Rolling Hills’ neighborhoods. While property maintenance in Rolling
Hills is generally excellent and there is high pride of ownership, there is a need for ongoing
enforcement of planning and building codes. The City has a “Code Enforcement” webpage with
online forms for reporting suspected violations, including those relating to vegetation
management and outdoor lighting as well as unpermitted construction or nuisances.
This action program calls for the retention of a full-time Code Enforcement Officer to perform
these functions on an on-going basis. The Officer can also work with property owners to help
them correct violations, address structural deficiencies, and find financial resources in the event
they are facing a hardship or have limited incomes. (This program was achieved in 2019)
Quantified Objective: Retain a full-time Code Enforcement Officer
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Achieved in 2019, enforcement is ongoing
21. Energy Conservation
Energy bills can be a significant cost burden, particularly for households on fixed incomes with
large homes to heat and cool. The City is committed to following the recommendations of its
former Natural Environment and Sustainability Committee and SCAG for sustainable
development and energy conservation. The City has adopted the Green Building Code and
enforces Title 24 energy efficiency requirements through its contract with the Los Angeles
County Department of Building and Safety. It works with Southern California Edison to distribute
information to residents on energy conservation and weatherization, including information on
financial assistance and lower utility rates for low-income customers. Rolling Hills is also a
member of the South Bay Environmental Services Center, which provides information on energy
incentives, audits and rebates, enabling residents to reduce their energy costs. These programs
will continue in the future.
The City will also support the installation of solar energy systems by residents. A growing number
of Rolling Hills homeowners have opted to install photovoltaic panels, increasing energy
independence and resilience while reducing home energy costs.
Quantified Objective: Provide links on City website related to energy conservation,
weatherization, and financial assistance
Adopt updated Building Code standards for energy efficiency
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Building Code Update (completed in 2020)
Website Update, with links: Complete by October 2021
260
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 91
22. Facilitate New Construction and Remodels
The City will continue to work with property owners, architects, and builders to enable new
housing to be built in the City. The steep hillsides, deep canyons, geologic hazards and CC&Rs
create challenges that require a high degree of cooperation between City staff, applicants, and
neighbors. Continued cooperation and communication will facilitate the construction of new
housing. The City is committed to efficient, transparent planning, building, and inspection
procedures, and regularly seeks ways to improve the process and reduce delays.
With few vacant lots remaining, most major construction projects in Rolling Hills consist of home
additions, repairs and modernization, or replacement of existing dwellings. Continued investment
in Rolling Hills housing stock is strongly encouraged and will continue to be supported in the
future. Although the City does not provide direct financial assistance to lower income
homeowners, it assists owners in keeping costs down through permit streamlining and fees that
are generally below average compared to other cities in Los Angeles County.
Quantified Objective: 10 new homes
Funding Source: Private Funds and Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Objective covers the period from 2014 through October 2021.
23. Ground Stability and Landslide Repair:
The City will continue to explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems. Grading,
new structures and additions typically require a soils and geology report along with grading and
building permits. Also, any grading, new structures and additions of more than one thousand
square feet or that increase the size of a structure by more than 25% in any 36-month period
requires a Site Plan Review and approval by the Planning Commission and concurrence by the
City Council. The City has developed strict grading practices that limit grading to no more than
40 percent of the lot and require maintenance of natural slopes. These practices are necessary
to safeguard the public against ground instability.
The City will also support repair work on landslide-damaged homes and hillsides that have been
damaged or compromised by past landslides. The City will strive to avoid further loss of its
housing stock as a result of natural disasters, including landslides and wildfires.
Quantified Objective: Geologic studies for new development and major grading permits
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department and City Manager's Office
Implementation Time Frame: On-going
261
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 92
24. Fair Housing Program
The City has posted information on fair housing at the public counter in City Hall. Fair housing
issues, including housing discrimination, landlord-tenant disputes, and community education, are
referred to the Fair Housing Foundation, a non-profit entity that has served residents of the Los
Angeles area for over 50 years. This action program calls for increased access to fair housing
information, including information on the City’s website and a link to the Fair Housing Foundation
website and point of contact. The City will also work to make Fair Housing information available
at community events, and at additional locations such as the Fire Station and the RHCA offices.
Quantified Objective: Informational brochures on fair housing laws at City Hall
Addition of fair housing information and a weblink to the Fair
Housing Foundation on the City’s website
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Provide web information by October 2021
D. SUMMARY OF 2014-2021 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table 19 provides quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and conservation
by income group. The new construction objectives align with the RHNA numbers that appear
earlier in the Housing Element. The rehabilitation objectives include assistance (potentially
including reduced fees) to at least four low-income households for major home repair and
rehabilitation projects.
The Conservation and Preservation objectives correspond to the approximate number of
households in Rolling Hills by income group based on Census data. There are roughly 663
households in the City, with about 13 percent considered lower income and 8 percent
considered moderate income. The objectives aim to preserve housing for 100 percent of these
households. There are no housing units in Rolling Hills that are at risk of conversion from
affordable to market-rate.
262
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 93
Table 19
Quantified Objectives by Income Group for the City of Rolling Hills (2014-2021)
Income Category
New
Construction Rehabilitation
Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely Low [1] 4 1 25
Very Low 4 1 25
Low 5 2 40
Moderate 5 53
Above Moderate 10 520
Total Housing Unit
Construction Need
28 4 663
Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012)
[1] Extremely Low contains half of the City Very Low Income allocation
Table 20 summarizes the 24 Housing Element programs listed in this chapter. It includes a
quantified objective and timeframe for each program, as presented above. The table has been
updated to reflect the status of these programs as of February 2021. Because there is a limited
amount of time remaining in the Fifth Cycle, the Element includes programs that have already
been completed as well as those scheduled for the next six months. The table is color-coded
to indicate programs that have been completed, programs that are underway, and programs to
be completed in coming months.
263
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 94
Table 20: Housing Element Action Plan
# Program Quantified Objective Timing
1 Prepare Annual Progress Report on
Housing Element Implementation
One Report per year Annually, by April 1
(report filed in 2020)
2 Amend Land Use Element to allow
multi-family, density transfers, and
create overlay zone
General Plan Amendment Completed in Mar 2021
3 Create Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone allowing affordable multi-family
housing by right
Zoning/ Muni Code
Amendment to allow 16-20
units
Completed in Feb 2021
4 Engage with School District/ Staff to
develop plan for PVUSD site
Coordination Meeting Complete by Oct 2021
5 Allow emergency shelter by right in
Overlay Zone
Zoning allowance for at
least one (1) shelter of up
to 12 beds
Completed in Feb 2021
6 Allow SROs with a Conditional Use
Permit in Overlay Zone
Zoning allowance for 6-8
units
Completed in Feb 2021
7 Adopt Reasonable Accommodation
provisions for persons with disabilities
Municipal Code
Amendment
Completed in Nov 2020
8 Add Code definitions of supportive,
transitional, and employee housing
Municipal Code
Amendment
Complete by Oct 2021
9 Adopt State density bonus provisions Municipal Code
Amendment
Complete by Oct 2021
10 Adopt and Update Accessory Dwelling
Unit regulations
(1) Adopt ADU Ordinance
(2) Amend ADU Ordinance
(3) Produce 5 ADUs during
2014-2021
(1) Completed Feb 2018
(2) Completed Feb 2020
(3) By Oct 2021
11 Undertake ADU outreach and
engagement efforts
(1) ADU Survey
(2) ADU website materials
(3) ADU Register
(1) Completed Nov 2020
(2) By Oct 2021
(3) Started in 2020
12 Develop ADU Incentives Contact other cities and
report to Council on ADU
Incentive options
Complete by Oct 2021
Key: Light blue= Action completed
Light green = Action partially completed
Unshaded = Action to be completed by Oct 2021
264
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 95
# Program Quantified Objective Timing
13 Monitoring of AHOZ standards and
additional multi-family opportunities
Council meeting/discussion Complete by Oct 2021
(continue into 6th cycle)
14 Assist Extremely Low-Income
Households
See Table 19 Complete by Oct 2021
15 Facilitate Communication with
Affordable Housing Stakeholders
One meeting annually Complete by Oct 2021
16 Provide information on shared housing
programs
Web materials/ links for
interested households
Ongoing (2014-21)
17 Provide information on reverse
mortgages
Web materials/ links for
interested households
Ongoing (2014-21)
18 Complete sewer design for City Hall/
Tennis Court and nearby homes
(1) Feasibility Study
(2) Design plans for sewer
pipe extension
(1) First quarter 2020
(2) Third quarter 2021
19 Implement stormwater runoff
improvements
Updated hydromodification
policy
Complete by Oct 2021
20 Retain City Code Enforcement officer One additional employee Completed in 2019
21 Adopt building codes and practices
that support energy conservation.
Provide information to residents on
conservation, weatherization, and
assistance with energy bills.
(1) Building Code Update
to incorporate green
bldg. and energy
conservation measures
(2) Update website re:
energy conservation
(1) Completed in 2020
(2) Complete by Oct
2021
22 Facilitate new construction and home
remodels
10 net new homes Over period from 2014-
2021 (partially
completed)
23 Facilitate slide repair and ground
stability for residential construction
Geologic studies for new
development
Ongoing (2014-21)
24 Provide fair housing information to
residents
Information and links on
City website
Complete by October
2021
Key: Light blue= Action completed
Light green = Action partially completed
Unshaded = Action to be completed by Oct 2021
265
ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2014-2021
HOUSING PLAN 96
266
APPENDIX A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-1
APPENDIX A
Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site
(APN 7569-022-900)
The intent of this Appendix is to provide supplemental analysis supporting the designation of
the Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) site as an opportunity site for “by right”
affordable housing in the City of Rolling Hills. This analysis was requested by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development to demonstrate the site’s capacity to
provide 16 multi-family units at a density of 20 units per acre. Land use regulations supporting
such development are required to meet the City’s 4th and 5th Cycle affordable housing
allocation. Based on existing land uses, access, infrastructure, topography and hazards, land
ownership, and site utilization, the City has determined that this represents the most viable site
in Rolling Hills for such development.
The 31-acre property is also known as the Rancho Del Mar site, as it is home to Rancho Del
Mar High School, a small continuation school with an enrollment of 46 students in 2020. The
Beach Cities Learning Center also occupies a portion of the school building. Excluding the
adjacent playing fields and lawn, the school campus occupies just six percent of the 31-acre site.
The only other active use on the property is a Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority
maintenance facility. A majority of the site is vacant.
Location and Surroundings
The PVUSD site is located at 38 Crest Road. Figure 1 provides an aerial photo of the site to
provide context, orientation, and an overview of adjacent uses. Figure 2 is an assessor parcel
map. Its exact area is 31.14 acres, including a 3.56-acre street internal to the site that provides
access to Crest Road, at a point outside the controlled access entryway to the Rolling Hills (but
within the city limits). The net acreage of the site without the street is 27.58 acres.
The site is oblong in shape, with a panhandle area at its western edge that extends to the Crest
Road access point. Excluding this panhandle area, the site extends roughly 2,600 feet from east
to west and averages more than 600 feet from north to south. Within this area are numerous
flat, graded surface areas with no structure coverage and minimal programmed activities.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes lies immediately south and west of the site. The area to the
south is developed with single family homes at densities of 2-3 units per acre. This area is
roughly 80 to 100 feet higher in elevation than the site itself, as there is a graded downslope
between the residential neighborhood and the school property (the downslope is on the school
property). Residential uses also abut the west side of the site, with densities around 3-4 units
per acre.
There are no road or driveway connections between the PVUSD site and the Rancho Palos
Verdes neighborhoods to the south and west. A 15’ riding and hiking trail easement exists
along the southern and western edges of the site but it is undeveloped. The difference in
topography reduces the potential for visual impacts associated with future development.
267
APPENDIX A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-2
The entire northern perimeter of the site is defined by the Crest Road right-of-way. There are
large lot homes on the northern side of Crest Road, set back more than 100 feet from the
School District property line and more than 200 feet from the improved area of the PVUSD
site. The area to the north is well buffered not only by large setbacks and Crest Road, but also
by an internal street on the PVUSD property. Effectively, there are two streets between
homes in Rolling Hills and the developable area—Crest Road, and the parallel internal street
within the PVUSD site.
On its eastern edge, the site is abutted by large lot residences. The home closest to the site is
heavily screened from the PVUSD site by vegetation, as well as a private tennis court between
the residence and the property line. The residence itself is more than 200 feet from the
PVUSD ballfield and more than 550 feet from the school.
The site context creates effective buffering from adjacent uses, mitigating land use compatibility
concerns such as privacy, noise, and visual impacts. At the same time, the site is easily
accessible from Crest Road and is outside of the gated area of the city. A fire station is located
1,000 feet to the east, and major shopping facilities and services are located just over a mile
away in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Crest Road is one of Rolling Hills’ major
thoroughfares and one of the few “through-streets” that bisects Rolling Hills and connects the
city to adjacent cities and regional highways.
History of the Site and Current Uses
The site was initially home to Cresta Elementary School, which was constructed in 1960. A
School District warehouse and maintenance facility was part of the original campus. The school
closed in the early 1980s and was repurposed as Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School,
which opened in 1986. At the time, there were discussions between the City and the School
District to rezone the property and sell the site for residential development. However, Rancho
Del Mar has remained on the site for the last 34 years. Given the value of the land and the
low-intensity and limited extent of the existing use, residential development remains viable,
even if the school does not relocate.
The Rancho Del Mar Campus consists of three one-story buildings totaling 20,000 square feet
of floor area. Figure 3 shows the campus layout, as well as six photos of the school and
adjacent areas. The campus consists of an L-shaped building (divided by a breezeway) with
eight classrooms, a rectangular building with a classroom, multi-purpose room restroom, and
custodial area, and a small building facing the parking lot with the main office. Classrooms at
the school are open to the exterior and there are no interior hallways. The PVUSD shares its
classroom and administrative facilities with the Beach Cities Learning Center. The Learning
Center has 48 students aged 11-18 with emotional, behavioral, and learning challenges.
268
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-3
269
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-4
270
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-5
271
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-6
Rancho del Mar itself serves students ages 16-18 who were unsuccessful in a traditional high
school setting. Students are referred to the school for a myriad of reasons, including poor
attendance, personal crisis, behavioral issues, or other factors creating a high risk of drop-out.
Enrollment at Rancho del Mar has been steadily declining and was just 46 students in the 2019-
20 school year. Enrollment was 79 students in 2014-15, 72 students in 2015-16, 69 students in
2016-17, 58 students in 2017-18, and 47 students in 2018-19. There are also six teachers on
site and three other personnel.
Thus, the combined enrollment (Beach Cities and Rancho Del Mar) is fewer than 100 students
on a 31-acre site. By contrast, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School and Palos Verdes High
School enroll roughly 2,300 and 1,700 students respectively, on sites of similar size. Sale of the
school property could generate significant revenue for the School District. Sale of a portion of
the property also is possible, as the site is configured in such a way that easily facilitates its
subdivision.
A comprehensive structural evaluation of the school was completed in 2016 as part of the
PVUSD Facilities Master Plan. Beach Cities Learning Center likewise prepared a facility
condition status report in 2019 as part of its annual reporting requirements. Both evaluations
found the building(s) to be in good condition. The buildings were last renovated in 2008. The
2016 evaluation called for resurfacing the parking area, upgrading the HVAC system, and
upgrading the electrical system. Total capital needs were estimated at $1.9 million. All utilities
were found to be in good condition, and drainage issues were minimal.
The school campus is adjoined by an approximately 100-space parking lot on its north and east
sides. To the west of the buildings, there is a large flat lawn area. To the east, there is an
athletic field area that includes a basketball court and ballfield. The 2016 facility evaluation
determined that the Floor Area Ratio of the school campus was just 0.03, as it defined the
campus area as being 15.2 acres (including athletic fields, lawns, and other open areas on the
perimeter of the site). The square footage of floor space per student is well below District
averages.
Beyond the 15.2-acre area associated with the school, the PVUSD has leased approximately 4.5
acres of the site (roughly 15 percent of the 31 acres) to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit
Authority. The PVPTA facilities include maintenance buildings and administrative offices and are
self-contained in the west central part of the site. The Housing Element analysis presumes this
part of the site will not be available for development and that the transit district will remain a
long-term tenant. However, the PVPTA site could potentially be sold and redeveloped in the
future, leased to a new third party, or repurposed by the School District.
Potential Development Areas
Figure 4 shows potential development areas on the Rancho Del Mar site. These are
summarized below:
272
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-7
• Area 1 is located between the transit facility and the school campus. It is an
unimproved, almost completely flat rectangular area of 1.6 acres. Its dimensions are
approximately 250 x 300, with 250 feet of frontage along the internal access street. The
site is well situated for multi-family development and has no visible physical constraints.
• Area 2 is located immediately adjacent to the school and is 1.0 acre. The dimensions
are approximately 200 x 200, with a “stem” area providing access to the interior street.
The area is currently an unimproved lawn with a few mature trees. It is almost
completely flat and has no physical development constraints. The site could easily
support up to 16 to 20 multi-family units at a density of 20 units per net acre.
• Area 3 is the school itself, which occupies roughly 1.75 acres including parking,
landscaped areas, courtyards, and classroom buildings. This option would be most
viable if the school relocates and the site is sold, as co-location of a school and multi-
family housing or emergency shelter would be unlikely. However, certain special needs
housing types (such as housing for teachers) would be viable in this setting.
• Area 4 includes the area east of the school. It includes approximately three acres of
level ground, with 0.5 acres of parking, a two-acre ballfield serving the school, and other
paved areas used for basketball and recreation. There are several areas within the three
acres where 16-20 units could be built without impacting use of the site for parking and
school recreation.
• Area 5 includes approximately four acres and is located west of the PVPTA facility. It is
regarded by the City as the best location on the 31-acre site for multi-family housing, as
it would have the least impact on the school campus and transit facility. It is also the
largest of the five areas and the most buffered from adjacent development. There are a
number of extant foundations on the site from prior uses, and internal roadways that
are not in use. The area has gently sloping terrain and has not been improved for
school use, parking, or recreation, as the other portions of the site have.
Figures 5 through 7 provides a bird’s eye view of each of the five areas.
Physical Constraints to Site Development
Approximately nine acres of the 31-acre site consists of a graded slope along the south side of
Altamira Canyon. This area is shown in Figure 8. The slope exceeds 30 percent, making it
poorly suited for development. The sloped areas also have the potential for landslides and
other seismic stability issues, which limit their suitability for further grading and construction.
The sloped area is not considered suitable for multi-family development or special needs
housing. It occupies roughly 29 percent of the site, all of which has been excluded from
consideration in the definition of Areas 1-5 above.
273
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-8
274
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-9
275
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-10
276
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-11
277
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-12
278
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-13
The central portion of the site has historically been used for general maintenance activities, first
by PVUSD and more recently by PVPTA. A search of the California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker data base identified two leaking underground storage
tanks (LUST sites) at this location. The sites were determined to contain gasoline and
hydrocarbons resulting from leaking underground storage tanks. Both sites have been cleaned
per SWRCB standards and are now designated by the SWCRB as "complete” and “case
closed.”
As noted elsewhere in the Housing Element, the City of Rolling Hills—including the PVUSD
site—has been designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the State of California.
Rolling Hills is implementing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan to mitigate this hazard and
is implementing vegetation management measures and programs to make structures more
resilient. In the event of a housing proposal on this site, the need for an emergency-only access
connection between the existing access road and Crest Road would be assessed.
An analysis of infrastructure and utilities on the site conducted as part of the Housing Element
in Fall 2020 found no constraints associated with redeveloping this site with residential uses or
special needs housing. The site is used less intensively now than when it was actively used as an
elementary school and school maintenance facility. Water, drainage, and wastewater facilities
are adequate to support the number of units contemplated by the Housing Element.
Importantly, this is one of the only sites in the City of Rolling Hills that has access to a public
sewer system. As such, it is much more conducive to multi-family housing that sites elsewhere
in the city that are served by private septic systems.
Regulatory Constraints to Site Development
Prior to December 2020, the PVUSD opportunity site was subject to a range of planning and
regulatory constraints that limited the feasibility of multi-family housing. The site has
historically had a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and a zoning
designation of RAS-2 (Residential Suburban 2-acre minimum lot size), which effectively limited
uses to existing community facilities or new large-lot residential development. While
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could conceivably be incorporated in new homes, the site
would not have met State requirements for the Housing Element.
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to
allow multi-family housing and other special needs housing types “by right” on the PVUSD
property, subject to specific development standards. As noted elsewhere in the Housing
Element, the amendments included:
• Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to create the Rancho Del Mar
Housing Opportunity Overlay. The Land Use Element now explicitly states that multi-
family housing and emergency shelter are permitted by right in this area, subject to
objective development standards. The number of units on the site is based on a transfer
of the allowable General Plan density to a clustered area where 16 to 20 units could be
added.
279
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-14
• Amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) to create the Rancho
Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay, and to map this Overlay on the entire PVUSD
site. The Overlay establishes a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum
density of 24 units per acre. Affordable housing is permitted “by right” subject to
objective development standards defined in the Ordinance. The Ordinance identifies
the area west of the PVPTA site as the location for future housing.
• Amending the Zoning Regulations to allow emergency shelter on the property by right,
subject to specific development standards specified in the Code.
• Amending the Zoning Regulations to allow single room occupancy (SRO) units on the
site, with a conditional use permit.
Other Constraints to Site Development
Development of multi-family housing, emergency shelter, or SRO uses on the PVUSD site could
occur either:
• by the School District itself (on its own or through a public-private partnership)
• through a long-term lease; or
• through sale of all or part of the property
The City has met with the School District and reviewed Board Policies and Codes. Current
policies accommodate all of these options—and that there are no prohibitions or limitations on
multi-family and special needs housing. Moreover, the School District has expressed interest in
developing housing for teachers in the past; such units would meet income criteria for low or
very low income units. There are ample opportunities for such housing on the property that
would not impact operations at either Rancho Del Mar School or PVPTA. Rancho Del Mar is a
logical location for these activities, given the size of the site and its significant underutilization.
The District is less likely to pursue development of an emergency shelter or SRO on its own, as
these are not as clearly mission-aligned. However, it could sell or lease property to a third
party who could develop these uses. SROs and emergency shelters would be unlikely to co-
locate in the school building or on the 1.75-acre school footprint area, given the possibility for
use conflicts. However, the 31-acre PVUSD property is large enough to accommodate multiple
uses. There are developable areas on the site that are 1,500 feet away from the school. The
District has already set a precedent by leasing a large portion of this site to a transit agency; it
could do the same for a social service agency or another agency providing a public benefit
service to the community.
Like most School Districts in California, the sale or lease of PVUSD property is subject to
action by the School Board. Section 3280 of the Board’s Policies allows the Superintendent or
designee to study the existing and projected use of facilities to ensure the efficient utilization of
space. A Board Committee is typically created prior to the sale of land (although teacher
housing is specifically exempted by Board policy from any Committee requirements). A Board
vote is required to approve the sale or lease terms. There are also requirements for how the
280
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-15
proceeds of a sale or lease may be used.
Once property is sold, the School District Board has no land use or decision-making authority
over a site. Thus, the District could sell all or part of the PVUSD site to a non-profit housing
developer, for-profit housing developer, social service provider, or other third party who could
develop housing “by right” without further oversight by the Board or City Council. Subdivision
of the property would be required, creating a new legal parcel on which housing could be
developed.
Given its large size, the most likely scenario is only that a portion of the site would be sold,
rather than the entire site. In effect, the Housing Element is creating a unique opportunity for
the District to sell a vacant or underutilized subarea on its 31-acre site to a third party, who
can then produce teacher housing, senior housing, affordable family housing, or another type of
housing that meet local needs.
There are a number of examples of successful small affordable housing projects in the Los
Angeles region that meet the density and height criteria established for this site. For example,
Habitat for Humanity is currently developing a 10-unit affordable two-story townhome project
in Long Beach on a 0.5-acre site. Similar two-story projects by Habitat have been developed in
Lynwood, Burbank, Bellflower, and Downey.
In the event that the Rancho Del Mar School itself is closed in the future, the building could be
sold and repurposed for other uses. Once sold, the floor space could be reconfigured for
alternative uses, including special needs housing. The project would be subject to the objective
standards prescribed by the zoning regulations (covered elsewhere in this Housing Element),
but approval of the development would be ministerial.
281
Appendix A: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page A-16
/intentionally blank/
282
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-1
APPENDIX B:
Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Analysis
In Fall 2020, the City of Rolling Hills surveyed its residents to determine the viability of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a future affordable housing strategy. The survey was
formatted as an 11 x 17 folded sheet printed double-sided (four 8.5 x 11 pages) and was mailed
via the US Postal Service to approximately 720 addresses in the city. Return postage was
provided so the survey could be easily returned. Residents had roughly one month to
complete and return the survey. An option was provided to reply electronically via
SurveyMonkey.
Approximately 190 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 27 percent. Another seven
surveys were received by SurveyMonkey, bringing the total response rate to 28 percent. The
survey represents the views and experiences of more than one in four Rolling Hills households.
This is a high response rate and is indicative of the community’s strong interest in the subject.
Demographic information about the respondents was collected as part of the survey.
Respondents tended to be older than Rolling Hills residents as a whole and were mostly long-
time residents. About two-thirds of the respondents were 65 or older and 25 percent were
50-64. By contrast, about 42 percent of the City’s adult residents are over 65 and 36 percent
are 50-64. About 42 percent of the respondents had lived in Rolling Hills for more than 30
years and only 20 percent had lived in the city for less than 10 years. By contrast, about 27
percent of all residents have lived in Rolling Hills for more than 30 years and 31 percent have
lived in the city for less than 10 years.
The distribution of respondents by household size was close to the citywide average.
Approximately 65 percent lived in one and two person households, which is similar to the
citywide average. Only seven percent lived in households with five or more residents, which is
just below the citywide average. Of the 194 respondents who indicated their housing tenure,
192 were owners and two were renters. This is equivalent to one percent of the respondents,
whereas renters represent about five percent of Rolling Hills households.
Figure B-1 compares demographics for the survey respondents and residents in the city as a
whole.
Responses to the survey was completely anonymous. Respondents were given the option of
phoning the City if they had questions or wanted more information about ADUs.
283
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-2
Figure B-1: Demographics of Survey Respondents Relative to All Rolling Hills Residents
0
10
20
30
40
50
Less than 10 yrs 10-20 yrs 20-30 yrs 30+ yrs
Length of Residency in Rolling Hills
Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6+ Persons
Household Size
Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
20-35 35-49 50-64 65+
Percent by Age Group
Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents
284
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-3
Suitability of the Property for an ADU
Question 1 asked respondents to indicate if their property contained an ADU or other
habitable spaces which could potentially be used as an ADU. Respondents were asked to check
“all choices that apply,” so the results are not additive.
Thirteen of the respondents indicated they had a legally permitted ADU on their properties
with a separate kitchen, bath, and entrance. Some of these units may have been legally created
in 2018-2020 after the City adopted its ADU Ordinance, but some likely already existed and
are legally classified as guest quarters.
Thirty-four respondents, or roughly 25 percent of the total, indicated they had a secondary
building on their properties with an indoor kitchen, bathroom, heat and plumbing. This
included guest houses/ casitas, pool houses, habitable barns, and similar features that could be
considered potential ADUs even if they are not used for habitation by another household. Ten
respondents indicated they had a second kitchen in their homes. Eighteen said they had
another space in their home that could “easily be converted” to a separate dwelling or junior
ADU. While some respondents may have counted the same space twice, roughly half indicated
they had spaces on their properties with the potential to be used as an ADU or JADU. This is
further supported by the responses to Question 2 below.
Current Use of ADUs and Spaces Suitable as ADUs
Question 2 asked how the spaces described in Question 1 were being used. Only three of the
respondents indicated they were renting ADUs to a paying tenant. Seven indicated that the
space was used by a caregiver or domestic employee, while eleven had a family member or
long-term occupant living on the property. Collectively, this represents 21 units, or just over
10 percent of the respondent households. The remainder of the respondents with potential
ADU space indicated they used these spaces for house guests or their own families, or that the
space was unoccupied or used as storage.
The survey findings indicate that ADUs (or “unintended” ADUs such as guest houses) already
represent a component of the Rolling Hills housing supply. The survey suggests that there is
potential to expand the number of permitted ADUs in the future, even without any new
construction. About 15 percent of the respondents (30 in total) indicated they had potential
ADU space on their properties that was vacant or used for storage.
Respondents were asked the square footage of the spaces they were describing. Figure B-2
shows the distribution. More than 100 responses were received, with a median size of about
600 square feet.
285
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-4
Figure B-2: Square Footage of Spaces Reported by Respondents as Potential ADUs on their
Properties, Including Guest Houses
Respondents who had rented ADUs on their properties were given the option of reporting the
rent that was being charged. Two of the three households who indicated they had a paying
tenant replied. The monthly rents charged for these units were $950 in one case and $1,500 in
another. Based on HCD income limits for Los Angeles County, the $950 unit would be
considered affordable to a very low-income household of one or more persons. The $1,500
unit would be considered affordable to a low-income household of one or more persons.
These units are presumed to have been created or legalized between 2018 and 2020, following
adoption of the ADU ordinance.
Income Characteristics of Households in Occupied Units
Those who indicated their ADU (or “unintended” ADU/ guest house/ secondary space) was
occupied by someone who was not part of their household were asked to describe the number
of residents and total income of the occupants. The numeric HCD 2020 income limits (dollar
amounts) and number of persons in the household were used so that the occupants could be
easily identified using HCD’s income categories.
There were 12 responses to this question, or about six percent of all surveys returned. This
presumably includes the small number of units that are rented as ADUs, plus those occupied by
caretakers, domestic employees, and other long-term occupants. The distribution by HCD’s
income categories is shown in Table B-1 below:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
>300 301-450 451-650 651-800 801-1000 1000+Number of UnitsSquare Footage
286
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-5
Table B-1
Household Size and Income of Households Occupying Formal or Unintended ADUs
Income 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5 person 6+ person TOTAL
Extremely Low 1 1 2
Very Low 2 2
Low 1 1
Moderate/
Above Mod 1 4 1 1 7
TOTAL 5 4 1 1 0 1 12
The data indicates that roughly half of the survey respondents’ ADUs (including those which
may be unpermitted and used “informally” on a long-term basis) provided housing for low, very
low, and extremely low income households.
Interest in Developing an ADU
Question 4 asked respondents if they might be interested in developing an ADU if they didn’t
currently have one. There were 164 responses to this question, with 24 percent indicating
“Yes” and 15 percent indicating “Maybe.” Another 40 percent indicated “No” and 14 percent
indicated “Probably Not.” The responses are profiled in Figure B-3 below.
Figure B-3: Level of Interest in ADU development (N=164)
No (65)
40%
Probably Not
(23)
14%
Not Sure (11)
7%
Maybe, but not
now (25)
15%
Yes (40)
24%
Question: If you don’t have a
legal ADU on your property,
would you consider developing
one? (164 replies)
287
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-6
The chart above suggests that more than half of the City’s residents are not interested in
developing an ADU on their properties, and another quarter are undecided or not interested
at this time. To flesh out possible barriers, Question 4 included a follow up asking why
respondents were not interested. The responses suggest it is primarily a lifestyle choice rather
than the result of regulatory or cost barriers. About one-third (51) listed the loss of privacy as
a factor, and another one-third (48) indicated they didn’t want to deal with tenants. The
number of respondents listing the “permitting process” as a factor was relatively small (27 out
of 164) and the percentage listing “cost” as a factor (24 out of 164) was even smaller. About
10 percent of the respondents cited lack of space as their reason.
Location of Possible ADUs
Those who expressed some interest in adding an ADU were asked where they might locate the
ADU on their properties. The responses may help guide City programs that facilitate ADUs in
particular locations. There were 85 responses, representing more than 40 percent of the total
survey respondents. Conversion of an existing accessory building (such as a guest house or
barn) was the most commonly selected choice (38 responses), followed by a new detached
structure (21 responses) and conversion of existing space in the house (6 responses). Only
one respondent indicated they would build an addition to their home.
Nineteen of the respondents were not sure where they might locate an ADU. Again, a
majority (about 115) were not interested in adding an ADU.
The responses suggest stronger demand for traditional ADUs than Junior ADUs, given the large
number of respondents indicating they would built or convert an accessory structure, rather
than use space within their own homes.
288
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-7
Likely Use of Future ADUs
Respondents were asked how they would use an ADU on their property if they developed one
in the future. The responses to this question are important, as the objective of the program is
to create rental housing opportunities or opportunities for on-site care givers. Using the ADU
as a home office or space for occasional house guests would not accomplish State-mandated
housing program goals. Figure B-4 shows the responses to the question.
The responses indicate that roughly one-third would use the ADU for another household,
including 16 who suggested they would rent it to a tenant and 48 who suggested they would
use it for a domestic employee or caregiver. The latter statistic is particularly important, as it
suggests a potential resource for health care workers, elder care professionals, construction
and landscape workers, and others who may work in Rolling Hills but lack the financial
resources to live here. Nearly a third of the respondents indicated they would use the ADU
for a family member. The family member could be an extension of their own household or a
relative or relatives living independently as a separate household. It is worth noting that only a
quarter of the respondents indicated they would use the ADU for occasional visitors—
historically, this has been the intended use of guest houses in the city.
Figure B-4: Likely Use of Future ADUs (N=192)
For rent to a tenant
(16)
8%
For a family
member
(60)
31%
For
myself
(18)
9%
For an employee or
caregiver (48)
24%
For occasional
visitors (50)
25%
Other (5)
3%
Question: If you had a legal
ADU on your property, how
would you most likely use it?
(192 replies)
289
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-8
Use of ADUs as Affordable Housing
Respondents were asked if they would consider limiting the rent on an ADU so that the unit
was affordable to a lower income household. The question specifically asked if the respondent
would consider a deed restriction that maintained the rent at a reduced rate (such as $1,200/
month for a two-person household) to help the City meet its State-mandated affordable
housing requirements. Of the 194 surveys returned, 25 indicated they would consider this and
another 20 indicated they might consider this (“maybe”). This represents nearly one-quarter of
the total respondents. Another one-quarter indicated they would need more information
before deciding. About 35 percent indicated they would not consider a lower income
affordability restriction and 15 percent did not respond.
Figure B-5 shows the responses to this question. The data suggests that an “affordable” ADU
program could generate sufficient participation for the City to meet its entire lower-income
housing allocation through ADUs.
Figure B-5: Viability of ADUs to Meet Very Low Income Housing Assignment (N=194)
Yes (25)
13%
Maybe
(20)
10%
Need More Info
(53)
27%
No (68)
35%
Didn't reply (28)
15%
Question: If you
had a legal ADU
on your property,
would you
consider a deed
restriction that
maintained the
rent at a reduced
rate to help the
City meet its
State-mandated
affordable
housing
requirements?
290
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-9
For the 98 respondents who answered “Yes”, “Maybe,” or “Need More Information”, the
survey asked a follow-up question, which is the maximum length of time the respondent would
consider acceptable for an affordability deed restriction. Two respondents did not reply, but
the other 96 provided the answers below:
• 20 would consider a 5-year term
• 2 would consider a 10-year term
• 3 would consider a 20-year term
• 17 would consider a deed restriction that ended when they sold the house
• 59 were not sure or answered “other”
The responses suggest that long-term deed restrictions (10 or 20 years) and affordability
contracts that “run with the land” would have limited participation. Residents are more open
to short-term arrangements such as five-year affordability terms, and flexible arrangements that
would not encumber the resale of their homes. This is an important consideration in the event
a program is established.
Incentives
The final question in the survey asked respondents to select from a menu of possible incentives
that might make a rent-restriction on an ADU more acceptable to them. Respondents were
invited to select as many of the choices as they wanted. The most frequently selected options
are shown in descending order in Figure B-6 below.
Figure B-6: Ranking of Potential Affordable ADU Incentives
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Question: What
incentives might
make a rent
restriction more
attractive to you?
291
APPENDIX B: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page B-10
The most frequently selected option was “nothing.” However, 55 respondents indicated that
fee waivers or reductions would be an incentive, and 50 said expedited permitting would be an
incentive. Many respondents were also supportive of the idea of rent-restricted ADUs serving
local essential service workers such as fire-fighters and teachers. The least popular incentive
was assistance in finding a tenant.
Other Comments
The survey provided an opportunity for residents to make general open-ended comments on
ADUs and housing issues in Rolling Hills, as well as the factors the City should consider as new
ADU policies and regulations are developed. Feedback was provided by 52 of the respondents.
This is summarized below.
Most of the open-ended comments expressed negative views about ADUs and their potential
impacts on the character of Rolling Hills, as well as concerns with State housing mandates and
the erosion of local land use control. Numerous concerns were raised about safety, security,
and privacy. There were also concerns expressed about noise, parking, traffic, evacuation
capacity, and impacts on the community’s rural, equestrian feel. Some respondents expressed
concerns that they would not be able to choose their own tenants if they created an ADU or
would be penalized if they created an ADU but did not rent it. Questions were also raised
about property tax impacts, septic system impacts, and whether tenants would pay association
dues and have access to RHCA facilities.
There were also supportive comments, particularly from persons interested in creating ADUs
for aging parents, or for themselves to age in place while renting out their primary home.
Several respondents indicated an interest in renting space to a care giver. One respondent
suggested prioritizing rentals to employees of the RHCA. Some respondents expressed their
support for the idea of using the school property to meet affordable housing needs rather than
relying on ADUs.
Survey
A copy of the survey mailed to residents follows this page.
292
City of Rolling Hills Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey
October 2020
Dear Resident:
Please take a few minutes to complete this survey about
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Rolling Hills. Your
responses will help us understand community goals and
concerns and will be used to develop new policies for
consideration by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission and
City Council.
State law requires that all cities and counties allow ADUs,
provided they meet certain standards. Some of the
potential benefits of ADUs include rental income for
homeowners, on-site living space for caregivers or
household employees, and accommodation of extended
family (adult children, parents, etc.). ADUs can also help
residents “age in place,” particularly as homeowners need
more care or assistance.
The City’s objective in carrying out this survey is to
determine the level of interest in ADUs among Rolling Hills
residents and evaluate their potential to meet local housing
needs. Like all cities in California, Rolling Hills is required by
State law to provide for its “fair share” of the region’s
housing needs, including low- and very low-income
households. ADUs provide a way to do that without
significantly changing the character or appearance of the
community. Some communities even provide special
incentives for homeowners who rent ADUs at reduced rates
to very low-income households, including household
employees and local essential service employees.
The deadline for returning your survey is November 20,
2020. Please use the enclosed postage-paid envelope to
return the survey to City Hall by this date. If you would
prefer to complete the survey on-line, please visit
www.surveymonkey.com//rollinghillsADUsurvey.
Please do not include your name or address on the survey as
the intent is for all responses to be anonymous. If you have
questions about the survey or about ADUs in Rolling Hills,
please call Meredith Elguira at (310) 377-1521.
What are ADUs and JADUs?
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are
sometimes referred to as “in-law
apartments” or “second units.” They are
small independent dwelling units that exist
on single family properties, either in a
detached structure or as part of the
primary structure with a separate
entrance. ADUs include a bedroom or
sleeping area, a bathroom, and cooking
facilities.
Rolling Hills has adopted specific zoning
standards for ADUs as required by state
law. The maximum allowable size is 850
square feet for a studio or one-bedroom
and 1,000 square feet for a two bedroom.
Other standards also apply.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
are a type of ADU created by converting
existing living space inside a single-family
home (usually a bedroom) to a separate
living space. They have a maximum size
of 500 square feet. JADUs may have their
own kitchenette or bathroom, or they may
share the facilities in the primary
residence.
State law allows a property to have both
an ADU and a JADU if certain
requirements are met.
293
ADU Survey * Page 2
Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey!
Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey
1. Does your property include any of the following features? (circle all that apply)
A. A legally permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with kitchen, bath, and separate entrance?
B. A guest house, pool house, casita, barn or other outbuilding that has heat and plumbing?
_____ Check here if the space has a kitchen or other cooking facilities
C. A space inside your house with a separate entrance from outside and independent living quarters,
including a bedroom/ sleeping area and bathroom?
_____ Check here if the space also has its own kitchen or cooking facilities
D. Another space within your house that could easily be converted into an accessory dwelling unit?
2. If you circled one of the choices above, how is the space currently used? (If you circled more
than one choice, please provide a response for each applicable space on your property. Use
the blank line to the right of each choice below to describe the space you’re referring to).
A. It is occupied by a tenant paying rent ____________________________________
B. It is occupied by a family member or long-term visitor who is not part of my household ___________
C. It is occupied by a caretaker or household employee(s) ____________________________________
D. It is used occasionally by guests or visitors ____________________________________
E. My own household uses the space ____________________________________
F. The space is currently not occupied by anyone, or is used for storage ___________________________
G. Not applicable
2A. About how large is the space of each applicable feature from Question 1 (in square feet)?
(please skip question if not applicable)
__________________ ___________________ _________________
2B. If rent is collected for the space, what is the monthly amount? (if multiple spaces are
rented, please indicate the rent for each area). (Please skip question if not applicable)
__________________ ___________________ _________________
294
ADU Survey * Page 3
3. If you have space on your property occupied by a household other than your own, please circle
the category in the table below that most closely matches their annual income based on the
number of persons in their household, if you know that amount. Recent data from the US Census
indicates that 16 percent of Rolling Hills households have annual incomes below $50,000. ADUs (or
potential ADUs) may provide a resource for these households. If Question 3 does not apply to your
property, please skip to Question 4.
Number of Persons in the Household (for other occupants only, not your own household)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Annual Income $23,700 or less $27,050 or less $30,450 or less $33,800 or less $36,550 or less $39,250 or less
$23,700-
$39,450
$27,050-
$45,050
$30,450-
$50,700
$33,800-
$56,300
$36,550-
$60,850
$39,250-
$65,350
$39,450-
$63,100
$45,050-
$72,100
$50,700-
$81,100
$56,300-
$90,100
$60,850-
$97,350
$65,350-
$104,550
$63,100 or
more
$72,100 or
more
$81,100 or
more
$90,100 or
more
$97,350 or more $104,550 or
more
4. If you don’t currently have a legal ADU on your property, would you consider developing one?
(circle one answer)
No Probably Not Not Sure/ Neutral Maybe, but not at
this time Yes
4A. If you answered A, B, or C, what are the reasons? (Circle All that Apply)
No Interest Cost Loss of Privacy Permitting
Process
Don’t Want to
Deal with
Tenants
No Space
Other (please explain below)_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
5. If you decided to build an ADU on your property, where would it be located? (circle one)
New
detached
structure
on my
property
Conversion of an
existing accessory
building on my
property (e.g., guest
house, barn, etc.)
An addition
to my house
Conversion of space
already within the
footprint of my house
Not sure
I would not add
an ADU on my
property
6. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, how would you most likely use it? (circle one)
For rent to
a tenant For a family member
For myself
For a household
employee of caregiver
For occasional
visitors
Other
295
ADU Survey * Page 4
7. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, would you consider a deed restriction that
maintained the rent at a reduced rate (for example $1,200/month, which is considered the
threshold for an “affordable” housing unit for a two person very low income household) to help
the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements? (circle one)
A. Yes
B. Maybe
C. I would need more information first
D. No
7A. If your answer to Question 7 was A-C, what would be the maximum length of time you would
consider for the rent restriction? (circle one)
A. Five years
B. 10 years
C. 20 years
D. Until I sell the house
E. Not Sure
F. Other _______________________
7B: What incentives might make a rent restriction more attractive to you? (circle all that apply)
A. No parking requirement
B. Reduced (or no) permit fees
C. Expedited permit processing
D. Assistance in finding a tenant
E. Rent supplement for the tenant
F. Local tenant (e.g., school teacher,
fire fighter, child care worker)
G. Senior tenant
H. Low-interest financing to create the ADU
I. Permission to build a unit larger
than 1,000 square feet
J. Nothing
K. Other _______________________
8. To ensure that we are hearing from a cross-section of the community, please tell us a little about you:
How Long Have You
Lived in Rolling Hills?
Less than 10 years
10-19 years
20-29 years
More than 30 years Circle one choice in each box Are you a Homeowner
or a Renter?
Homeowner
Renter
Age
Under 35
35-49
50-64
65+
How Many People Are
in Your Household?
1 4
2 5
3 6 or more
9. Please share any concerns you may have about ADUs in Rolling Hills, or factors you’d like us to
consider as new ADU policies and regulations are developed:
296
INITIAL STUDY
FOR
2014-21 UPDATE OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
contact: Yolanta Schwartz
(310) 377-1521
December 26, 2013
297
Housing Element Update
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Page No.
Summary and FindingsSummary and Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Purpose and ScopePurpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................22
Project DescriptionProject Description ............................................................................................................................................................................................................22
Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedEnvironmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................................................................................................88
Environmental DeterminationEnvironmental Determination ............................................................................................................................................................................88
Evaluation of Environmental ImpactsEvaluation of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................................................................99
Environmental Analysis Checklist, Evaluation, & DiscussionEnvironmental Analysis Checklist, Evaluation, & Discussion ..........................................................................1010
MandMandatory Findings of Significanceatory Findings of Significance ..........................................................................................................................................................22 55
Sources Cited in Evaluation of Enviromental ImpactsSources Cited in Evaluation of Enviromental Impacts ................................................................................................22 66
List of Persons Preparing or Participating in Preparation of the Initial StudysList of Persons Preparing or Participating in Preparation of the Initial Studys ..................22 66
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
1. Project Location Map ..........................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1. RHNA New Housing Construction Needs by Income Group .................................................................3
2. Progress Toward Implementing the 2006-2014 Housing Element Programs ........................................4
298
City of Rolling Hills Page 1
Initial Study
City of Rolling Hills
INITIAL STUDY FOR
UPDATE OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
This Initial Study assesses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed City of Rolling Hills
Update of the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2014-2021 planning period. In the Housing
Element Update, the City of Rolling Hills outlines its program to preserve and promote housing
opportunities, including affordable housing opportunities, in the community.
To support provision of adequate housing opportunities, the City of Rolling Hills continues to undertake
the following actions:
Provision of housing service information to community senior citizens
Enforcement of code violations within residential neighborhoods
Facilitating new construction by working closely with housing developers and builders
Monitoring the City land supply
Support for fair housing counseling and monitoring.
Through these actions and the policies and programs, the City has determined that given its numerous
geologic, infrastructure, contractual, fire safety and environmental constraints, it has earnestly
endeavored to meet its local and regional housing needs, and its RHNA allocation for the 2014-2021
planning period.
This Initial Study finds that the Update to the Housing Element of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan
will promote housing oppportunities in Rolling Hills. The Housing Element Update has been prepared
consistent with the City General Plan and with State housing element law. No adverse environmental
impacts will result from Housing Element Update adoption and implementation, and no mitigation
measures are necessary. On the basis of this finding, a Negative Declaration is being recommended for
adoption by the City Council.
299
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 2
Initial Study
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This Initial Study serves as the environmental review of the proposed Project, as required pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The
proposed Project is the City of Rolling Hills Update to the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Pursuant to Section 65580 of the Government Code, each local community in the State of California
must include a Housing Element within its General Plan. The Housing Element must provide a specific
analysis of the community’s housing needs and a realistic set of programs designed to meet those needs.
The Housing Element must be periodically updated as specified by State law.
In accordance with Section 15378(a)(1) of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA
Guidelines), the City of Rolling Hills (City) is required to prepare an Initial Study to determine if the
proposed Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. This Initial Study is intended
to be an informational document providing the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of
Rolling Hills, other public agencies, and the general public with an objective assessment of the potential
environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1. Project title: 2014-2021 Update to the City of Rolling Hills Housing Element of the General Plan.
2. Applicant name and address: City of Rolling Hills, No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274.
3. Lead agency name and address: City of Rolling Hills, No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA
90274.
4. Contact person and phone number: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director, (310) 377-1521.
5. Project location: Citywide. Rolling Hills is located in Los Angeles County, on the Palos Verdes peninsula
(See Figure 1, Project Vicinity Map, below.)
6. Approvals required: Pursuant to State law, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) is empowered to review the housing element of each community to ensure its
compliance with the provisions of the Government Code related to facilitating the improvement and
development of housing in order to make adequate provisions for the housing needs of all economic segments
of the community. HCD has review, but not approval, authority. The City Council will need to approve the
Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update. No other approvals will be required.
300
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 3
Initial Study
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
7. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation.)
As illustrated in Table 1, Rolling Hills is required to provide adequate sites for the construction of 6 new dwelling
units during this planning period. Of these new units, 1 should be affordable to Extremely Low Income households,
1 to Very Low Income households, 1 to Low Income households, 1 to Moderate income households, and 2 to
above moderate income households.
Table 1
RHNA New Housing Construction Needs by Income Group
for the City of Rolling Hills (2014-2021)
Income Category Housing Unit
Construction Need by
Income Group
Percent of Need by
Income Group
Extremely Low (0-30% County median income) [1] 1 17%
Very Low (31-50% County median income) 1 17%
Low (50-80% County median income) 1 17%
Moderate (80-120% County median income) 1 17%
Above Moderate (over 120% County median income) 2 33%
Total Housing Unit Construction Need 6 100%
Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012)
[1] Extremely Low contains half (or 3) of the City Very Low Income allocation, which is 6 units. Progress Toward Implementing the 2006-2014 (4th Cycle) Housing Element Programs
The 2006-2014 Rolling Hills Housing Element established programs to address the following primary housing
goals:
301
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 4
Initial Study
Provide for housing which meets the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills' residents.
Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills.
Provide housing services to address the needs of the City's senior citizen population.
Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry,
national origin or color.
The following section examines the progress made towards implementing the City's housing programs as set forth in
the 2006-2014 Housing Element As summarized in Table 2, the City has actively pursued avenues for supporting
residential development and facilitating affordable housing opportunities, despite the overwhelming constraints that
limit development opportunities in Rolling Hills.
Table 2
City Of Rolling Hills Progress Toward Implementing
the 2006-2014 Housing Element Programs
Programs Accomplishments
Goal 1: Provide for housing which meets the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills' residents.
Manufactured Home Program: Permit
manufactured homes on all buildable, single family
lots in the City.
The City has amended its Zoning Ordinance to provide for
manufactured homes, and continues to permit this program. No
request for a manufactured home was submitted to the City during
the past planning period.
Facilitate New Construction: The City will
continue to work with and assist housing
developers and builders to enable new housing to
be built in the City.
The City has continued to work with and assist developers and
builders. Five new units and seven replacement units have been
constructed during the past planning period.
Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills.
Code Enforcement: In the event that a violation of
City codes or regulations is discovered, the City
works with the County and the Association to
remediate the violation.
The City continues to promote code enforcement in cases of
violations. An educational program including information brochures
has been implemented to discourage violations. A program to
accomplish compliance also has been implemented. Approximately
thirty violations have occurred in the City and only six of them
consisted of residential structural deficiencies, which have been
corrected during the past planning period. Code enforcement is
intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and is not
considered a constraint to the development of affordable housing.
Ground Instability: Continue to explore possible
solutions to ground instability problems.
The City has continued to work with property owners and
geotechnical consultants to establish construction regulations and to
explore other potential solutions to the problem. However, despite
these continued efforts, certain property in high-risk landslide areas
remains unbuildable.
Neighborhood Sponsored Sewer Districts:
Promote and facilitate the development of
homeowner sponsored sewer districts.
The City has retained a consulting engineer to assess the feasibility of
establishing a citywide sewer system. Because of the geologic and
topographic constraints, the cost of installing sewer citywide makes
installation of a sewer system infeasible.
Housing Repair on Landslide Sites: Continue to
allow the repair of damaged structures and
remedial grading in landslide areas.
The City continues to allow repair of damaged structures and
remedial grading in landslide areas with special permits.
Home Improvement Program for eligible low and
moderate-income residents.
In keeping with its commitment to support housing element
objectives and low income housing needs, Rolling Hills assigned its
CDBG funds to the city Rancho Palos Verdes Home Improvement
Programs for eligible low and moderate income residents to provide
grants and zero percent deferred loans to correct hazardous
structural conditions, eliminate blight, and improve disabled access.
302
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 5
Initial Study
CDBG funds to the city Rancho Palos Verdes Home Improvement
Programs for eligible low and moderate income residents to provide
grants and zero percent deferred loans to correct hazardous
structural conditions, eliminate blight, and improve disabled access.
Goal 3: Provide housing services to address the needs of the City's senior citizen population.
Shared Housing Program: Actively market the two
area shared housing programs – Focal Point at the
South Bay Senior Services in Torrance and
Anderson Senior Center in San Pedro - which
assist seniors in locating roommates to share
existing housing in the community.
Informational brochures advertising existing shared housing
programs are available at the public counter. Records on the
number of matches that have occurred during the planning period
are not available.
Reverse Mortgage Program: Inform residents
about the advantages of reverse mortgages. A
reverse mortgage is a deferred payment loan or a
series of such loans for which a home is pledged as
security, and can offer a viable financing alternative
to many of Rolling Hills' elderly homeowners.
The City offers referral services to seniors interested in pursuing a
reverse mortgage.
Elderly Services: Rolling Hills will continue to
provide information to its elderly residents
concerning available senior services.
In keeping with its commitment to assist its elderly residents find
needed services, the City maintains a list of local senior facilities at
City Hall.
Goal 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin or color.
Fair Housing Program: As a means of increasing
public awareness of legal rights under fair housing
laws, the City will advertise services offered by the
Fair Housing Foundation, including housing
discrimination response, landlord-tenant relations,
housing information and counseling, and
community education programs.
As a past participating city in the Community Development Block
Grant Program, Rolling Hills cooperated with the Los Angeles office
of the Fair Housing Foundation to enforce fair housing laws.
Informational brochures about the Foundation are available at the
City of Rolling Hills public counter and local library.
Housing Plan 2014-2021
Finally, the Housing Element Update must establish a plan for addressing the identified local and regional housing
needs. The goals of the 2014-2021 Housing Element are formulated based on information provided in the
Housing Needs Assessment and Constraints sections of the Housing Element document and input from the
community, City officials and staff. Goals and policies of the Update are as follows:
GOAL 1: Provide for housing which meets the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills'
residents.
Policy 1.1: Evaluate ways in which the City can assist in providing housing to meet special community needs.
Policy 1.2: Work with governmental entities to explore the possibility of providing affordable housing for
low and moderate income and senior citizen households in the South Bay region.
303
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 6
Initial Study
Policy 1.3: Encourage the development of residential units that are accessible to the disabled or are
adaptable for conversion to residential use by disabled persons.
Policy 1.4: Encourage the use of energy conservation devices and passive design concepts that make use of
the natural climate to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs.
Policy 1.5: Continue to facilitate the development of housing in the City, taking into account existing
financial, legal, and environmental constraints.
GOAL 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills.
Policy 2.1: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of existing neighborhoods to maintain
optimum standards of housing quality and design.
Policy 2.2: Require the design of housing to comply with the City's building code requirements.
Policy 2.3: Require compatible design to minimize the impact of residential redevelopment on existing
residences.
Policy 2.4: Enforce City housing codes to assure the upkeep and maintenance of housing in the City.
GOAL 3: Provide housing services to address the needs of the City's senior citizen population.
Policy 3.1: Provide reference and referral services for seniors, such as in-home care and counseling for
housing-related issues, to allow seniors to remain independent in the community.
Policy 3.2: Maintain information regarding shared housing programs in nearby cities as an option for seniors
to share existing housing in the community.
Policy 3.3: Coordinate with lending companies and institutions to educate the City's elderly homeowners as
to the availability of reverse mortgage loans which allow income-poor seniors to remain in their homes.
GOAL 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin or color.
Policy 4.1: Affirm a positive action posture which will assure that unrestricted housing opportunities are
available to the community, and enforce all applicable laws and policies pertaining to equal housing
opportunity.
Policy 4.2: Make information on fair housing laws available to residents and realtors in the City by
distributing at the City Hall public counter and on request.
Policy 4.3: Investigate any allegations of violations of fair housing laws.
Summary of 2014-2021 Quantified Objectives
Through the housing strategies outlined above, the City of Rolling Hills aims to obtain the quantified objectives
required by State Housing Law. Each jurisdiction is required to establish the minimum number of housing units
that will be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the Housing Element planning period. The quantified
objectives for the City of Rolling Hills Housing Element are summarized in below:
Number of Units to be Constructed: 16 single-family units
304
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 7
Initial Study
Number of Units to be Rehabilitated: 0 rehabilitation need
Number of Units to be Conserved: 693 single-family housing units.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. If any of the
factors are checked, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. If no factors are checked, a Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Declaration is required.
Aesthetics
Agriculture & Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils (Liquefaction)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazard Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
ENVIRONMENAL DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described on the attached
pages have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
305
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 8
Initial Study
Signature: /s/ Yolanta Schwartz Date: December 26, 3013
Printed Name: Yolanta Schwartz Title: Planning Director
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
An Environmental Checklist Form (Form) has been used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed project. The Form has been prepared by the Resources Agency of California to
assist local governmental agencies, such as the City of Rolling Hills, in complying with the requirements of the
Statutes and Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. In the Form, environmental
effects are evaluated as follows:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in its response. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is “Potentially Significant”, “Less Than Significant With Mitigation”, or “Less
Than Significant”. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from an "Earlier Analyses," as described in #5 below,
may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
306
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 9
Initial Study
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
(b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character and quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
I. a), b), c), d). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and promotes
affordable housing. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element policies will be consistent with
City planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts relative to aesthetics are expected to occur as
a result of the Housing Element.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)) or timberland (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 4526)
X
307
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 10
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Result in loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
II. a), b), c), d), e). No Impact. The City of Rolling Hills is an urbanized community. Policies and programs of the
Housing Element Update promote infill housing. There are no designated agricultural lands or forest lands within
the City. The Update will not impact any existing farmland or land zoned or contracted for farming.
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions with
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
III. a), b), c), d), e). No Impact. Rolling Hills is within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
established to implement the California Clean Air Act of 1988 and protect air quality in California. SCAQMD’s
jurisdiction encompasses the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange. The SCAQMD has
developed the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist local jurisdictions determine if a potential project may emit
significant air quality impacts. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element Update policies will be
reviewed and processed in accordance with City planning policies and the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines. No impacts to air quality are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element.
308
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 11
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would
the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modification, on any species identified
as candidate, sensitive or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including but not limited
to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservancy Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
X
IV. a), b), c), d), e), f). No Impact. Policies and programs of the Housing Element Update promote infill housing.
Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element policies will occur in already urbanized areas of the
community, and will be reviewed and processed in accordance with City planning policies. No impacts to
biological resources are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
309
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 12
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
V. CULTURAL AND RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significant of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
V. a), b), c), d). No Impact. Policies and programs of the Housing Element Update promote infill housing. Any
development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element policies will occur in already urbanized areas of the
community, and will be reviewed and processed in accordance with City planning policies. No impacts to cultural
resources are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
X
310
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 13
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
VI. a), b), c), d), e). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and
promotes affordable housing. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element Update policies will be
subject to City planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts to geological conditions are
expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the Project
:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan,
policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
VII. a), b). No Impact. In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change,
Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which
statewide emission of greenhouse gas would be progressively reduced, as follows:
By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels;
By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; and
By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Policies and programs of the Housing Element Update promote infill housing. Any development that occurs
pursuant to Housing Element policies will occur in already urbanized areas of the community, and will be
reviewed and processed in accordance with City planning policies. The Housing Element Update is a policy
document consistent with the City General Plan. It will not result in changes that will increase greenhouse gas
emissions or conflict with applicable policies.
311
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 14
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the Project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project
area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
X
312
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 15
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VIII. a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need
and promotes affordable housing. The City is not within an airport or airfield safety hazard zone. Any
development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element Update policies will be subject to state and local
regulations regarding the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and to City planning, engineering and
building requirements. No impacts relative to hazards are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element
Update.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
X
313
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 16
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? X
IX. a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h), i), j). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing
need and promotes affordable housing. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element Update
policies will be subject to state and local regulations regarding water quality, run-off and hydrology, and to City
planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts relative to water quality or hydrology are expected
to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X
X. a), b), c). No Impact. The City of Rolling Hills has prepared its Housing Element Update in accordance with
Section 65580 et. al. of the Government Code. The Housing Element Update also has been prepared consistent
with the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and the community’s vision of its housing needs and objectives.
Accordingly, this Housing Element examines Rolling Hills’s housing needs as they exist today, and projects future
housing needs. It sets forth statements of community goals, objectives and policies concerning those needs. It
includes a housing program responsive to current and future needs, consistent with available resources. Any
subsequent discretionary actions or development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element policies will be
reviewed and processed in accordance with City planning policies. The Element has been prepared in full
compliance with the State housing law, and no potential adverse impacts relative to land use are expected to
occur.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
X
314
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 17
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
XI. a), b). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and promotes affordable
housing. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element policies will be subject to City planning,
engineering and building requirements. No impacts relative to mineral resources are expected to occur as a result of
the Housing Element Update.
XII. NOISE. Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the Project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
XI. a), b), c), d), e), f). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and promotes
affordable housing. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element policies will be subject to City
planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts relative to noise are expected to occur as a result of
the Housing Element Update.
315
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 18
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
XIII. a), b), c). No Impact. Policies and programs of the Housing Element Update promote infill housing in order
to meet the State and regionally mandated RHNA obligation for affordable housing. Any subsequent
development accomplished pursuant to the Housing Element Update will be consistent with State and regional
growth mandates. The Update will not displace housing or people, but conversely, is intended to increase
affordability of the planned housing supply, which can support retention of households in all income categories.
No significant impacts relative to population or housing are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element
Update.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
XIV. a), b), c), d), e). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and
promotes affordable housing. As noted under response #XII, above, any subsequent development accomplished
pursuant to the Housing Element Update will be consistent with State and regional growth mandates. Subsequent
development also will be subject to City planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts to public
services are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
316
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 19
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
XV. a), b. No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and promotes
affordable housing. As noted under response #XII, above, any subsequent development accomplished pursuant
to the Housing Element Update will be consistent with State and regional growth mandates. Subsequent
development also will be subject to City planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts to
recreation are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.) taking
into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
317
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 20
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
X
XVI. a), b),c), d), e), f). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and
promotes affordable housing. As noted under response #XII, above, any subsequent development accomplished
pursuant to the Housing Element Update will be consistent with State and regional growth mandates. Subsequent
development also will be subject to City planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts to
transportation or traffic are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
Project as projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
e) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or new or
expanded entitlements needed?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
318
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 21
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVII. a), b),c), d), e), f), g). No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and
promotes affordable housing. As noted under response #XII, above, any subsequent development accomplished
pursuant to the Housing Element Update will be consistent with State and regional growth mandates. Subsequent
development also will be subject to City planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts to utilities
are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
an endangered threatened species, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
XVIII. A. No Impact. As discussed in Items # IV and V, policies and programs of the Housing Element Update
promote infill housing. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element policies will occur in already
urbanized areas of the community, and will be reviewed and processed in accordance with City planning policies.
No impacts that will cause substantial degradation of biological or cultural resources are expected to occur as a
result of the Housing Element Update.
B. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (‘Cumulatively considerable’
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
X
XVIII. B. No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and promotes
affordable housing. As noted under response #XII, above, any subsequent development accomplished pursuant to
the Housing Element Update will be consistent with State and regional growth mandates. Subsequent
development also will be subject to City planning, engineering and building requirements. No cumulative impacts
are expected to occur as a result of the Housing Element Update.
C. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
319
Housing Element Update
City of Rolling Hills Page 22
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVII. C. No Impact. The Housing Element is a policy document that analyzes housing need and promotes
affordable housing. Any development that occurs pursuant to Housing Element Update policies will be subject to
state and local regulations, and to City planning, engineering and building requirements. No impacts that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly are expected to occur as a result
of the Housing Element Update.
SOURCES CITED IN EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate by reference other
documents that provide relevant data. The documents outlined below are hereby incorporated by reference, and
the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Initial Study where that information is relevant to the
analysis of impacts of the proposed project. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at
the City of Rolling Hills Community Development Department, No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA
90274. The office hours are Monday through Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
1. City of Rolling Hills, General Plan (current)
2. City of Rolling Hills Zoning Code (current)
LIST BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE
PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY:
Preparer: Joann Lombardo, Consultant.
Technical Review/City of Rolling Hills Staff:
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
320
Agenda Item No.: 7.C
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1279 DENYING THE
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE FOR A MIXED STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 24
CINCHRING ROAD (NAKAMURA).
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
LOCATION AND LOT DESCRIPTION
Zoning and Land Size
The property is zoned RAS-1 and has a net lot area of 73,947 square feet. The lot was developed with a
3,796 square-foot single family residence and a 674 square-foot attached two-car garage. There are two
existing building pads on site with a 10-foot difference in elevation. The existing residence and garage
are located on the upper pad (15,520 square feet) of the property closer to the entrance and the
secondary building pad (4,984 square feet) is on the lower elevation behind the existing residence. The
secondary building pad is the proposed site for the 1,400 square foot detached mixed-use structure. A
stable was previously located on the secondary pad before it was demolished and there is an existing
dirt path access from the upper pad to the lower pad. The existing topography of the entire site limits
the buildable area of both pads. The remaining undeveloped portions of the property are mostly on
undisturbed slopes.
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Applicant Request
Applicants are proposing to build: a 1,400 square foot mixed-use structure consisting of a 650 square-
foot three-car garage and a 750 square-foot recreation room that will partially encroach into the front
yard; a six-foot high retaining wall integrated into the mixed-use structure; a 20-foot wide fire truck
accessible driveway and 12-foot wide secondary driveway with retaining walls exceeding three feet in
321
height and portions of which encroach into the front yard; and 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic
yards of fill balanced onsite.
Variances
Applicants are requesting Variances for: the proposed mixed use structure encroaching into the front
yard, a retaining wall projecting into the front yard, and retaining wall exceeding 5 feet in height.
Site Plan Review
Applicants are requesting a Site Plan Review (SPR) for the proposed 780 cubic yards of grading and for
two retaining walls that exceed three feet in height outside of the setback.
Conditional Use Permit
Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed 1,400 square-foot mixed
use consisting of a three-car garage and recreation room.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
Encroachment of Mixed-Use Structure and Retaining Wall into the Front Yard and Retaining
Wall Exceeding 5 Feet
The proposed detached mixed-use encroaches into the front yard exceeding the leading edge line of the
primary structure. Per the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("Code"), the front yard shall be unoccupied or
unobstructed by any structures, unless provided relief from the Code. The front yard is defined as the
area between the edge of the easement to the nearest line of the primary building. In addition to the
mixed-use encroachment, portions of one of the retaining walls, supporting the main and secondary
driveway, exceed the maximum three feet allowable height and encroach into the front yard and
portions of the other retaining wall exceed the maximum allowable wall height of 5 feet.
The topography of the site limits the buildable size of building pads making it difficult to keep the
mixed use structure, which is allowed by Code with discretionary approval, and one of the retaining
walls outside of the front yard and comply with the required setback. Moving the detached mixed-use
north or west could result in more grading and further alterations of the natural terrain on site. It would
also result in higher and longer retaining walls if the pad is further expanded. The partial encroachment
of the mixed-use in the front yard is the least impactful to the site's topography and adjacent neighbors.
The proposed structure is partially tucked into the hillside and is screened by the existing residence from
the surrounding existing developed lots on higher elevation in front of the main residence. The
secondary pad is also 10 feet lower than the main pad and the height of the proposed structure will not
exceed 13.5 feet.
The existing primary driveway needs to be widened to 20-feet to comply with the Fire Department's
access requirements. Due to the requirements to widen access to the site and to the garage, portions of
one of the retaining walls must project into the front yard area and portions of the other retaining wall
must exceed the maximum allowed height of 5 feet to retain the slope. The retaining wall is needed to
support and stabilize the driveway and vehicular back-up areas. The widening of the driveway is
required for the applicant's safety as well as first responders during an emergency. The encroachment of
the mixed use structure and retaining wall into the front yard and the allowance of a wall in excess of 5
feet require Variances. The applicant is also proposing to landscape the front of the walls to help
improve aesthetics and minimize visibility of the proposed retaining walls.
322
Two Walls Exceeds 3 Feet Height Limit and Grading
The proposed mixed-use is located on an existing pad that is currently accessed from the main pad. In
order to provide vehicular access to the garage, a driveway will need to be constructed and a vehicular
back up area will need to be created to meet the Building Code and Fire Department requirements. The
proposed driveway widening and pad expansion require retaining walls that will exceed the maximum
height of three feet. As mentioned earlier, the topography of the site makes it unavoidable to have
retaining walls that vary in height ranging from a few inches to six feet. Fortunately, this height
variation allows for some visual relief from having one monolithic four-foot wall supporting the
driveways and mixed use structure. The applicant is also proposing to landscape the front of the walls to
help improve aesthetics and mitigate the visual impact of the retaining walls.
The applicant is also proposing 780 cubic yards of grading that will be balanced on site. The proposed
location of the mixed-use was previously developed with a stable. The area is currently fairly flat and
accessible by foot. In order to make the pad buildable, additional grading will need to occur to expand
the pad to accommodate the 1,400 square foot mixed-use and vehicular turnaround area. The additional
grading will increase the disturbance on the lot by 2.6%. The total disturbance of the lot will remain
under 40%, the maximum allowable. The proposed reuse of the secondary pad minimizes the amount of
grading and prevents further alteration of the natural terrain. The proposed site is consistent with the
goals of the general plan to maintain the City's natural topography and minimize grading. The proposed
improvements consisting of walls exceeding three feet in height outside of the required setback and
grading require Site Plan Review approval.
Mixed-Use Structure
Applicants are proposing a detached 1,400 square foot mixed-use structure that houses a three-car
garage and recreation room. A garage is required by the Municipal Code for every residential
development in the City. The existing attached garage originally attached to the residence is to be
converted to habitable space as part of the house renovation. Applicants must provide a garage
replacement on site. Applicants initially proposed adding an attached garage to the proposed house
renovation, however, the RHCA Architectural Review Board denied Applicants' request.
Applicants are also proposing to attach a recreation room to the proposed garage thereby creating a
mixed use structure. Many residential developments in the City consists of mixed use structures on site.
Applicants are proposing an amenity currently enjoyed by many residents in the City. The proposed
structure is 1,400 square feet and has a maximum height of 13.5 feet. The scale and massing of the
structure is consistent with the neighborhood character. The mixed use structure is setback and low in
profile. Lastly, it will partially be screened by the existing topography further reducing its visual impact.
The proposed development has received RHCA’s approval.
Environmental Review
The proposed project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to
Land) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor alterations in the condition of land, including but
not limited to grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent. The grading taking place on the
property is on land with a slope of less than 10 percent to account for the mixed use structure and
widening of the driveway to 20 feet which requires two walls. The proposed project has been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures)
323
of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts accessory structures including garages, carports, patios,
swimming pools, and fences. The mixed use structure will consist of a two car garage and recreation
room and qualifies as new construction of small structures. Further the two walls one of which is a 4
foot high by 140 feet long wall and the second of which is a 6 foot high by 64 foot long wall similarly
qualify as construction of small structures. These walls are necessary for purposes of construction of the
mixed use structure and widening of the driveway.
Public Participation
A public hearing field trip to the site was conducted on March 16, 2021 at 7:30 AM.
A call was received from Ms. Diane Montaldo asking about the scope of the project and date of the
Planning Commission public meeting.
A call was received from Dr. Brunner asking for information about the project prior to the Planning
Commission meeting.
A letter was received from Mr. Clint Patterson, which is included in the City Council agenda packet.
17.38.050 - Required Variance findings.
In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in
question;
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
4. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
5. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
6. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste
Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
7. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 - Required Site Plan Review findings.
1. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve,
or deny a site plan review application.
2. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by
the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
3. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all
requirements of the zoning ordinance;
4. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing
building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount
of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot;
5. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences;
6. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing
topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage
324
courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
7. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of
grading required to create the building area;
8. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow
is redirected into an existing drainage course;
9. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these
elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private
and public areas;
10. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians
and vehicles; and
11. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
12. If all of the above findings cannot be made with regard to the proposed project, or cannot be
made even with changes to the project through project conditions imposed by City staff and/or
the Planning Commission, the site plan review application shall be denied.
17.42.050 - Basis for approval or denial of Conditional Use Permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application,
may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General
Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making
such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the
following principles and standards:
1. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
2. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been
considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these
adjacent uses, building or structures;
3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the
use and buildings proposed;
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone
district;
5. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
6. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
DISCUSSION:
Appeal
On April 29, 2021, City staff received an appeal letter from Mr. Larry Hall, via email, requesting that
the City Council grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed
mixed use. Mr. Hall represents the owners of property located at 26 Cinchring Road, Dr. Elliot H.
Brunner and Dr. Nourit H. Korzennik ("Appellants").
Basis for Appellants' Appeal
Mr. Hall claims issued Post-hoc Approval
City's Response: The proposed mixed use that houses the garage and recreation has not been built. The
garage is a requirement of the Municipal Code when developing a single family residence. The
proposed mixed use is an allowed land use with a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and
Variances approval. The Planning Commission made findings that the existing site topography limited
the buildable area, coupled with life and safety requirements by Fire and Building Departments made it
difficult for applicants to comply with zoning and safety standards without the City granting relief from
325
the Code.
Mr. Hall cites City Municipal Code Section 17.30.010.A.3, "any and all illegal conditions on the subject
property must be remedied before an application is deemed complete."
City's Response: Applicants received approval of the house from the Planning Department. Applicants
are in plan review with Building and Safety for the house. Applicants have obtained legal rights to
move forward with the house development process.
Mr. Hall discusses Resolution No. 1221 and claims that "the Planning Commission abused its discretion
in approving the Project."
City's Response: Resolution No. 1221 is no longer valid because it pertains to the construction of house
plans that were abandoned as a result of the parties' partial settlement of litigation.
Mr. Hall claims that the proposed mixed use has unacceptable impacts on Appellants' property.
City's Response: Mr. Hall is conflating impacts of the house and not of the mixed use structure. The
mixed use is the only subject of this appeal hearing. The house received approval in 2020. Appellants
have not identified any impacts to their property resulting from the proposed mixed use structure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 1279 denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Resolution
No. 2021-04 approving Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a mixed use
structure located at 24 Cinchring Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
24_Cinchring_Mixed-use Plans.pdf
24_Cinchring_Stamped_House Plan_Set.pdf
SUPPLEMENTALBrunner_response_for_Planning_Commission_3-30-21_v2.pdf
Appeal Ltr of 24 Cinchring Road (Brunner_Korzennik) final.pdf
Clint Patterson's Letter_24 Cinchring.pdf
24 Cinchring Retaining Walls Height.pdf
ResolutionNo1279_Mixed_Use_Structure_Nakamura.pdf
PC_Resolution_No_2021-04_Mixed_Use_Structure_-_Nakamura.pdf
ResolutionNo1221_24CinchringRoadNakamura.pdf
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
March 28, 2021
We are in receipt of the City of Rolling Hills request for comments from neighbors within 1000 feet of the proposed
Resolution #2021-04 concerning 24 Cinchring, to be presented at a public hearing of the Rolling Hills Planning
Commission on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 6:30 pm. This statement constitutes our objections to certain parts of the
proposed plan and variances. Please note that I will be distinguishing herein between a “wall” i.e. an above grade structure
where to either side there is no difference in surface elevation, and a “retaining wall” where there is a below grade
condition on the down slope side and an at grade situation on the upslope side. My apologies in pointing this out, but in
my reading of the resolution the difference did not seem obvious. However, I am no expert and, of course, that is your job
here. But I feel that this is important in discussing the topology of the entrances of the two driveways.
The plans as submitted show, marked in blue on sheet #2, “walls” that can be up to 3 feet in height extending as far as
possible, and even beyond the Nakamura property line. This configuration has the potential to impact the entrance into
and the exit from both properties of vehicles. As seen on the plans, the far end of wall A is shown reaching beyond the
property line into the asphalt area of the double private road leading to both driveways.
Likewise problematic, the required 12” by 12” footing for the far end of wall B will intrude upon the Edison underground
power distribution box for both properties.
348
If these “walls“ were to be built to the approved 3 feet height, or even something less, like 2 feet, we feel that the appearance and “traffic” flow to and from the two driveways will be a potential problem. The two driveway entrances meet
at an angle of approximately 30 degrees and the proposed “walls” if built to this permitted height would have the effect of
funneling cars from both driveways together on a collision course. It would be far wiser for the Planning Commission to
specify that “walls” of potentially 3 feet in height in this immediate area instead be curbs 5-6 inches in height.
Here is a section through the upper driveway showing Wall B clearly and unnecessarily above grade. Wall A on the far side
is said to be a simple guardrail. I fail to see any rational purpose for Wall B. It should match the curb of the opposite side.
Having a 3 foot wall (Wall B) directly abutting our driveway entrance curb would be unsightly, inharmonious, unappealing,
and hazardous. The larger utility box to the right is Edison underground. You can try to imagine the appearance of that
wall in this photo below of our driveway entrance. The survey stake that you see there is around 3 feet in height.
Here is looking down our driveway from the opposite viewpoint.
349
As you can see there is not really enough room for the footing of the proposed “wall” to be built where the Nakamuras
propose without placing it over onto our property. However, much more importantly, the Nakamuras are already intruding
upon our property and, in addition, they are suing us for “trespass” and the trimming of the excessive fire-prone acacia
bush growth in the easements, which was done in April of 2017. While this lawsuit is pending, in which they question
property lines, including those along the proposed driveway, it would be prudent for the Planning Commission to defer
the decision regarding Resolution 2021-04 until this legal matter is completely adjudicated.
We needed to have 4 surveys done since we purchased the property in 2013. Two of the surveys were done before 2017
and were missing relevant details regarding the property lines and easements between the two properties. The two
surveys since then have corrected that missing information. As it turns out, a portion of the Nakamura driveway has been
on our property forever, as you can see in this third survey here.
No matter what the Planning Commission approves, how will you know that is what the Nakamuras have built? I should not need to remind you that the Nakamuras have never complied with approved plans. That as-built unapproved, illegal
main house structure, indicated on these new plans with a big red ‘X’, standing there now some 6 years, is proof enough of this.
Here, in addition, is their construction fence pole, that has been on our property for as long as we have owned it.
350
The markup shows the location of part of the fence on our property. The next photo shows more clearly the far marker.
351
And below is a photograph of the same markup of the property line along the driveway as seen from the opposite viewpoint.
Part of their lawsuit is the claim that we trimmed the hedge along their driveway that you see here. It is plainly obvious
that the majority of said planting is located on our property. That we are being sued for cutting plants on our property
illustrates the deliberately deceitful misconduct of the Nakamuras that ought to give the Planning Commission pause
before issuing a blanket approval of Resolution 2021-04.
There are other aspects to their lawsuit that illustrate the true purpose of their repeated efforts at litigation, which is to
harass, intimidate, and punish us, as the whistleblowers of their illegal main house construction project of 2015-2016.
These efforts have included two perjurious Temporary Restraining Orders, intentional delivery of subpoenas to the waiting
room of Dr. Korzennik’s practice, and multiple calls to the Lomita Sheriff for… nothing. I’m sorry to have to bore you with
the sordid details, but it is important for the Planning Commission to realize who they are dealing with.
352
Above is part of their documentation of this bogus case that, unfortunately, we must still defend ourselves against. Their claim that “trees” were “cut down to the root” is demonstrably false, as indicted in the photos below taken shortly after the
lacing and lollopoping of the acacia bushes, which show manifestly ancient, not freshly, cut branches. You do not need to
be a horticulturalist to realize this.
In addition, they are claiming some $100,000 in damages to supposedly replace the missing foliage. However, since that
time, the acacias have grown back, as plants are wont to do, to an even greater extent than previously and therefore pose
an even greater fire risk, which we cannot conceivably rectify because of the lawsuit. Thus, by pursuing a questionably
fraudulent legal action against us, the Nakamuras are not only endangering themselves and us, but the entire community
of Rolling Hills.
Here you can see the state of the easement acacias as of already two years ago. Please note how close this dense stand of
brush is to their unfinished 5-year old plywood structure and tell me how this is not an extreme fire hazard situation.
Below is looking at this growth from the other direction taken at the time of a court ordered inspection of their illegal
construction and the concrete swale shown on the top of the more than 2:1 illegally steep slope.
353
We were told by our landscape architect that the concrete swale you see below was the location of the property line. From this old satellite photo of the two properties, you can clearly see the concrete swale and how all the upslope landscape is
of a piece and obviously maintained by 26 Cinchring. Thus, the assumption that the swale was the property line, instead of
the easement line, was not unfounded.
The last survey, shown below, shows the locations of the trimmed acacias to be within the easements above the swale.
Separately from the above considerations, I question the proposed construction of the accessory unit. I am not a
geotechnical expert, but I am the homeowner of a recent Rolling Hills approved extensive remodeling project. I recall the
structural engineering that went into the addition of the balconies along the front of our house. Not only were three
attractively designed and placed site walls required to bring the grade up so that the balconies would be no more than 3
feet above grade, but there were also more than 50 caissons dug down to bedrock to provide addition structural integrity
to the design. This also allowed us to curve the new driveway in towards the house, avoiding the idiotic diagonal cutoff of
the old driveway entrance because of the property line, as shown on this pre-construction survey.
354
I don’t see any of that under this accessory building. From our past history with the Nakamuras, they have used family and friends as professionals in the drawing up of plans, etc. This self-dealing nepotism lends itself to abuse that I would
caution the Planning Commission to be cognizant of. From their plans, I see a structure that is around 50% built over fill
without any other structural reinforcement provided.
As I said, I’m no expert, and it would be perfectly fine by me if the whole thing slid down the hill into the Nature Preserve
one day. This construction-lite structural engineering is in stark contrast to what they chose to do with the main house,
which was to surreptitiously substitute their own unpermitted plans for your approved plans, in order to build a much
more massive construct, with large amounts of structural steel and a full length basement the entire breadth of the
building, and a much taller than approved ridgeline that became the subject of Resolution 1221.
That this was their intention all along you can see here with steel posts stored onsite long before you approved the
original plans.
If you were on the Planning Commission several years ago, perhaps you will recall the mendacious testimony of their
expert, Alan Rigg, who tried to convince you that the old and the new structures were exactly the same in terms of height
and usage of the steel posts.
355
That this was untrue is seen below, showing the existing house covered with a blue tarp, and thereafter, the steel posts projecting through and above said same original roof.
The extensive excavation and unpermitted basement construction work is seen below.
All this is saying to you, the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission, be on extreme alert, so that you will not be
hoodwinked once again by the Nakamuras. In fact, with the new Planning Director, Meredith Elguira, we are not off to a
good start at all. She issued on December 3, 2019 a “Notice of Addition, Major Remodel, and Demolition of Walls at 24 Cinchring” on an over-the-counter administrative basis which, I would point out, pretends to remodel a building that no
longer exists, with plans that, according to our expert architect, have essentially not changed since the last go around, and which remain, still at this point conceptual, and fail to address the deficiencies noted previously in Resolution 1221, which
found that, “The Applicant's unpermitted construction of a higher than approved structure constitutes a Building Code
violation. Within three months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall renew all construction permits through the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department for this project and commence demolition of the illegal construction. Staff
is directed to require the Applicants to bring the height of the residence into compliance with the plan, which was previously approved… The highest ridgeline of the house shall not be higher than 917.25 ft. in elevation, as shown on the
approved plans.” [Emphasis added] It is our contention that the City of Rolling Hills cannot simply abandon enforcement of its own duly composed binding Resolutions.
We submitted our strenuous objections to this December 3, 2019 Notice, but to no avail, since we were the only ones
protesting her administrative approval. The original structure, which is the basis for this administratively approved request to remodel, is long gone, having been replaced by the current as-built illegal structure, which cannot serve as the point of
departure for remodeling a no longer extant building, as conceived of by the Planning Director. The Nakamuras had ample time to file a protest against Resolution 1221, something they never pursued. They seem to have preferred to wait out the
clock and the changing of the guard. This appears to have worked out very much in their favor, given what we believe to be an unwarranted and egregious decision made by the Planning Director.
Finally, there can be no legitimate protest from the Nakamuras that they have been waiting a long time to complete the construction of their project, since the fault for the delays rests entirely upon them. They purchased the property in 2000
356
and have never apparently lived there. They failed to use the 2-year moratorium for reconstruction after the 2009 Nature Preserve fire. They intentionally built illegally and got caught. After much ado and many meeting with you, the Planning
Commission, and later the City Council, Resolution 1221 was passed. Rather than following the requirements of the
Resolution, they chose to wait until its deadlines had run out, and they could renew again the very same efforts as before,
except now with a City staff that appears to have no institutional memory of their previous machinations.
I offer you my apologies for a perhaps long-winded account of our take on this situation, but I hope you can understand
that this has been going on for 7 years and 5 lawsuits, with over a quarter million in legal expenses that we have already
incurred. In support of our contention of multiple demonstrations of deception and malfeasance on the part of the
Nakamuras, I would invite you to peruse, in the attached Appendix, the chronology of events marking this long, sad
history of their bad behavior.
Sincerely,
Elliott Brunner, MD & Nourit Korzennik, PhD
26 Cinchring Rd
ehb8@cox.net
357
Appendix – NAKAMURA CHRONOLOGY
06-26-2000 Nakamuras purchased 24 Cinchring, Rolling Hills.
08-27-2009 Wildfire made 24 Cinchring uninhabitable. Nakamuras have not lived at 24 Cinchring
since – if they ever did.
04-11-2013 Architect Khaleeli plans are approved by the City for 24 Cinchring.
06-26-2013 The Dr. Brunner and Dr. Korzennik family trust acquired 26 Cinchring.
05-08-2014 Architect Khaleeli plans are stamped at the Los Angeles County Building and Safety
Department.
06-23-2014 Permit BL 1211050053 issued by LAC DPW to “CONVERT 675SF GAR INTO KITCHEN; 850SF ADDITION OF MSTR
BATH, EXPAND LIVING RM/ENTRY; NEW ROOF; C/O 3 DOORS/15 WINDOWS.” This is only the second (of two)
building permits on file at the County. The first is BL 1307110091 (07/12/2013) to “DEMO
"SOME" INTERIOR WALLS AND FLOORS.”
July 2014 Nakamuras, acting as general contractor, started excavation of footings as per the hidden,
unpermitted K Nishiya plans.
08-07-2014 Pre-construction meeting for 24 Cinchring (Sam Takei was the "contractor" but Mrs.
Nakamura's brother was not a licensed contractor); City, HOA, and County advised regarding
construction requisites and that any changes or modifications that vary from the approved
plans must be brought to attention of staff of all agencies.
12-03-2014
03-27-2015 LAC DPW Inspector Chris Oberle signed off on 6 steel posts about 30 feet in height with 10-
foot-deep footings. These were not on the approved plans.
June 2015 Contractor Lucas Bros/Dan Martinez was hired by the owner-builder Nakamura (they
refused to sign a written contract). The City approved plans were concealed from him.
Instead, he was given the K Nishiya plans and led to believe that the Nakamuras were
going to get these plans approved by the City and RHCA.
358
06-11-2015
06-17-2015 City staff received report of very tall beams. County inspector Oberle, realizing the
deception, emailed the Nakamuras advising that the "roof is too high." Foundation,
basement, framing work continued through the summer.
Summer 2015
Fall 2015
09-25-2015 Alleged "spitting incident" occurred between Mrs. Nakamura and Dr. Korzennik wherein
Mrs. Nakamura demanded Dr. Korzennik stop taking pictures from Dr. Korzennik's
property of their illegal, unpermitted construction at 24 Cinchring.
09-29-2015 RHCA posted a STOP WORK: "Framing not per plan." RHCA 9-29-15 letter to Nakamuras
stated, "STOP WORK ORDER: PLATE HEIGHTS/RIDGE HEIGHT EXCESSIVE. RESPOND BY 10-15-
2015.” Work continued per photographs.
10-06-2015 County of Los Angeles posted a STOP ALL WORK order. Work continued per photographs.
10-08-2015 Mrs. Nakamura filed L.A.S.C. Case No. YS027815 (TRO) for "civil harassment" (so-called
"spitting incident" and for Dr. Korzennik taking photographs of their unapproved
construction from 26 Cinchring which noted the building code violations at 24 Cinchring
done by the Nakamuras.
359
10-15-2015 Kathryn Bishop, Architectural Inspector of the RHCA, sent a letter explaining that the
only work the Association will approve is a temporary roof, tarping only. Work continued,
adding rafters, plywood sheeting, and paper per photographs.
11-17-2015
12-17-2015 Kathryn Bishop, Architectural Inspector of the RHCA, issued a STOP WORK ORDER. "I
made a visual inspection/work completed does not comply with plans submitted.
Unapproved spacing & underlayment material.”
01-08-2016
01-19-2016 Kathryn Bishop, Architectural Inspector of the RHCA, noted regarding the STOP WORK
ORDER: "Your non-compliance with the October 26, 2015 temporary winterization permit IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE and MUST BE REMEDIATED."
01-26-2016 The City of Rolling Hills Planning Director, Yolanta Schwartz, wrote in a letter to the
Nakamuras, “A construction violation exists, a stop work order is in effect, no work is to
be conducted... temporary winterization must be removed by April 1, 2016 and revised
plans must be submitted no later than April 1, 2016.”
04-22-2016 Dr. Korzennik filed L.A.S.C. Case No. YC071272 (Dept. B) for injunctive relief against
Nakamuras to build according to approved plans.
12-16-2016 TRO Trial in Department J before Hon. Mark Arnold. Mrs. Nakamura's TRO was denied for
lack of evidence to support a restraining order. TRO dissolved.
02-27-2017 Dr. Korzennik’s expert architect, pursuant to a notice for inspection, photographed 24
Cinchring for the injunction case.
360
04-17-2017 Finley Tree & Landscaping cleared out dead brush and trimmed Acacia tree branches
(Lolli popping) to reduce fire hazard.
06-27-2017 The second survey by Steve Opdahl showed that part of the Nakamura driveway and a
substantial portion of the hedge that lines that driveway is on our property.
07-19-2017 Nakamuras filed L.A.S.C. Case No. YC072196 against Dr. Korzennik & Dr. Brunner for
alleged trespass and damage to landscaping caused by clearing out dead brush per
Rolling Hills ordinance to reduce fire hazards.
09-05-2017 Our architectural expert, Mr. DiBiasi, a licensed drone operator, obtained aerial views of
massing and height of the unpermitted construction at 24 Cinchring to present to City of
Rolling Hills planning commission.
09-17-2017 Planning Commission Hearing: The Nakamuras were unable to explain why the approved
plans were not followed and the structure was over the height on the approved plans;
they were only willing to lower the height by 1 foot. The 26 Cinchring expert architect
explained that 24 Cinchring is 5 feet over the approved plans. This was achieved by
raising the foundation and plate heights. The Nakamuras never provided the approved
plans to their contractor, Dan Martinez.
10-17-2017 Planning Commission field trip: The Nakamura’s third architect Berger explained that
following approved plans wasn't done because Nakamuras wanted a loft. The Planning
Commission ordered the Nakamuras to build per approved plans of April 11, 2013 and
staff to draft a resolution to that effect.
12-19-2017 The Rolling Hills Planning Commission (Brad Chelf, Chair, and Commissioners Cardenas,
Cooley, Kirkpatrick, and Seaburn), after hearing from a new Nakamura consultant,
Arthur Rigg, as well as Mitzi Nakamura and Mr. Nakamura, voted 5-0 to require 24
Cinchring be built pursuant to the April 11, 2013 approved plans and denied the
Nakamuras' final appeal to allow them to move forward with their non-conforming
construction in Resolution 2017-21 in Zoning Case #932 (Nakamura).
01-08-2018 The Rolling Hills City Council voted 3-2 to review the Planning Commission’s denial of the
Nakamura application for modification of the 2013 approved plans.
01-31-2018 The Rolling Hills City Council held a field trip inspection of 24 and 26 Cinchring.
02-05-2018 Rebuttal of our expert architect, Vincent DiBiasi regarding 24 Cinchring construction:
361
The difference in new vs old plate height is 13' minus 8'1" or almost 5'; the highest point at
19'6" could accommodate 3 6'6" humans stacked vertically. Cutting the ridge height down 3'
would still leave it 2' higher than what was approved. Adding in the 10' height of the full-
length basement (not even on the Nishiya plans) gives a total interior structure height of 23'.
With the thickness of the floors and roof, the structure would reach the 25 ft height limit for
building in RAS-2, although this is as measured from the outside.
02-12-2018 The City Council denied the Nakamura appeal and denied their request for a variance to
allow modification to the 2013 Approved Plans, ordering staff that a Resolution be
prepared which became Resolution 1221.
02-26-2018 City Resolution No. 1221 was adopted (Mayor Black – no, Councilmembers Dieringer,
Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson – yes), finding that the Nakamuras' unpermitted
modifications to the 2013 approved plans for 24 Cinchring were not compliant with or
consistent with goals and policies of City's general plan to conform with low profile,
ranch style architectural, and ensure buildings maintain and preserve viewscapes; that
the proposed modifications were not harmonious in scale and mass with the site and
362
natural terrain and surrounding residences; the Nakamuras were required to bring the
height of 24 Cinchring into compliance with the 2013 approved plan within 12 months
and begin construction within 6 months.
03-27-2018 Injunction case L.A.S.C. Case No. YC071272 was settled at mediation, given that the
Resolution No. 1221 issued by City of Rolling Hills, ordered what the plaintiffs had been
seeking. The Nakamuras signed a stipulation that they were not going to build according to
the approved plans and, as a result, they must wait 1 year to submit a new application or
seek an extension of construction from the City.
07-12-2018 The Nakamuras filed a motion to amend the trespass case to include the alleged
"spitting incident" of September 25, 2015 that was part of the subject of the 12-16-15
first TRO hearing, which was denied by Judge Arnold. The motion was granted to allow
the filing of the first amended complaint and the August 22, 2018 trial date was vacated.
12-06-2018 Demurrer sustained to the first amended complaint as to the so-called "spitting
incident" of September 25, 2015, which was the purpose of filing the first amended
complaint.
12-10-2018 The Nakamuras claimed they came to pick up mail at 24 Cinchring and that Dr. Korzennik
blocked them from leaving.
12-13-2018 The Nakamuras filed a second TRO L.A.S.C. Case No. 18TRO01023 claiming they feared
for their personal safety and alleged that Dr. Korzennik had been harassing them for 3
years, "On September 25, 2015 Nourit Korzennik directly spat in my wife's face and took
numerous photographs and videos of my wife while trespassing on our property." They
further asserted that Dr. Korzennik flew drones, took pictures, threw PVC pipes onto 24
Cinchring, blocked their driveway with construction equipment and a portable toilet;
chopped down trees and hedges on their property, and tampered with their water line.
01-26-2019 TRO case trial continued due to lack of service on Dr. Korzennik.
01-31-2019 TRO continued due to pre-paid vacation plans of Dr. Korzennik and agreement of
counsel given their respective schedules.
03-12-2019 Letter from the RHCA regarding the construction fence at 24 Cinchring.
03-13-2019 Trial of 2nd TRO filed by Nakamuras, L.A.S.C. Case No. 18TRO01023 abandoned.
03-17-2019
05-1-2019 Trial of YC0272196 "Trespass case" in Department B continued.
363
08-15-2019 Letter from Yolanta in response to Dr Korzennik’s emails.
09-12-2019 The Nakamuras filed a complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Building
and Safety alleging that our new water main installation was not to code and falsely
accusing us of “stealing” 33,750 gallons of their water and vandalizing their water main.
Although our contractor had indeed neglected to get the proper permit for the water
main, this was rectified, and the final permit approved. The material used was per code
and the other accusations were blatantly false.
09-17-19 Planning Commission received oral update from staff regarding “proposal and
development process for a project at 24 Cinchring.”
October 2019 Photographs taken documenting the new silhouette flags placed at 24 Cinchring:
10-23-2019 Meeting with Yolanta, the retiring Planning Director, and Meredith, her replacement.
12-03-2019 Official Notice from the City of Rolling Hills regarding construction at 24 Cinchring. Should
two or more neighbors complain, only then would a Planning Commission review be
scheduled.
12-16-2019 We filed our objection letter with the City of Rolling Hills to the planned modifications at 24
Cinchring.
03-09-2020 Photograph taken from the Nature Preserve trails:
364
07-16-2020 RHCA Board Meeting noted Active Architectural Violations where 24 Cinchring is listed as
“New Residence Not Per Plan” and noted “Stop Work Order in Effect – AC Comm Required
Modifications.”
10-09-2020 Grading permit 2010090001 for “GRADING FOR NEW 650SF DET GARAGE W/750SF ATT REC ROOM” issued at
LAC DPW.
10-25-2020 We filed a lawsuit against the City of Rolling Hills and the Nakamuras for Petition of Writ of
Mandate, Violation of Government Code (Breach of Mandatory Duty), Nuisance Damages,
and Declaratory Relief.
10-28-2020 Construction materials seen delivered to 24 Cinchring.
11-06-2020 Concrete trucks seen pulling into the Nakamura property.
11-25-2020 Lomita sheriff, a female officer by the name of Lopez (police car 17-643), came to our door
to say that the neighbors were complaining about our security camera. Dr Korzennik spoke
with her and afterwards with the Lomita Station duty chief, a male officer by the name of
Apostle.
01-05-2021 Mandatory Settlement Conference in tree case.
01-15-2021 Mediation conference in our lawsuit against the City of Rolling Hills and the Nakamuras for
Petition of Writ of Mandate and Violation of Government Code (Breach of Mandatory Duty),
Nuisance Damages, and Declaratory Relief.
03-16-2021
Shown here are the Nakamuras taking pictures of me driving up my driveway. Why is this
interesting? If the shoe were on the other foot, i.e. if it were us taking pictures of them, you
can be certain that we would be getting a visit from the police, or a new Temporary
Restraining Order in the mail shortly. How do I know? Because this has happened repeatedly
in the past.
Pending We will be filing an appeal for a Writ of Mandate in the above case.
(Right click enable content if present and choose full screen multimedia)
365
366
367
368
EXHIBIT A
369
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Laurence C. Hall (State Bar No.053681) THE HALL LAW CORPORATION A Professional Law Corporation 1001 6th Street, Suite 120 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Tel: (310) 738-6199 * Fax: (760) 398-4455 Email Addresses for Service, Correspondence, and Pursuant to Judicial Council Emergency Rule 12: Larry@LarryHallLaw.com and Becky@LarryHallLaw.com (Assistant) Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs, DR. ELLIOT H. BRUNNER and DR. NOURIT H. KORZENNIK Individually and as co-trustees of the Elliott H. Brunner and Nourit H. Korzennik Revocable Trust dated July 8, 2009 as Amended and Restated on March 6, 2012, a California Trust SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DR. ELLIOT H. BRUNNER and DR. NOURIT H. KORZENNIK, individually and as co-trustees of the Elliott H. Brunner and Nourit H. Korzennik Revocable Trust dated July 8, 2009 as Amended and Restated on March 6, 2012, a California Trust, Petitioners and Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, TOSHIKO NAKAMURA, TAKASHI NAKAMURA, and DOES 1 through 50, INCLUSIVE, Respondents and Defendants.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case No.: FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR: (1) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (Code of Civil Procedure §1085) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (2) VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE §815.6, BREACH OF MANDATORY DUTY (3) EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (4) NUISANCE COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF: (5) DECLARATORY RELIEF
THE PARTIES
1. At all times mentioned, Petitioners and Plaintiffs Dr. Elliot H. Brunner (“Dr. Brunner”)
and Dr. Nourit H. Korzennik (“Dr. Korzennik”) are the co-trustees of the Elliott H. Brunner and Nourit Electronically Received 04/27/2021 03:27 PM370
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
H. Korzennik Revocable Trust dated July 8, 2009 as Amended and Restated on March 6, 2012, a
California Trust (hereinafter the “Trust.”). Since March 28, 2013, the Trust has been the owner of the
real property located at 26 Cinchring, Rolling Hills, California, which is a 4,076 square foot, five-
bedroom, 3.5 bath single family residential home (“the Property”). The Property is at the end of a
remote, hard to find cul-de-sac. Dr. Brunner and Dr. Korzennik, in their individual capacities, reside at
the Property. Plaintiffs and Petitioners have resided at the Property since the summer of 2016. A
centerpiece of the design of the Property is the floor to ceiling wide panoramic windows across the front
of the residence with a spectacular view looking down the hill towards Palos Verdes’ iconic coastline
(the “View”). Petitioners and Plaintiffs, individually and as co-trustees of the Trust, will collectively be
referred to as Plaintiffs hereinafter, except in the First Cause of Action, where collectively they will be
referred to as Petitioners.
2. Respondent and Defendant, the City of Rolling Hills, (“The City” or “Respondents”), is a
public entity and incorporated city under the laws of California, located in the County of Los Angeles.
3. Defendants, Toshiko Nakamura and Takashi Nakamura, (“Defendants Nakamura”), are
married and own the property downslope from the Property at 24 Cinchring, Rolling Hills (“24
Cinchring”) situated directly in the View and is also at the end of the remote cul-de-sac. In 2009, a
wildfire seriously damaged the Defendants Nakamura’s home, 24 Cinchring. Defendants Nakamura
reside in Los Angeles County, California.
4. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate,
associate or otherwise, of the Respondents and Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, and therefore sue said Respondents and Defendants, and each of them, by said fictitious
names. Plaintiffs will amend this Petition and Complaint to show their true names and capacities when
the information has been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each
of the Respondents and Defendants designated herein as “DOE” is jointly, severally, and concurrently
legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and negligently or
otherwise, wrongfully caused damages to Plaintiffs and responsible and liable for the causes of action
alleged herein.
5. At all times relevant herein, Respondents and Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 were
371
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the agents of each other, and in doing the things alleged herein, each Respondent and Defendant and
DOES 1 through 50 was acting within the course and scope of its agency and was subject to and under
the supervision of its co-Respondents and co-Defendants.
6. At all times mentioned herein, each of the named Respondents, Defendants and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
GENERAL FACTS
7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in 2007, the City ministerially approved an 850-foot
addition to 24 Cinchring.
8. On June 25, 2009, the City adopted Resolution 2009-06 approving a Site Plan
Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance to permit construction of a detached mixed-use
structure to contain a garage and a recreation room at 24 Cinchring (“2009 Approved Plans”). Section
11.E of Resolution 2009-06 provides that the, “mixed-use structure shall not exceed 1,400 square feet as
measured from the outside walls, and may contain a not to exceed 650 square foot garage and not to
exceed 750 square foot recreation room. The mixed-use structure may not exceed 14 feet in height.”
9. On July 19, 2011, the City adopted Resolution 2011-08 granting an extension of the
2009 Approved Plans, which were authorized by Resolution 2009-06. Based on those resolutions, the
2009 Approved Plans approving the mixed-use structure set forth in Resolution 2009-06 were set to
expire within four years of the effective date of Resolution 2009-06.
10. After years of delay following the 2009 fire destroying many parts of 24 Cinchring,
during which time it was a fire risk and eyesore to the neighboring homes with weeds and untended
trees, plants and shrubs, Defendants Nakamura submitted plans for their major remodel and rebuild of
24 Cinchring for a new main house structure (“the Structure”) designed by architect Bijan Khaleeli,
which the City administratively approved on April 11, 2013(“2013 Approved Plans”).
11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on July 12, 2013, Defendants Nakamura were
granted demolition permits for 24 Cinchring and that those permits were consistent with the 2009
Approved Plans and the 2013 Approved Plans.
12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on June 23, 2014, Defendants Nakamura were
granted grading and building permits for 24 Cinchring and that those permits were consistent with the
372
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2009 Approved Plans and the 2013 Approved Plans.
13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on August 17, 2014 there was
a required Pre-Construction Meeting attended by The City’s Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director, The
Rolling Hills Community Association’s (“The Association”) Kathryn Bishop, the Los Angeles County’s
Chris Oberle, Defendants Nakamura, their adult daughter, Mitzi Nakamura, Mrs. Nakamura’s brother,
Sam Takei, posing as a “contractor” (Mr. Takei has no such license in California), as well as the
Defendants Nakamura’s structural engineer, Kunihiro Nishiya. Defendants Nakamura and their agents
were all advised on August 17, 2014 by The City, The County of Los Angeles (“The County”) and The
Association that any deviations and modifications of the 2013 Approved Plans had to be first approved
by The City, The County and The Association. Further, Defendants Nakamura were admonished that the
2013 Approved Plans must be on site at all times for the contractors working for the Defendants
Nakamura and the inspectors from The City, The County and The Association. Thereafter, Defendants
Nakamura began their major remodel of 24 Cinchring and hiring unknown workers.
14. The Defendants Nakamura ignored these mandatory requirements and thereafter began
construction on 24 Cinchring, materially deviating from the 2013 Approved Plans in direct
contravention of the August 17, 2014 warnings, mandates, including not making available the 2013
Approved Plans.
15. On June 17, 2015, The City’s staff received a report of very tall beams protruding far
above the approved roof line. The County inspector, Chris Oberle, emailed the Defendants Nakamura
stating that the “roof was too high.” This information was ignored and the foundation, basement, and
framing work at 24 Cinchring was done in violation of the 2013 Approved Plans. On or about July 16,
2015, the Defendants Nakamura hired an unsuspecting, but experienced, well-regarded general
contractor, Lucas Brothers Construction Inc. (“Lucas”) who had done many projects in The City.
Defendants Nakamura refused to enter into a written contract with Lucas, insisting they would only pay
on a week to week basis, which they failed to do. Further and most importantly, Defendants Nakamura
refused to provide Lucas with the 2013 Approved Plans and kept same concealed from Lucas. There
was never any approved and stamped plans on site, according to the testimony of the principal of Lucas,
Dan Martinez, despite his many requests for same.
373
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. Defendants Nakamura stripped off the entire building envelope down to its foundation
demanding that Lucas save the nails and fasteners from the old, demolished structure for reuse.
Defendants Nakamura also began digging out the unapproved and concealed major basement living area
and rooms. As illegally constructed, 24 Cinchring has a large mezzanine and an even larger basement
that includes bedrooms, bathrooms and other living areas – all hidden /blocked/concealed by Defendants
Nakamuras from inspection and any viewing whatsoever by The City, The County and The Association.
These hidden additions were never shown on the 2013 Approved Plans and were designed to increase
Defendants Nakamura’s livable square footage and to escape any potential property tax assessment for
these areas.
17. Defendants Nakamura demanded that Lucas raise the roof and the ridge height be
elevated to accommodate the hidden additions, all of which added up to five (5) additional feet beyond
the height allowed by the 2009 Approved Plans and 2013 Approved Plans, and add columns of
structural steel beams that also were never on the 2009 Approved Plans and the 2013 Approved Plans.
18. On September 29, 2015, the Association posted a STOP WORK order, saying “framing
not per plan.” The Association letter to the Defendants Nakamura instructed them to respond by
October 15, 2015. The Defendants Nakamura ignored the STOP WORK order and work on the structure
continued.
19. On July 7, 2015 The County posted a STOP ALL WORK order. The Defendants Nakamura
ignored the STOP WORK order and work continued on 24 Cinchring.
20. On October 6, 2015, The County posted another STOP ALL WORK order. The
Defendants Nakamura ignored the STOP WORK order and work continued on 24 Cinchring.
21. On October 15, 2015, Kathryn Bishop, the Architectural Inspector of the Association
stated in a letter to the Defendants Nakamura that the only work that the Association would approve
going forward would be a temporary roof consisting of tarping only. The Defendants Nakamura ignored
this information, and work continued with the addition of rafters, plywood sheeting, and roofing paper.
22. On December 17, 2015, the Association’s Kathryn Bishop reiterated in writing the STOP
ALL WORK order stating, “I made a visual inspection / work completed does not comply with plans
submitted. Unapproved spacing & underlayment material.” The Defendants Nakamuras ignored same.
374
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23. On January 19, 2016, the Association’s Kathryn Bishop stated: “Your non-compliance
with the October 26, 2015 temporary winterization permit IS NOT ACCEPTABLE and MUST BE
REMEDIATED.” The Defendants Nakamura ignored same.
24. On January 26, 2016, Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director of the City, informed the
Defendants Nakamura in writing that, “A construction violation exists, a stop work order is in effect, no
work is to be conducted, and temporary winterization must be removed by April 1, 2016, and revised
plans must be submitted no later than April 1, 2016.” The Defendants Nakamura ignored the City’s
Schwartz’ notice and proceeded with work.
25. Despite the incessant warnings and repeated STOP ALL WORK orders, Plaintiffs are
informed and believe that the City has not initiated nuisance abatement proceedings pursuant to Chapter
8.24 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
26. On April 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number
YC071272 (“Injunction Case”) against the Defendants Nakamura for injunctive relief asking the court to
order the Defendants Nakamura to build 24 Cinchring pursuant to the 2013 Approved Plans.
27. On September 1, 2017, Defendants Nakamura filed an application with The City for a
modification to allow the roof line two feet higher than the 2013 Approved Plans and changing the roof
type from hip to Dutch gable “which provides for less ‘see through’ or open areas resulting in a more
massive look of the structure.” (Resolution 1221, §2, Exhibit 1) (Zoning Case 932) This amounted to a
request to legalize after-the-fact the non-conforming structures Defendants Nakamura constructed at 24
Cinchring. Defendants Nakamura in their application never explained why the 2013 Approved Plans
weren’t followed; Defendants Nakamura only sought modifications of the 2013 Approved Plans to
allow their illegal structure at 24 Cinchring which they intentionally constructed to violate the 2013
Approved Plans, and the City, County and Association codes, regulations, policies and procedures
which exist for every other homeowner and contractor, but ignored by them.
28. In response to the Defendants Nakamura’s September 1, 2017 application for
modification, on September 19, 2017 the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, and considered Defendant Nakamura’s September 1, 2017 request.
375
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29. On September 17, 2017 at a City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission hearing, the
Defendants Nakamura were unable to explain why the 2013 Approved Plans were not followed and why
the main house structure they were building on 24 Cinchring was over the height specified on the 2013
Approved Plans. Expert architectural analysis revealed that the main house structure that the Defendants
Nakamura built was 5 feet over the 2013 Approved Plans proposed ridge line. This illegal main house
structure was accomplished at the direction of Defendants Nakamura by demanding that Lucas raise the
foundation and plate heights under threat of non-payment for labor and materials by Defendants
Nakamura. It was revealed at this Planning Commission hearing that the Defendants Nakamura never
provided contractor, Lucas, with the 2013 Approved Plans, illegally substituting instead their own
unapproved plans drawn as directed by their structural engineer, Kunihiro Nishiya, and telling contractor
Lucas that The City’s Yolanta Schwartz had consented.
30. On October 17, 2017, the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission traveled to 24
Cinchring for an inspection. At that inspection, the Defendants Nakamura’s third architect stated that the
2103 Approved Plans were not followed because the Defendants Nakamura wanted a loft/mezzanine.
Defendants Nakamura’s architect, Bizhan Khaleeli testified at his August 23, 2017 deposition in the
Injunction Case that his plans had not been followed, testifying: “When I went out there, I did not
recognize any resemblance between what I had designed and what was on the site.” (Khaleeli
deposition, August 23, 2017, page 60, lines 13-15).
31. On December 19, 2017, the Rolling Hills Planning Commission, after hearing from a new
Defendants Nakamura consultant, Allan Rigg, in addition to Mitzi Nakamura and Mr. Nakamura, voted
5 to 0 to require 24 Cinchring to be built pursuant to the 2013 Approved Plans and denied the
Defendants Nakamuras’ request to allow their non-conforming construction. The Rolling Hills Planning
Commission ordered the Defendants Nakamuras to build according to the 2013 Approved
Plans and for staff to draft a resolution to that effect.
32. The Defendants Nakamura appealed that decision to the Rolling Hills City Council.
33. On January 8, 2018, the Rolling Hills City Council took jurisdiction of the Defendants
Nakamuras’ application pursuant to Chapter 17.54 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. (Resolution
1221, §4, Exhibit 1)
376
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34. Following an analysis, inspections of 24 Cinchring, and a full hearing with the City
Council listening to Defendants Nakamura and their expert, as well as their lawyer, on February 12,
2018, the City Council denied the Defendants Nakamuras’ appeal thus rejecting their request to legalize
after-the-fact the non-conforming structure at 24 Cinchring, and ordered staff that a Resolution be
prepared, which became Resolution 1221 (Exhibit 1).
35. On February 26, 2018, the City Council passed Resolution 1221, making the following
findings:
a. The proposed modifications were not compliant with or consistent with the goals and
policies of the City’s ’General Plan to conform with the City’s existing low -profile,
ranch style architecture and ensure buildings maintain and preserve viewscapes. (Section
7)
b. The proposed modifications did not preserve viewscapes from adjacent residences.
(Section 7)
c. The proposed modifications were not harmonious in scale and mass with the site and
natural terrain and surrounding residences. (Section 7)
d. The Defendants Nakamura offered no relevant justification for increasing the height as
now proposed, rendering the proposed home incompatible with the site and surrounding
properties. (Section 7)
e. The proposed modifications were visible from the street and to neighbors and did not
preserve viewscapes from an adjacent residence. (Section 7)
f. The 919.23-foot Dutch Gable roof had an unnecessarily higher and bulkier profile than
the previously approved project with a 917.25-foot ridge height. (Section 7)
g. The proposed modifications increased the slope from 3:12 to 4:12 increasing the mass of
the structure. (Section 7)
h. The unpermitted construction of a higher than approved structure constitutes a Building
Code Violation. (Section 9)
i. The actions to bring 24 Cinchring into compliance with the previously approved plans
are of great importance and are necessary to promote the health, safety and general
377
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
welfare of the residents of the City. (emphasis added.) (Section 10)
36. Resolution 1221, Section 9 provides:
The Applicant's unpermitted construction of a higher than approved structure constitutes a
Building Code violation. Staff is directed to require the Applicants to bring the height of the residence
into compliance with the plan, which was previously approved. Therefore, the Applicants shall
undertake the following actions:
A. Within three months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall renew all construction
permits through the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department for this project
and commence demolition of the illegal construction.
B. Within six months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall commence the construction
of the project, including the previously approved roofline, in compliance with the
approved plans and commence grading activity for the previously approved detached
garage/recreation room and access thereto per the specifications outlined in
Resolution No. 2009-06.
a. C. Within eight months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall obtain a building permit
for the construction of the previously approved detached garage/recreation room and
access thereto per the specification outlined in Resolution No. 2009-06.
D. Within twelve months of this Resolution, the entire project shall be substantially completed
per the specifications outlined in Resolution No. 2009-06 and per the approved development plan
stamp dated at the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department on May 8, 2014,
including the construction of the driveway to the
garage. At that time, the construction fence shall be removed from the premises
together with any unnecessary and unused construction materials, green waste, or
other debris.
E. Within fifteen months of this Resolution, the entire project shall be completed. Prior
to receiving a final inspection or a certificate of occupancy from the Los Angeles
County Building and Safety Department both structures (residence and the mixed use)
and the driveway shall be completed and fully functional.
378
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F. The highest ridgeline of the house shall not be higher than 917.25 ft. in elevation, as
shown on the approved plans. This specified height of the ridgeline includes the finished
root: not merely the sheeting of the roof. Prior to placing the finished material on the
roof, the ridgeline shall be certified by a certified civil or structural engineer, acceptable
to City staff. Prior to obtaining final inspection or a certificate of occupancy, certification
of the ridge height of the residence. prepared by a certified civil or structural engineer,
acceptable to City staff, shall be submitted to City staff and ·the Los Angeles County
Building and Safety Department to confirm or deny whether the completed project is in
compliance with the approved plans. Applicants shall also be in compliance with all
conditions of Resolution No. 2009-06.
G. At the City Council's discretion, it may grant a time extension at each benchmark in the
timeline of actions specified in this Section if the Applicants file an application, including the
corresponding fees, with City staff before the date of the required action as specified in this
Section and the City Council finds that that the denial of the extension would constitute an undue
hardship upon the Applicants and that the approval of the extension would not be materially
detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. (Emphasis added)
37. Resolution 1221, Section 3 incorporates Condition AN of Resolution 2009-06, which
provides:
Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any
modification to this project or the property, which would constitute additional structural development,
grading or additional excavation of dirt and any modification including, but not limited to retaining
walls, drainage devices, pad elevation, pool construction and any other deviation from the approved
plans, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
(emphases added)
38. Resolution 1221 never challenged by the Defendants Nakamura, nor has it been
rescinded or modified by the City Council. Resolution 1221 is a final order that is binding on the
Defendants Nakamura and the City. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.54.015(F) provides, “The
decision of the Council, supported by findings, shall be set forth in a resolution. A copy of the decision
379
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
shall be sent to the applicant. The action of the Council shall be final and conclusive.” Rolling Hills
Municipal Code Section 17.54.060 (D) further provides that, “The action of the City Council to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny an application shall be final and conclusive.”
39. Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution provides that “A county or City may make
and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in
conflict with general laws.”
40. On March 27, 2018, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Injunction Case, with prejudice, in
exchange for Defendants Nakamura agreeing to abandon the 2013 Approved Plans to redevelop 24
Cinchring (“2018 Settlement”). After Resolution 1221 was issued, there was nothing further at that time
to ask from the Superior Court. Plaintiffs relied on the City to enforce Resolution 1221.
41. Defendants Nakamura failed to comply with, and the City failed to enforce, any of the
mandated requirements set forth in Resolution 1221.
42. Defendants Nakamuras’ incomplete and non-permitted structure remains with an illegal
roof that continues to impede the View in violation of the City’s binding Resolution 1221. No permits
have been granted to legalize the non-permitted structure that was constructed by Defendants Nakamura.
43. Plaintiffs discovered in late 2019 that the Nakamuras had submitted “new” plans to
remodel the home on 24 Cinchring (“2019 Plans”), which violate Resolution 1221.
44. Plaintiffs’ consulting expert architect went to The City’s offices and reviewed the 2019
Plans. Plaintiff’s expert architect determined that the 2019 Plans were for all intents and purposes in all
material respects the same plans resoundingly rejected and disapproved by the City Council’s
Resolution 1221. The 2019 Plans maintain a 920.25-foot height, three feet over the maximum limit set
in Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06.
45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that City staff ignored and without
consideration or reference to Resolution 1221 evaluated the 2019 Plans and determined that they
qualified for administrative Zone Clearance Review. Thereafter, The City began the process of
approving the 2019 Plans “over the counter” seeking to avoid review by the Planning Commission as
required by Resolution 1221.
46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the City accepted the application for the 2019
380
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plans for the residential remodel without first requiring remediation of illegal structures pursuant to
Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.30.010.A.3, which requires, “any and all illegal conditions on
the subject property must be remedied before an application is deemed complete.” (emphasis added)
Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.30.010.A.1 requires that, “[a]n application shall be required
for all actions governed by the provisions of [Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code].”
(emphasis added)
47. On December 3, 2019, the City mailed a letter (“Notice of Submission”) to Plaintiffs who
are informed and believe it was sent to other neighbors within 1000 feet of 24 Cinchring. This letter
notified Plaintiffs that the Defendants Nakamura had applied to build and remodel the structure on 24
Cinchring in violation of Resolution 1221 and all of its findings, and advised that Plaintiffs had until
December 17, 2019 to submit objections. The Notice of Submission references the 2019 Plans
submitted by the Defendants Nakamura which Plaintiffs’ architect advised maintains the existing
structure located at 24 Cinchring, three feet in excess of the maximum set forth in Resolutions 2009-06
and 1221.
48. Plaintiffs objected to Defendant Nakamuras’ application on December 16, 2019, sending
written objections to The City on that date. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that no other nearby
neighbors objected because 24 Cinchring is not directly in their viewscape and other nearby neighbors
feared retaliation by Defendants Nakamura.
49. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on December 30, 2020, City staff administratively
approved the application for the residential remodel shown on the 2019 Plans (“2020 Administrative
Approval”).
50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Defendant Nakamura have recently submitted
an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use structure consisting of a two-car garage and
recreation room (“2020 Pending Plans”).
51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that The City is waiting for the Defendant Nakamuras
to submit further more detailed plans relating to the detached garage and recreation room. Plaintiffs are
informed and believe that once those more detailed plans are submitted, The City will approve the 2019
Plans for 24 Cinchring and permits will be issued.
381
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that structures exist at 24 Cinchring that were not
permitted, but the City treated such structures as having permits and therefore are violative of the
requirement for Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and/or Site Plan Review set forth in Rolling Hills
Municipal Code Chapters 17.38, 17.42, and 17.46, respectively.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
WRIT OF MANDATE (CIV. CODE OF PRO § 1085)
AGAINST RESPONDENT THE CITY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20
53. Petitioners re-allege each paragraph set forth above (¶¶ 1 through 52), as though fully set
forth herein as to Respondent City of Rolling Hills and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them,
who will be collectively referred to as Respondents in this cause of action.
54. Respondents have a mandatory, clear, present, and ministerial duty to enforce its own
ordinances.
55. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.30.010.A.1 requires that all actions required by
Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code must file an application pursuant to Chapter 17.30 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.30.010.A.3 provides that
Respondents must require remediation of any illegal conditions on a property before deeming any
application complete for that property. Respondents have no discretion under Section 17.30.010 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code to allow processing of applications for properties with illegal structures.
Therefore, Respondents have a ministerial duty to process applications pursuant to Chapter 19.30 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which requires rejection of any application for a property with illegal
structures.
56. The 2020 Administrative Approval that approved the 2019 Plans constituted an action
under Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and thus requires compliance with Chapter 17.30 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
57. The structure on 24 Cinchring Road that exceeds the height permitted by the 2009
Approved Plans and the 2013 Approved Plans constitutes an illegal condition.
58. Respondents were well aware of the illegal conditions on 24 Cinchring, as evidenced by
the numerous STOP ALL WORK orders posted against 24 Cinchring and adoption of Resolution 1221,
382
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which describes the illegal conditions and establishes a schedule to remediate them. Despite this
knowledge, Respondents not only deemed the application for the 2019 Plans complete, but they
approved the application, in direct violation of Rolling Hills Municipal Code Chapter 17.30.
59. Therefore, Respondents violated Chapter 17.30 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by
processing the application for the 2019 Plans and the approving the 2020 Administrative Approval, and
have failed to enforce their mandatory, ministerial duties thereunder.
60. Further, Rolling Hills Municipal Code Chapters 17.38, 17.42, and 17.46 require
discretionary approval for Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Site Plan Reviews, respectively.
61. The current structure on 24 Cinchring Road does not comply with the development
standards of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code or Resolution 1221, and thus requires approval of a
Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and/or Site Plan Review.
62. Respondents have permitted the illegal structure to remain on 24 Cinchring without
requiring a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and/or Site Plan Review.
63. Therefore, Respondents have violated Rolling Hills Municipal Code Chapters 17.38,
17.42, and/or 17.46, and have failed to enforce their mandatory, ministerial duties thereunder.
64. Respondents have violated Resolution 1221 because that resolution concludes that 24
Cinchring “as built” and currently constructed is inconsistent with its “General Plan goals” of “low-
profile, ranch style architecture”; that it has an “unnecessarily higher and bulkier profile”; and it does
not “maintain and preserve the viewscapes from adjacent residences,” most particularly from
Petitioners’ Property. (Resolution 1221)
65. Resolution 1221 sets forth a strict schedule for demolition and reconstruction of 24
Cinchring to bring it in compliance with the 2009 Approved Plans, and provides the City Council with
the sole discretion to modify such schedule. Resolution 1221 specifically directs City staff to require
that Defendants Nakamura bring the height in compliance with the 2009 Approved Plans. Therefore,
City staff has a ministerial duty to enforce the abatement schedule set in Section 9 of Resolution 1221.
66. Respondents are in violation of Section 9 of Resolution 1221 as City staff have not
enforced the abatement schedule set forth therein. By May 26, 2019, Respondents were to require
demolition and reconstruction of 24 Cinchring according to the 2009 Approved Plans. Petitioners are
383
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
informed and believe that none of the requirements of Section 9 of Resolution 1221 have been carried
out.
67. City staff have a duty to enforce Section 3 of Resolution 1221 and require that any
modification to the project that was approved by Resolution 2009-06 or any modification to 24
Cinchring Road be approved by the Planning Commission.
68. Respondents have violated Section 3 of Resolution 1221 because, Petitioners are
informed and believe that, Respondents have approved the 2019 Plans and intend to approve the 2020
Pending Plans without Planning Commission approval. Notwithstanding Petitioners’ objections to the
2019 Plans and 2020 Pending Plans, Respondents have advised Petitioners that Respondents intend to
issue permits concerning modifications to 24 Cinchring “over the counter” by a clerk without the
authority to do so and without approval by the Planning Commission.
69. Resolution 1221 is final. The City Planning Commission and any City staff must ensure
the City Council’s directives under Resolution 1221 are carried out, and may not rescind or modify
Resolution 1221. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.54.015(F) provides that, “The decision of
the Council, supported by findings, shall be set forth in full in a resolution. A copy of the decision shall
be sent to the applicant. The action of Council shall be final and conclusive.” (Emphasis added)
Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.54.060.D further provides, “The action of the City Council to
approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application shall be final and conclusive.”
70. Further, Respondents may not rescind or modify Resolution 1221 because Petitioners
have foreseeably and determinately relied on enforcement of Resolution 1221 when they agreed to
dismiss, with prejudice, the Injunction Case per the 2018 Settlement Agreement. Respondents were
aware of Petitioners’ opposition to the height and design of 24 Cinchring Road, even referring to their
loss of viewscape in Resolution 1221. Respondents were specifically made aware of the 2018
Settlement Agreement in a letter sent by Defendants Nakamura on April 12, 2018, if not before. The
structure on 24 Cinchring is illegal and was required to be demolished in 2019 and reconstructed
according to the 2009 Approved Plans. Respondents are required to conduct a Site Plan Review under
Chapter 17.46 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Petitioners have appealed to Respondents to
enforce their own resolutions and ordinances, demanding that Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06 be
384
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
enforced, that the 2019 Plans and the 2020 Pending Plans be denied, and that any new plans be denied
that exceed the height approved by Resolution 2009-06 as violative of the specific findings of
Resolution 1221 and Respondents’ ordinances. Despite Petitioners repeated demands, Respondents
refuse. Respondents, through their assistant city attorney, advised Petitioners that they do not have any
means of appealing Respondents’ decisions to approve the Defendants Nakamuras’ 2019 Plans and issue
permits, notwithstanding that, Petitioners are informed and believe, the 2019 Plans maintain a ridge
height that the Respondents have already deemed to violate their own ordinances.
71. Therefore, Respondents have violated Resolution 1221, and have failed to enforce their
mandatory, ministerial duties thereunder.
72. Petitioners are persons beneficially interested in Respondents’ enforcement of t[he
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06. Resolution 1221 is meant to
specifically protect Petitioners’ interest in their viewscape as evidenced by their specific mention in
Section 7. The Property has been uniquely adversely impacted by Defendants Nakamuras’ refusal to
comply with Respondents’ ordinances and Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06, causing the diminution in
value of the Property and the loss of use and enjoyment of their property, including their viewscape
which has been materially impacted by the Defendants Nakamuras’ offending and illegal structure at 24
Cinchring.
73. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
other than the relief sought in this Petition. Petitioners have participated in all public proceedings
related to 24 Cinchring since the purchase of their property to the extent permitted by law. At this time,
Petitioners can only request that a writ of mandate order Respondents to comply with the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code and Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06, to reclaim their viewscape that Respondents have
determined that Petitioners are entitled to in Resolution 1221. Petitioners are informed and believe that
The City will be issuing permits for construction of 24 Cinchring in violation of Rolling Hills Municipal
Code and Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06. Based on Respondents’ information to Petitioners, there is no
mechanism or procedure under Respondents’ ordinances to enjoin such conduct. Damages would be
inadequate, as well as unobtainable.
74. Accordingly, a writ of mandate should be issued enjoining, rescinding or revoking any
385
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and all permits granted to Defendants Nakamura because 1) they violate Rolling Hills Municipal Code
Chapter 17.30, 17.38, 17.42, and/or 17.46, and 2) Resolution 1221 expressly prohibits the ridge height
of 917.25; and mandates that any new plans for 24 Cinchring must be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and approval, not approved “over the counter. ” A writ should be issued
ordering Respondents to enforce the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06
and its ordinances, and compel Defendants Nakamuras to remove all illegal structures from 24
Cinchring.
75. Respondents have also abused their discretion by failing to enforce their own ordinances.
76. Violation of Respondents’ zoning and building requirements is a per se public nuisance
per Section 17.04.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which provides:
Any violation of this title, or of any condition of any permit, approval or other entitlement
granted under this title, shall constitute a misdemeanor which, upon conviction, shall be punishable by a
fine of no more than one thousand dollars, by imprisonment in the County jail for a term no longer than
six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each separate day, or portion thereof, during which
any violation of this title occurs or continues to occur shall constitute a separate offense which, upon
conviction, shall be punishable as provided in this section. A violation of this title shall constitute a
public nuisance.
77. Section 8.24.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code provides:
Whenever the City Manager determines that a nuisance exists upon any property, place or area
within the boundaries of the City, the City Manager may notify in writing the owner or person in
possession of the property, place or area to abate the nuisance within fifteen days from the date of the
notice. (emphasis added)
78. Although the initiation of nuisance abatement proceedings under Chapter 8.24 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code is discretionary, the City Manager has abused discretion by failing to
enforce the City’s nuisance ordinance despite being well aware that 24 Cinchring is in violation of
Respondents’ zoning and building requirements and the approved plans.
79. Petitioners are persons beneficially interested in Respondent’s enforcement of their own
ordinances (Chapter 8.24 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). The Property has been uniquely
386
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
adversely impacted by Respondents refusal to enforce Chapter 8.24 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code,
causing the diminution in value of the Property and the loss of use and enjoyment of the Property
including their viewscape which has been materially impacted by the Defendants Nakamuras’ offending
and illegal structure at 24 Cinchring. Chapter 8.24 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is meant to
specifically protect Petitioners’ interest.
80. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
other than the relief sought in this Petition. At this time, Petitioners can only request that a writ of
mandate order Respondents to enforce Chapter 8.24 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, to reclaim
their viewscape that Respondents have determined that Petitioners are entitled to in Resolution 1221.
Damages would be inadequate, as well as unobtainable.
81. Accordingly, a writ of mandate should be issued ordering Respondents to exercise their
discretion and enforce Chapter 8.24 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to initiate nuisance abatement
proceedings against 24 Chinchring, which qualifies as a per se public nuisance according to
Respondents’ own ordinances (i.e., Section 17.04.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code).
82. Petitioners seek attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, as this
Petition confers a significant benefit on the public by requiring The City to enforce their own codes,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF MANDATORY DUTIES (GOVERNMENT CODE §815.6)
AGAINST DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20
83. Plaintiffs re-allege each paragraph set forth above(¶¶1 through 84) as though fully set
forth herein as to Defendant The City and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, who will be
collectively referred to as Defendants in this cause of action.
84. Defendants had/have mandatory duties imposed by Resolution 2009-06 and Resolution
1221, in addition to City of Rolling Hills Ordinances, which Respondents have breached. (Government
Code §815.6.)
85. Defendants have failed to carry out its mandatory duties, thereby breaching all such
duties, by not enforcing Resolution 2009-06 and Resolution 1221 that the highest ridgeline of the
387
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants Nakamura house shall not be higher than 917.25 in elevation, by approving plans that
violate these mandatory ridge heights.
86. Defendants have failed to conduct the required Site Plan Review for the 24 Cinchring
“new” plans because the structure that is on that property is illegal, and Defendants Nakamura seek to
demolish and/or remodel an illegal structure. The City is required to conduct a Site Plan Review under
Chapter 17.46 of the City of Rolling Hills Ordinances, and Section 17.16.050. Compliance with the site
plan review process is mandatory for The City.
87. Defendants, unless enjoined or restrained, will continue to engage in the conduct herein
alleged, breaching its duties. As a direct and proximate result of the ongoing and continuing conduct of
Defendants, Plaintiffs will be greatly and irreparably harmed, and thus are entitled to a temporary
restraining order, and preliminary and injunctive relief.
88. Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, as this
Petition confers a significant benefit on the public by requiring The City to enforce its own codes,
regulations, ordinances and Resolutions.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
AGAINST DEFENDANTS THE CITY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20
89. Plaintiffs re-allege each paragraph set forth above (¶¶1 through 90) as though fully set
forth herein as to Defendant The City and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, who will be
collectively referred to as Defendants in this cause of action.
90. Defendants are equitably estopped from deviating from its properly determined
Resolution 2009-06 and Resolution 1221, and ordinances, including the Site Plan Review under Chapter
17.46 of the City of Rolling Hills Ordinances, and Section 17.16.050.
91. Defendants Nakamuras illegally constructed a structure at 24 Cinchring, without
approved plans or permits, violating stop orders. Over the course of years, Plaintiffs expended their own
time and money and appealed to the City to enforce its own ordinances and codes and not only stop the
illegal construction but require the Nakamuras from building a structure with an excessive ridge height
and extensive mass that violates the City ordinances and codes. After extensive hearings, site
388
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
inspections and analysis, first the Planning Commission agreed, and ordered the illegal structure be
demolished and/or ridge height lowered at least 3 feet. On appeal, the City Council approved the
Planning Commission decision, ordering the same. The City, therefore, made decisions in 2018 that
Plaintiffs have relied upon. Without any legal or factual basis, Defendants are disregarding its own
decisions and Resolutions, codes and ordinances which will result in an illegal structure to be built at 24
Cinchring that materially interferes with Plaintiffs’ viewscape and exceeds all legal ridge heights and
mass of structures as determined in Resolution No. 1221.
92. Defendants conduct is a cause of Plaintiffs’ harm.
93. Defendants, unless enjoined or restrained, will continue to engage in the conduct herein
alleged, breaching its duties. As a direct and proximate result of the ongoing and continuing conduct of
Defendants, Plaintiffs will be greatly and irreparably harmed, and thus are entitled to a temporary
restraining order, and preliminary and injunctive relief.
94. Accordingly, Defendants are equitably estopped from not enforcing Resolution 1221 and
requiring the Defendants Nakamuras to lower the ridge height of the roof at 24 Cinchring, and that
Defendant the City is equitably estopped to issue any permits that violate said Resolutions and any
permits issued be rescinded.
95. Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, as this
Petition confers a significant benefit on the public by requiring The City to enforce its own codes,
regulations, ordinances and Resolutions.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PRIVATE NUISANCE – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST DEFENDANTS NAKAMURA AND DOES 21 THROUGH 50)
96. Plaintiffs re-allege each paragraph set forth above (¶¶ 1 through 97) as though fully set
forth herein as to Defendants Nakamuras and DOES 21 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, who
will be collectively referred to as Defendants Nakamura in this cause of action.
97. At all times mentioned, and since 2009, Defendants Nakamura have occupied, used
and/or maintained their property at 24 Cinchring in such a manner that the illegal structure they have
built has a height that violates City of Rolling Hills ordinances and zoning laws, and Resolutions 1221
389
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and 2009-06. The structure is illegal, and a nuisance as determined in Resolution No. 1221.
98. Defendants Nakamura have refused to modify or remove the structure on the property at
24 Cinchring notwithstanding Resolution 1221 and the City’s determination that such structure was
illegal and compliance with Resolution 1221 by the Defendants Nakamuras was necessary and
important to “promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City, and therefore,
the City Council resolves that said actions shall be made within the time frame specified in Section 9 of
this Resolution.” (Resolution 1221, §10, Exhibit 1.)
99. Defendants Nakamura’s use and maintenance of their property constitutes a nuisance
within the meaning of Civil Code §3479 because it is an illegal structure, which Defendants Nakamuras
have maintained as a nuisance and illegal structure, and it materially impacts Plaintiffs’ viewscape of the
Property as determined in Resolution No. 1221, interferes with the use and enjoyment of the Property
and has caused a diminution in its value and has been an eyesore, appearing in the midst of the View as
an ugly 3 story reddish brown barn, since 2018 with dead plants, shrubs, trees, no maintenance,
unfinished surfaces, unsightly ugly dirt as well as being a fire hazard in a remote area, surrounded by
fuel for fire in an area previously the subject of fire.
100. Plaintiffs have repeatedly given notice to the Defendants Nakamura to remove or modify
the nuisance of their property at 24 Cinchring. Defendants Nakamura have refused and continue to
refuse to abate the nuisance.
101. Defendants, unless enjoined or restrained, will continue to engage in the conduct herein
alleged, breaching its duties. As a direct and proximate result of the ongoing and continuing conduct of
Defendants, Plaintiffs will be greatly and irreparably harmed, and thus are entitled to a temporary
restraining order, and preliminary and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs s have no plain, speedy, or adequate
remedy at law, and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by Code of Civil Procedure §§526 and 731.
102. Unless Defendants Nakamura are enjoined from continuing their course of conduct,
Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury in that the usefulness, peaceful, quiet enjoyment of their property
and economic value of the Property will be substantially diminished and Plaintiffs will be deprived of
the comfortable use and enjoyment of their property including the View.
///
390
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PRIVATE NUISANCE – DAMAGES
AGAINST DEFENDANTS NAKAMURA AND DOES 21 THROUGH 50)
103. Plaintiffs re-allege each paragraph set forth above (¶¶ 1 through 104) as though fully set
forth herein as to Defendants Nakamuras and DOES 21 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, who
will be collectively referred to as Defendants Nakamura in this cause of action.
104. At all times mentioned, and since 2018, Defendants Nakamura have owned, weekly, if
not daily visited, used and/or maintained their property at 24 Cinchring in such a manner that the illegal
structure they have built has a height that violates City of Rolling Hills ordinances and zoning laws, and
Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06. The structure is illegal and a nuisance.
105. Defendants Nakamura have steadfastly refused and have failed to comply with
Resolution 1221 which mandated that the illegal structure be corrected or demolished with certain dates
for those deadlines in 2018 and 2019. The structure remains illegal and a nuisance.
106. Defendants Nakamura have refused to modify, remove or demolish the Structure on the
property at 24 Cinchring notwithstanding Resolution 1221 and the City’s determination that such
Structure was illegal and the City’s order that compliance with Resolution 1221 by the Defendants
Nakamuras was necessary and important to “promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the
residents of the City, and therefore, the City Council resolves that said actions shall be made within the
time frame specified in Section 9 of this Resolution.” (Resolution 1221, §10, Exhibit 1.)
107. Defendants Nakamuras use and maintenance of their property constitutes a nuisance
within the meaning of Civil Code §3479 because it is an illegal structure, which Defendants Nakamuras
have maintained as a nuisance and illegal structure, and it materially impacts Plaintiffs viewscape of the
Property as determined in Resolution No. 1221; interferes with the use and enjoyment of the Property;
and has caused a diminution in the Property’s value.
108. Plaintiffs have repeatedly given notice to the Defendants Nakamura to remove, demolish
or modify the nuisance of their property at 24 Cinchring. Defendants Nakamura have refused and
continue to refuse to abate the nuisance.
109. As a proximate result of the nuisance created by the Defendants Nakamuras, Plaintiffs
391
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
have been damaged in the use and enjoyment of the Property in an amount of in excess of the
jurisdictional amount of this court, according to proof at the time of trial. As a further proximate result
of the nuisance created by the Defendants Nakamuras, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the diminution
of the market value of their property, according to proof at the time of trial.
110. In maintaining the nuisance, Defendants Nakamura, and each of them, are acting with full
knowledge of the consequences and damage being caused to Plaintiffs and the Property, and their
conduct is willful, oppressive and malicious and entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AGAINST DEFENDANTS THE CITY, THE NAKAMURAS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50
111. Plaintiffs re-allege each paragraph set forth above (¶¶ 1 through 112) as though fully set
forth herein, as to Defendant The City, the Defendants Nakamuras and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
and each of them. Defendants The City and DOES 1 through 20 will be referred to as The City in this
case of action. The Defendants Nakamura and DOES 21 through 50 will be referred to as Defendants
Nakamura in this cause of action.
112. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiffs, The City and
Defendants Nakamura concerning their respective rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that The City has
failed to enforce Resolutions 1221 and 2009-06 among other ordinances, codes and regulations
(including Chapter 17.46, et seq.), allowing Defendants Nakamura to maintain an illegal structure, and
illegally maintain a roof that violates The City ordinances, codes, regulations and Resolutions 1221 and
2009-06, and to maintain the structure that interferes with Plaintiffs’ right to a viewscape, and approving
plans which will lead to the issuance of permits to allow Defendants Nakamuras to maintain and
construct an illegal structure.
113. The City maintains that it can ignore its own Resolutions, ordinances and codes and
allow a city clerk, without the review and approval of the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission, to
conduct a site review plan (Chapter 17.46), and issue the Defendants Nakamura a permit to allow them
to maintain the height of their structure in excess of the maximum height requirements set forth in
Resolutions 2009-06 and 1221, and therefore, in violation of those Resolutions and the ordinances,
392
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
codes and regulations upon which each were issued.
114. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of their rights and a declaration that Chapter
17.46 and Resolution 1221 is valid and binding on the Defendants Nakamura and The City, The City
enforce Resolution 1221, Chapter 17.46 and its ordinances, codes and regulations, forthwith and compel
the Defendants Nakamuras to lower the ridge height of the roof at 24 Cinchring, and The City is
enjoined and equitably estopped to issue any permits that violate said Resolutions and any permits
issued be rescinded.
115. Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, as this
Petition confers a significant benefit on the public by requiring The City to enforce its own codes,
regulations, ordinances and Resolutions.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Petitioners respectfully pray for relief as follows:
On the First Cause of Action As to Respondent The City and DOES 1 through 20:
1. Issuance of a writ of mandate, effective immediately, ordering the Respondent City of Rolling
Hills and DOES 1 through 20 to:
a. Enforce Resolution 2009-06, Resolution 1221, its ordinances, codes and regulations,
including but not limited to Chapters 8.24, 17.30, 17.38, 17.42, and 17.46.
b. Take all necessary actions to require Defendants Nakamura to comply with Resolution
2009-06 and Resolution 1221, including reducing the ridge height of the structure on 24
Cinching and lower that height by three feet.
c. Rescind or revoke any construction permits for 24 Cinchring granted to Defendants
Nakamuras during 2019 and 2020 as void ab initio.
d. To take all necessary actions to require Defendants Nakamuras to remediate all illegal
conditions before submitting an application for any permits for 24 Cinchring.
e. Award attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.
On the Second and Third Causes of Action as to The City and DOES 1 through 20:
2. Issuance of temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining and equitably estopping
393
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants the City of Rolling Hills and DOES 1 through 20 from approving any new plans
submitted by Defendants Nakamura regarding 24 Cinchring in violation of Resolution 2009-06,
Resolution 1221, its ordinances, codes and regulations, including but not limited to Chapter
14.76.
3. Enjoin, equitably estopping The City and DOES 1 through 20, any approval of plans or issuance
of construction permits for 24 Cinchring granted to Defendants Nakamuras as void ab initio.
4. Award attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.
On the Fourth Cause of Action as to Defendants Nakamura and DOES 21 through 50:
5. Issuance of temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the nuisance.
6. For punitive damages, according to proof.
On the Fifth Cause of Action as to Defendants Nakamura and DOES 21 through 50:
7. For general and special damages, according to proof.
8. Punitive damages, according to proof.
On the Sixth Cause of Action For Declaratory Relief as to All Defendants:
9. For a declaration that Defendant the City of Rolling Hills and DOES 1 through 21 enforce its
ordinances and resolutions, including but not limited to Resolution 2009-06 and Resolution 1121
and Chapter 17.46.
10. For declaration that Defendant the City of Rolling Hills and DOES 1 through 20 compel the
Defendants Nakamura to comply with Resolution 1221 and reduce the ridge height of the
structure, or demolish the structure.
11. For a declaration that any construction permits issued to the Defendants Nakamuras in 2019 and
2020 by Defendants the City of Rolling Hills and DOES 1 through 20 be voided in violation of
Resolution 1221, and the City’s codes, ordinances and regulations.
12. Award attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.
///
394
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On all causes of action:
13. For costs of suit herein incurred.
14. Prejudgment interest where allowed under the laws of California; and
15. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated: April 26, 2021 THE HALL LAW CORPORATION BY: _______________________________ Laurence C. Hall Attorneys for the Petitioners and Plaintiffs
395
EXHIBIT “1”
396
397
398
399
400
401
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Elliott H. Brunner, individually and as co-trustee of the Trust, am a Plaintiff and Petitioner
in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The
same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information
and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on April 26, 2021.
__________________________
Dr. Elliot H. Bruner
402
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
1974012.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Nourit H. Korzennik, individually and as co-trustee of the Trust, am a Plaintiff and
Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents
thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on
information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on April 26 2021.
__________________________
Dr. Nourit H. Korzennik
403
EXHIBIT B
404
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED MIXED-USE
STRUCTURE TO CONTAIN A GARAGE AND A RECREATION ROOM; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DETACHED STRUCTURE AND A
VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE MIXED-USE STRUCTURE PARTIALLY IN
THE FRONT YARD AREA AND FOR A WALL ALONG THE DRIVEWAY
AND BEHIND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE THAT EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE, IN ZONING CASE NO. 769 AT 24 CINCHRING
ROAD, (LOT 18-3-CH), (NAKAMURA). PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Takashi Nakamura with
respect to real property located at 24 Cinchring Road (Lot 18-3-CH), Rolling Hills,
requesting a Site Plan Review for grading of 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic yards of
fill and construction of a 1,400 square foot mixed use structure to contain a 650 square foot
garage and 750 square foot recreation room, to be located on a separate building pad from the
residence and partially located in front of the leading edge of the residence; to widen the
driveway to 20 feet, which requires a not to exceed 4 foot high by 140 feet long wall on the
down slope of the driveway; and for a 6 foot high by 64 foot long wall along the mixed use
structure. The walls require a Variance.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application on March 17, April 21 and May 19, 2009, and at field trip on April
7. and May 12, 2009. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first
class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said
proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed,
analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representative were iu
attendance at the hearings.
During the proceedings the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the
size of the structure, the crowding of the proposed project with a future stable and inadequate
staking of the proposed project including the limits of grading. The applicants revised their
project twice and staked it twice, the latest revision to the satisfaction of the Planning
Commission.
Section 3. The property is currently developed with a 3,746 square foot residence,
600 square foot garage, 632 square foot swimming pool and 140 square feet of porches. The
existing attached garage is planned to be converted to living area.
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
405
Section 4. In March 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2007-03
approving a Site Plan Review for grading of 288 cubic yards of cut and 288 cubic yards of
fill and construction of 1,525 square feet of additions, which included a 600 square foot new
attached garage, a portion of which was to be built semi-subterranean. The Commission also
approved the applicant's request to replace an existing 632 square foot swimming pool with a
350 square foot lap pool.
The Rolling Hills Architectural Committee subsequently reviewed the project.
Although RHCA approved the residential addition portion of the project, it did not approve
the garage as proposed, due to its out-of-grade configuration and the departure of such design
from traditional ranch style architecture. In order to proceed with the project, which involved
converting the existing attached garage to living quarters, it was necessary for the applicant
to redesign the garage.
In April 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2008-4 approving a
revised application for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variances. This
approval authorized a total amount of grading of 325 cubic yards of cut and 325 cubic yards
of fi ll for the construction of an 840 square foot detached garage. At that time the widening
of the driveway was not proposed.
Following this approval, the applicants again revised the project with respect to the
accessory garage and in February 2009 submitted new applications for an 800 square foot
recreation room attached to an 840 square foot garage in a single mixed-use accessory
structure. In addition, in anticipation of Fire Department requirements, the applicant
proposed to widen the existing main driveway to 20 feet. Since this submission, the
application has been further revised.
Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1
Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt
from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 6. There exists a 50-foot Flood Hazard Area along the southern property line
and a 40-foot Flood Hazard Area along the northern property line of subject property. Any
construction or grading in these Flood Hazard Areas must be reviewed and approved by the
L.A. County Public Works Department.
Section 7. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site
plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing
buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of
the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period.
With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading in the amount of 390
cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic yards of fill dirt for project, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
2
406
Plan requirement of low profile, low-density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setbacks, lot
coverage requirements, disturbed area requirements and all other development standards. The
grading for construction of the detached garage and recreation room on a 73,947 square foot
net lot would not created an overcrowded or overbuilt condition.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the
lot. The proposed structure will be constructed on mostly existing building pad, except that
the access to the mixed-use structure necessitates grading. Slight grading is also required for
the future stable. The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the
structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the
owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding
property owners. The grading is minimal and is in an area that was previously used as a
stable and access thereto. Due to the requirements for a wider driveway to the structure than
was required to a stable, the main driveway needs to be graded.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site. The proposed project is located out of sight of the street and will be visible to
one neighbor, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to
properties in the vicinity. The site was previously disturbed and only a minimal additional
disturbance (about 2.6%) will result from the proposed project.
D. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot and the new detached structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space.
Adequate area exists on the flat portion of the pad to construct a stable and corral in the
future.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not
change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize the existing driveways approach, with
the main driveway being widened to accommodate emergency vehicles.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Section 8. Section 17.16.210(A)(6) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits
approval of a mixed-use structure under certain conditions, provided the Planning
Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to convert the
existing 600 square foot garage to living space and to construct a new 650 square foot
detached garage with 750 square foot recreation room on a lower building pad. With respect
to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the mixed use
structure would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a
permitted use with a CUP. The area proposed for such structure is already level and will be
located where a previous stable was located, and such use will not change the existing
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
3
407
configuration of structures on the lot. Adequate area remains on the property to construct a
stable and corral in the future.
B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures have been considered, and the detached structure will not adversely affect or be
materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed
use will be on a lower pad than the residence and is of sufficient distance from nearby
residences so that the structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors.
Due to the existing development, location and configuration of the residence, the applicants
are limited in where a garage could be constructed. The current garage is located in the view
corridor and therefore they would like to convert the area to living space to take advantage of
the view. Due to the location of the existing driveway, it is impossible to construct a garage
on the other side of the residence, away from the view. The applicants applied for
construction of an attached garage, which was six feet below the residence, however, the
RricA Architectural Committee found it to be in conflict with ranch style architecture. The
Planning Commission considered of these conditions and circumstances before
recommending approval of the detached garage, which also includes a recreation room.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain,
and surrounding residences because the detached mixed-use structure will comply with the
low profile residential development pattern of the community and a stable structure already
existed previously on this pad. The roofline of the structure will not exceed 14 feet.
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use
under the Municipal Code.
E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los
Angeles County Hamdous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of
California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the
Zoning Code because there is a requirement that any residence must have at a minimum a 2-
car garage and there is adequate area set aside on the property for a future stable and corral.
Section 9. Section 17.12.250 requires that the front yard be unoccupied and
unobstructed. The applicants request to locate the detached mixed use structure partially in
front of the leading edge of the residence, which is considered the front yard area With
respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission fmds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is unique in that it is a landlocked
lot, taking access over another property, does not front on any street and the setbacks were
determined when the residence was constructed. The existence of two Flood Hazard Areas on
the property, one along the front —50 feet in depth and one along the rear 40- feet in depth
dictated the determination of setbacks. The location of the garage with the recreation room is
Rem 2009-06
Nakamura
4.
408
desired so as to preserve nearly all of the existing open space of the property unaffected, and
afford for a future stable and corral.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied
to the property in question. The location of the building pad and the development pattern of
the remaining structures on site, especially the driveways and front yard area dictate that the
proposed garage with the accessory use be located slightly in the front yard area. By placing
the proposed structure in the proposed location would be least disruptive to the remaining of
the lot and structures, would be located on an already graded pad and would allow open
space to remain between the structure and the future stable.
C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located because the proposed development will not be visible to neighbors and
will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights
of surrounding property owners.
Section 10. Section 17.16.150 allows up to 3-foot walls along driveways in the
setbacks and not to exceed 5-foot walls elsewhere on the property. In order to widen the
driveway to accommodate emergency vehicles, the applicants must construct a 4-foot wall
along the driveway. A not to exceed 6- foot wall behind the proposed mixed-use structure is
also proposed. With respect to request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable
to this property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zone
because the lot is unique in that it is a landlocked lot, taking access over another property, does
not front on any street and the driveway is narrow and does not meet current standards. In
order to widen the driveway the construction of the wall is required.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which is
denied to the property in question. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive
the property owner of the right and benefits enjoyed by similarly situated properties in the
same zone. They would not be able to add to their residence or built the new detached
garage/recreation room. The widening of the driveway is required to meet the Fire
Department requirements. And in order to widen the driveway a wall must be constructed.
This property was developed with disregards to the location of the driveway. The Variance
will permit the development of the property in a manner consistent with surrounding
properties and the higher than allowed wall will follow the line of the current driveway.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located. Development of the wall would allow the remaining portion of the lot to
remain undeveloped would minimize grading and would meet the Fire Department's
requirements for access and fire protection. The wall will be screened from adjacent
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
5
409
properties and will not impair views. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot
coverage are within the requirements of the City.
D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed in that the proposed wall will allow the driveway to be widened to meet Fire
Department's access requirement. A suitable stable and corral area exists on the site. The
Planning Commission found that due to the requirement from the Fire Department to widen the
driveway there exists a hardship to developing this lot in any other manner.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings of this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variances in
Zoning Case No. 769 to permit grading and construction of a new 1,400 square foot mixed
use structure to contain a garage and a recreation room and construction of a wall along the
driveway and behind the structure that exceed maximum permitted subject to the following
conditions:
A. The Site Plan, CUP and Variances approvals shall expire within two years
from the effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined in Section
17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements
of this section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder
shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such
violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held,
and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Codes, the Zoning
Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with
unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. This
shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, Roof
Covering Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, recycling and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan on file dated —May 14, 2009, except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The mixed-use structure shall not exceed 1,400 square feet as measured from
the outside walls, and may contain a not to exceed 650 square foot garage and not to exceed
750 square foot recreation room. The mixed-use structure may not exceed 14 feet in height,
and be further subject to the following conditions:
a. Vehicular access to the mixed-use structure shall not occur within an
easement or within twenty-five feet of the side or rear lot line. The vehicular
access, past the main residential access, shall be a minimum of 13 feet wide
with roughened surface for equestrian passage, and a not to exceed 3 foot
retaining wall and a 3 foot railing or three-rail fence along the south side of
the driveway, as approved in Zoning Case No. 751.
Re9o. 2009-06
Nakamura
6
410
b. That portion of the structure designed or intended to be used for a garage,
shall be separated by an interior common wall from the portion of the
structure used as a recreational use. The interior common wall shall be
constructed in the same manner as found in attached townhouse construction.
No access from the interior of the portion used for a garage to the interior of
the portion used for the other use shall be permitted;
c. There shall be no sleeping quarters, temporary occupancy or full kitchen
/cooking facilities or equipment in any portion of the detached mixed-use
structure. However, the following may be allowed in the recreation room: a
sink, microwave, hot plate and under a counter refrigerator.
d. Where the garage or the recreation room as specified on the approved plan is
converted to another use, or if the proportions of any approved use is changed
without required approvals, the permit granting the mixed use structure may
be revoked, pursuant to Chapter 17.58, and the structure shall be removed at
the cost of the property owner.
F. Widening of the main driveway is allowed, but shall not exceed 20 feet in
width. The wall, which will be constructed along the western portion of the main
driveway, shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any one point, and 140 ft. long. If
required by the Building and Safety Department, a rail or other type of fence, to be
approved by the RI-ICA Architectural Committee, may be constructed on top of the
retaining wall for safety of cars and pedestrians. In addition to County Building and
Safety, access to the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
No portion of the driveway, fencing or grading may encroach onto the adjacent
property.
G. There shall be a minimum of 8'3" distance from the outer edge of the
recreation room to the top of the slope, for safe passage to the area of a future stable
and corral. The retaining wall behind the structure shall not exceed 6 feet in heigh and
64 feet in length.
H. There shall be a minimum of 25-foot back up area from the garage portion of
the mixed-use structure, and a not to exceed 3-foot wall along the limits of the back
up area.
I. All utility lines serving the mixed-use structure and the residence shall be
placed underground.
J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,257 square feet or 11.0% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations of the Zoning Ordinance.
K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 18,767
square feet or 25.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations of the Zoning
Ordinance.
L. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 28,050 square feet or 37.9% in
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
7
411
conformance with 40% maximum lot disturbance limitations.
M. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,520 square foot building pad shall
not exceed 6,105 square feet or 39.3%. The coverage on the 4,950 square foot
garage/stable building pad shall not exceed 1,850 square feet or 37.4%, which
includes the future stable.
N. Grading for this project shall not exceed 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic
yards of fill and shall be balanced on site.
0. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to
provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto as is
shown on the approved plan dated May 16, 2009.
P. 50% of the demolition and construction materials shall be recycled/diverted.
Prior to granting a final inspection, verification to be submitted to staff regarding the
amount of recycled/diverted material and where it was taken on forms provided by
the City. The hauling company shall obtain a hauling permit and pay the applicable
fees.
Q. Perimeter easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements
including, but not be limited to, fences-including construction fences, grading (both
cut and fill), landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked
vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills
Community Association may approve certain encroachments.
R. Throughout the construction process the easterly property line along the
driveway shall be staked and no construction or grading shall take place beyond the
property line.
S. No irrigation or drainage device may be located on a property in such a
manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way adversely affect easements, natural
drainage course or a trail. Drainage for this project shall be approved by the Building
and Safety Department.
T. All graded areas shall be landscaped. Landscaping shall be designed using
native plants, shrubs and trees. Any new trees and shrubs planned to be planted in
conjunction with this project shall, at maturity, not be higher than the ridge height of
the mixed-use structure. No plants shall be planted, which would result in a hedge like
screen.
U. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, that incorporates a low
gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation
design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design,
and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting fro: runoff and overspray.
V. Th-..te exists a 50-foot Flood Hazard Area along the southern property line and
a 40 -foot i•-tood Hazard Area along the northern property line on subject property. No
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
412
construction, grading or any other activity may take place in these Flood Hazard
Areas unless approved by the Building and Safety Department and other appropriate
agencies. There shall be no dumping of debris, trees or any other matters into the
canyons and flood hazard areas.
W. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil
from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction
activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los
Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
X. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
Y. During construction, conformance with the air quality management
district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and
local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not
exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
Z. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set
forth in the 2008 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater
pollution, if required by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department.
AA. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site
and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway
easements, without blocking access to and over the common driveway to the
residences adjacent thereto.
AB. The property owners shall be responsible for keeping the common
access roadway in good condition during the entire construction process and shall, at
their sole expense, make necessary repairs to the common access roadway should
any damage occur during construction of their project.
AC. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the
hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and
mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet
residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
AD. If an above ground drainage design is utilized, it shall be designed in
such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails. Any drainage system
shall not discharge water onto a trail, shall incorporate earth tone colors, including
in the design of the dissipater and be screened from any trail and neighbors views
to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drain
system.
Res°. 2009-06
Nakamura
9
413
AE. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the
installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
AF. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best
Management Practices (BMP' s) related to solid waste.
AG. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any
permits.
AH. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building
and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described
in Condition D.
AL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicants shall execute and record an
Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, or the approval shall not
be effective,
AJ. All conditions of this approval, which apply, must be complied with prior to
the issuance of a building permit from the Building and Safety Department.
AK. Prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of
grading and/or building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff
for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission
AL. The conditions of approval enumerated in this Resolution shall be printed on
the front sheet of the development plans and shall be available at the site at all
times.
AM. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this Site Plan Review, CUP and Variance approvals, as required by the Municipal
Code, the approvals shall not be effective.
AN. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modification to this project or to the property, which
would constitute additional structural development, grading or additional
excavation of dirt and any modification including, but not be limited to
retaining walls, drainage devices, pad elevation, pool construction and
any other deviation from the approved plans, shall require the filing of a
new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
10
414
AO. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the
public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in
section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2009.
at(14„ii)te„6 ).-qoi
RICHARD HENA,.,,iCHAIRMAN
ATTEST: ,
HEIDI LUCE, INTERIM DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
11
415
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
)§§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2009-06 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED MIXED-USE
STRUCTURE TO CONTAIN A GARAGE AND A RECREATION ROOM; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DETACHED STRUCTURE AND A
VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE MIXED-USE STRUCTURE PARTIALLY IN
THE FRONT YARD AREA AND FOR A WALL ALONG THE DRIVEWAY
AND BEHIND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE THAT EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMUTED ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE., IN ZONING CASE NO. 769 AT 24 CINCHRING
ROAD, (LOT 18-3-CH), (NAKAMURA). PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
June 25, 2009 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Pieper, Smith and Chairman Henke.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Witte (recused).
ABSTAIN:- None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
A.dninit:trative Offi
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2009-06
Nakamura
12
416
EXHIBIT C
417
RESOLUTION NO. 1221
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DENYING A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THE HEIGHT AND ROOF
TYPE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADDITION TO AND MAJOR
REMODEL OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD
(LOT 18-3-CH) IN ZONING CASE NO. 932 (NAKAMURA).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Takashi Nakamura
(collectively referred to as "Applicants") with respect to real property located at 24 Cinchring
Road, (Lot 18-3-CH), Rolling Hills, requesting modifications to a previously approved addition
and major remodel to a single-family residence in order to alter the roof type thereon and to
deviate from the approved ridge height elevation of the residence by two feet (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "proposed Modifications.") The construction of the addition/remodel
of the single-family residence is substantially completed and the current ridge height elevation is
3-feet above the previously approved height. The Applicants now propose to lower the ridge
height elevation by one foot and to replace the previously approved hip roof with a proposed
Dutch gable roof.
Section 2. In 2007, the City ministerially approved an 850 ft. addition to the
residence. In 2009, Applicants sought to grade, build a mixed use structure containing a garage
and recreation room, build a wall along the mixed use structure, and widen the driveway. This
application was approved by Resolution No. 2009-06. On July 12, 2013, Applicants obtained a
demolition permit for interior work in the residence. The Los Angeles County Building and
Safety Department approved Applicants' development plan dated stamped May 8, 2014 for
construction of improvement to the residence. On June 23, 2014, the City issued Applicants a
building permit and construction commenced thereafter. In the summer of 2015, the City
received inquiries from residents questioning whether the residence in construction was being
built higher than allowed by the approved plans. In the fall of 2015, officials with the City and
the Los Angeles County Building and. Safety Department inspected the property and determined
that the height of the residence (at 920.25 ft.) was noncompliant with the approved plans (which
reflected a ridge height elevation of 917.25 ft.). On October 5, 2015, a notice of violation was
issued to Applicants to stop all work until receipt of appropriate approvals. As of October 17,
2015, work was continuing on Applicants' property. In order to bring the structure into
compliance, the Applicants were given two options to avoid a code enforcement proceeding:
either lower the roofline to the originally approved 917.25 ft. or apply to the Planning
Commission for a modification to allow the height of the structure to remain at 920.25 ft. On
September 1, 2017, the Applicants filed for a Site Plan Review for modifications to lower the
roofline to 919.25 ft. (two feet higher than approved). The modification request also calls for
changing out the roof type from a hip roof to a Dutch gable roof, which provides for less "see
through" or open areas resulting in a more massive look of the structure.
Section 3. Condition "AN" of Resolution No. 2009-06 requires a Site Plan Review
by the Planning Commission for modifications to the approved project:
"Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code, any modification to this project or the property, which would constitute additional
structural development, grading or additional excavation of dirt and any modification including,
but not limited to retaining walls, drainage devices, pad elevation, pool construction and any
other deviation from the approved plans, shall require the filing of a new application for
approval by the Planning Commission." (Bold emphasis added.)
Consequently, the modification application was scheduled for review by the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission's consideration of the application for the proposed
Modifications was conducted at duly noticed public hearings on September 19, 2017 and
October 17, 2017. The minutes from the September 19, 2017 hearing reflect that the Planning
Commission considered that the higher roof was built as a temporary roof due to winterization of
the building, that the built roof looks different from those in the City, and that a neighbor felt that
the house was built in its view. The Planning Commission also conducted a duly noticed public
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -1-418
field trip visit to the site on October 17, 2017. The Planning Commission denied the request at its
regular December 19, 2017 meeting.
Section 4. Following the Planning Commission's denial of Zoning Case No. 932, the
City Council took jurisdiction of the application at its January 8, 2018 meeting. All materials,
documents, and information provided to the Planning Commission by the Applicants and their
neighbors at 26 Cinchring Road were included with the staff report to the City Council for its
January 8, 2018 meeting. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a
review hearing for cases taken under jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted de novo.
Section 5. On January 30, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed public field trip
visit to the site to observe the project, reviewed and considered the staff report and the
Applicants' request, took brief public testimony, and put other information on the record. The
minutes reflect that the City Council considered comment from adjacent property neighbors that
they used to have a view of the canyon and Palos Verdes Land Conservancy and that the
proposed Modifications would obstruct their view further. The City Council continued the public
field trip visit to its regularly scheduled meeting on February 12, 2018. The Applicants and their
representatives were in attendance at both the hearings.
At the February 12, 2018 duly noticed public hearing, the City Council heard evidence
presented by all persons interested in the application for the proposed Modifications and by
members of the City staff. The staff report reflects that the ridge height of the original house was
916.86 ft.; the ridge height in the approved plans was 917.25 ft.; and the ridge height in the
proposed plans is 919.25 ft. The City Council reviewed, analyzed, and studied the application for
the proposed Modifications, the evidence presented at the January 30, 2018 public field trip visit,
and the evidence presented at the February 12, 2018 public hearing, including submissions by
Architect for Residents at 26 Cinchring Road, Vincent P. DiBiasi, and by Representative for
Applicants, Allen Rigg. While Mr. DiBiasi contends that the massing of the proposed
Modifications would be more significant than the approved plans, Mr. Rigg suggests that the
mass is "nearly identical" in the front and "less" in the rear without providing any computation
as compared to the approved plans. While no empirical data was presented to the City Council,
based on the image of an overlay of the structure as-built, proposed, and approved, the structure
overall appears to have more mass.
Section 6. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption
[California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303] and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the CEQA.
Section 7. Having considered the evidence, the City Council makes the following
fmdings of fact:
A. The proposed Modifications are not compliant or consistent with the goals and
policies of the City's general plan. Goal 1 and Goal 2 of the City's General Plan
relating to its Land Use Element set forth policies requiring that development
conform with the City's existing low-profile, ranch style architecture and ensure the
siting of buildings maintain and preserve viewscapes and adjacent structures through
the site review process. The proposed Modifications do not conform with the City's
goal of maintaining low-profile, California ranch style homes because the proposed
ridge height elevation and roof type would add visual massing and bulk to the
previously approved single-family residence. Furthermore, the proposed
Modifications do not preserve viewscapes from adjacent residences.' The 919.25 ft.
Dutch gable roof has an unnecessarily higher and bulkier profile than the previously
approved project with a 917.25 ft. hip roof. The proposed Modifications to increase
the slope from 3:12 to 4:12 would also increase the mass of the structure. The
previously approved plan is consistent with the General Plan goals.
B. The proposed Modifications are not harmonious in scale and mass with the site and
the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed Modifications do not
conform with the City's goal of maintaining low-profile, ranch style homes because
the proposed ridge height elevation and roof type would add visual massing and bulk
to the previously approved single-family residence. Additionally, the maximum
height for the mixed-use structure as established in Resolution 2009-06 was 14 ft.:
"The roofline of the structure will not exceed 14 feet." The height of the mixed use
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -2-
419
structure was determined at that time to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and suitable for a ranch-style single-family home. The plan for the
mixed use structure relied on the approved plans for the residential structure; both
plans were consistent with each other and in harmony with the low-profile, ranch
style homes in the City. The Applicants offer no relevant justification for increasing
the height as now proposed, rendering the proposed home incompatible with the site
and surrounding properties: The proposed Modifications would also be visible from
the street and to neighbors and do not preserve viewscapes from an adjacent
residence. The 919.25 ft. Dutch gable roof has an unnecessarily higher and bulkier
profile than the previously approved 917.25 ft. hip roof. The proposed Modifications
to increase the slope from 3:12 to 4:12 would also increase the mass of the structure.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the
application in Zoning Case No. 932 for height and roof modification of a previously approved
project. The previously approved project is shown on an approved development plan stamp dated
at the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department on May 8, 2014.
Section 9. The Applicant's unpermitted construction of a higher than approved
structure constitutes a Building Code violation. Staff is directed to require the Applicants to
bring the height of the residence into compliance with the plan, which was previously approved.
Therefore, the Applicants shall undertake the following actions:
A. Within three months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall renew all construction
permits through the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department for this
project and commence demolition of the illegal construction.
B. Within six months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall commence the construction
of the project, including the previously approved roofline, in compliance with the
approved plans and commence grading activity for the previously approved detached
garage/recreation room and access thereto per the specifications outlined in
Resolution No. 2009-06.
C. Within eight months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall obtain a building permit
for the construction of the previously approved detached garage/recreation room and
access thereto per the specification outlined in Resolution No. 2009-06.
D. Within twelve months of this Resolution, the entire project shall be substantially
completed per the specifications outlined in Resolution No. 2009-06 and per the
approved development plan stamp dated at the Los Angeles County Building and
Safety Department on May 8, 2014, including the construction of the driveway to the
garage. At that time, the construction fence shall be removed from the premises
together with any unnecessary and unused construction materials, green waste, or
other debris.
E. Within fifteen months of this Resolution, the entire project shall be completed. Prior to
receiving a fmal inspection or a certificate of occupancy from the Los Angeles
County Building and Safety Department both structures (residence and the mixed
use) and the driveway shall be completed and fully functional.
F. The highest ridgeline of the house shall not be higher than 917.25 ft. in elevation, as
shown on the approved plans. This specified height of the ridgeline includes the
finished roof, not merely the sheeting of the roof. Prior to placing the finished
material on the roof, the ridgeline shall be certified by a certified civil or structural
engineer, acceptable to City staff. Prior to obtaining final inspection or a certificate of
occupancy, certification of the ridge height of the residence, prepared by a certified
civil or structural engineer, acceptable to City staff, shall be submitted to City staff
and the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department to confirm or deny
whether the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. Applicants
shall also be in compliance with all conditions of Resolution No. 2009-06.
G. At the City Council's discretion, it may grant a time extension at each benchmark in
the timeline of actions specified in this Section if the Applicants file an application,
including the corresponding fees, with City staff before the date of the required action
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -3-420
as specified in this Section and the City Council finds that that the denial of the
extension would constitute an undue hardship upon the Applicants and that the
approval of the extension would not be materially detrimental to the health, safety,
and general welfare of the public.
Section 10. The City Council further finds that the actions to bring the Applicants'
property into compliance with the previously approved plan as specified in Section 10 of this
Resolution are of great importance and are necessary to promote the health, safety, and general
welfare of the residents of the City, and therefore, the City Council resolves that said actions
shall be made within the time frame specified in Section 9 of this Resolution.
Section 11. The City or the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department staff
may require that a construction fence be erected for the duration of the construction of this
project. Such fence shall not be located in any easement or cross over any trails or natural
drainage courses and shall be removed immediately upon substantial completion of the project,
or as otherwise required by said staff
Section 12. Prior to commencing the actions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution,
the Applicants shall execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this
Resolution in the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018.
LA K, M.D., MAYOR
ATTEST:
yfof-e
TTE HALL, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on
this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -4-
421
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1221 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DENYING A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THE HEIGHT AND ROOF
TYPE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADDITION TO AND MAJOR
REMODEL OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD
(LOT 18-3-CH), IN ZONING CASE NO. 932, (NAKAMURA).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on February 26, 2018 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson.
NOES: Mayor Black
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
yvlOte
E HALL, CITY CLERK
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -5-
422
423
424
425
.. ..
LEGEND PROPERTY LINE FLOOD HAZARD LINE EASEMENT LINE SEJE!ACI< LINE LIMIT OF GRADING (E) BUILDING FOOTPRINT (E) DRAIN LINE (P) BUILDING ADDITION/ REMODEL (P) RETAINING WALL (P) DRAINUNE (P) \.ANDSCAPING/ PLANTER_ (P) CONCRETE HARDSCAPE (P) FLOW LINE (P) SWALE (P) KEY (P) ROUGHENED PAlH (P) DA 'tUGHT LINE (P) g• / 12• ./ 18" SQUARE CATCH BASIN (P) 4" / 6" AlRIUM/AREA DRAINS EG EP FF FG FS 'GR INV TBR TC TF TP TW
EXISTING GRADE EDGE OF PAVEMENT FtNISHED FLOOR FtNISHED GRADE FlNISHED SURGACE GRATE INVERT TO BE REMOVED TOP OF CURB TOP OF FENCE TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WALL
AL TOLL FREE 8�-227-2600 lU.sl TWD 0A TS BUORt YOU DIG
--�-
PZZZZZZZJ
I I
[ I ---
(t)GRADE
)...
.-
TL z nus SHEn � AND BENaiWG Pat
8:3.rAt:t-,-.. -./3--... 0:t34.8T OK. 1,(/ MAX SLOPE SETBACK-GARAGE SCALE: 1"= 16'
KE'rWA.Y-♦' MINIMUM INTO ARM UN'1El.DING MA 'lERIAL.
/ /
BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 16'
.
).,/,,T -----� .. i.:11 �-------½. \ �To ON�\/ }Y-c••���-L:<!:���------------------------
() ----...--r ... �--,i--I 1 c1NcHR;tNG ROAD ., .... FS) 912-37 FS) ' � J L l ' -I I __ J __ ""'B' foi3.40 FS) _____ -------_!_____ ----., _,,. �E) MAILBOX ----------=--------------___ ,; __ _---
ROUGH GRADING MUST BE APPROVED BY A FINAL ENGINEERING GEOlOGY AND SOILS ENGINEl!RING REPORT. AN AS11UILT GEOLOGIC MAP MUST BE INCLUDED IN 1HE FINAL GEOLOGY REPORT. PROVIDE A FINAL REPORT STATeAENTlHAT VERIFIES WORK WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPORT RECOMMEN DATIONS ,H> CODE PRO\IISIONS (SECTION J105.12), THE FINAL REPORTS) MUST BE SUBMITTED
TO THE GEO'TECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
\ storcumNG RECOMMENMJ!ONS \�Jl"==�=���=����ao�:S�� FACILmES. THE EXCAVATION MAY BE MADE BV "SLOT-CumNG• IH AI.T!RNA.TEA. B. AND C SEC110NSWITH'nEUN-6HOREDWSD1HOFCUTICEPTTOAMAIGMUMOF6FEET.THESlOT cum NG OONSTRUC'TtON PROCEDURE SHOUtD a; AS ,ou.ows: 1.Sl"ARTIHGFROMffiEPROPERTYUNESORIPROPOSEDWAU.UNES,EXCAVATl!TOTIE BOTTOM 01: EXCAVATION AT A SLOPE RATIO NarEXCEEDtNG I HCQZDNTAL TO I VERllCAL 2. MAK! SLOT-a.rrtlNG IN SEc:TIONS • A WITH St.OTWIDTH NOT'EKCEEHNGS FUT AND EXTENOINQ TO THE EXCAVAltON LINES: 3. CONSTR1/CT BASEMEMT WALLS 9N SU>T• A: 4. AFTER 1Hl!WAU.. l'l S..OT W SSCOHSTFWC'T8J. 1l£ 6EGM!HTI SHOULD BE MACED UNLESS TIE WALL IS DESIGNED AS A CANT'uve\ B.EMENT. THI SPACE BEIVtlEEN 1HE MEWL Y ERECTED WALL SECTIONS AND THE IANK. IF NlV, SHOUl.D BE BACKRLlED PROPERLY AND APPROVED IYTHE SOILS ENGINEl:R. BEFl)RI! ntl! TSI..OT ARE cut;
5. REPEA.TTHEPROCEOURQ NOS. 2 TO 4 FORSLOT"B• ANDntEN""C"
IJNSUITABt.E §OR.JI & FILL NOTES �UNSUfTABLESCU9EF0UHDDURINGGRADIH80PEAA�THEV Stw.1. 8E RE&KNEDTO EXPOSE. UNDERLYING COMPETENrSOIL.9 NCllOR BEDR.OCKPRJOR TO THI: PLACEMENT OF NEWLYCOMPACTEDFLL DEPTH OF OVl!R-EXCAVAT10NTOBEDETERHINEOINTH£Fll!l.DAT1HE.TIMEOIFGRADING PRIOR TO RECSVING OF NEW ALL OR IN AREAS WHERE SI.AB ON GRADE IS PROPOSED, rTIS RECOMMENDEO TitAT ALL OFlH! EXISTINGONSITI! ,IU.AND COUlMAI. &Ol.8 BE RSMO\IEDTO UNDERLYIN GCXJMPETENTutD8TURBED ea>ROaC, ANDTI£N REPUCE O wmt PROPEJlt.Y OOMPACTEORU. R)R SlM SlPPORT THE EXPOSED BOTTOM $URFACE IN EA.Qt REMOYAL AREA SHOll.D flRSTEIESCARFlEOTOADEPTHOFATLEM'TllliCHEJ,PROCESSl!D, WATERED OR AIR DRJEDNi, NEceSSARY TOAOfiev£NEAR3 PERCEHT OVER OPTIMUM MOlsnJRE CONCfflON$,ANDTI-IEN COMPACTED IN-i-t..ACE.TOAT LEAST 9Q PERCENT OF TI-IE M.\XIMUM LABORATORY DENSITY l..0CAU.Y, SOME AREASEXPOSINGSOFTORL00SeSOIL8MAYR!:O:Ul"l:SOME'MiA.TOE£PER REMOVALTHAHINCtCAlEOABOV!.M:fUALQgTMOf�VATION'IMLL HAVETOBEDETEU,UNeOINTHE,JELOAT1HET1MEOIFGRACINQ THE ON-Sin!: SOILS ME SUTTASLE l'ORUSE IN CONll"ACTEO FUS PROVIDED ALL TRASH; VEC3ETAT10NANO OlHeR DELETERIOUS MAlBUAL.SAA& REMOVED
22 CINCHRING ROAD
MAXIMUM = 0 TO 3.0 FEET
I MAXIMUM = 3.1 TO 4.0 FEET·
MAXIMUM = 6.0 FEET
i ( IN FEET) 1 Inch - 18 ft.
GBNBRALNOTBS 1. 1IIE GIW)flG alN1RACTal SHAil SIJSMIT A WRITTEN STATEIIEIIT \fRF1YIG lHAT !HE wau< O!M UNDER HS OIIIECIIOII WAS PERRIRMED IN AOCOROANCE 111111 1HE APPROVED PLANS .lltl REQ.!1181ENTS OF 1HE CITY BUILDING 000£ OR OESCRIBING AU. VARIANCES fR(N 1HE APPROVED PLANS AND REQUIREMENlS OF lHE COOE.
Revllfone By
2. lHE DESIGN ENGINEER VERJflES lHAT 1HIS GRADING PLAN WAS.PREPARED UNDER MY SUPER',ISION IN 11------+--< ACCIJllOAHCE Willi 1HE CITY BUILDING COOE. All SOLS ENGINEER AND ENCINEIRING G£ll0GY REOOIIIIENDA11Cffi \ERE INOORl'0RA1ED IN 1HE PUN. J. 11£ FIEID ENGINEER AS A CONlllllDN OF ROOGH GRADE N'PRfNN., SHALL PRCMOE A BU!E lllP VollH AOOCIIPANYIIIG 'MTNESS STAI([, SET AT lHE aN1iR OF EACH PAO REFl!CllNG 1HE PAD El£VA110N FOR PRECISE PERN1lS AND A IIUJE TOP 11111! WITNESS STAKE SET AT lHE DRAIIIAGE SWAI£ H!Cli POINT El£VA111)N FOR PREUIINARY PERIIITS. 4. All lREIIQI SACl<FILLS SHAU. 8E 1ES1ED ANO APPROVED SY lHE Sill ENGINEER. 5. SUS-DRAIN OUTlElS SHAil iE 8E COMP1£1ED AT 1HE BEGINNING OF lHE SUS DRAIN CONSTRUC'IION AND SURVEY FOR LOCATION. lHE AS GRADED PUN SlfAll Slfow· All SUB DRAIN LOCATIONS AND E1£VA110NS. 6. Y!11ERE SIFPORT OF SUT1RES9NG OF Cl/T AND NA1URAL SUlPES IS DElERIIINED 1ll SE 1£CESSARY BY 1HE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOIL ENGINEER. 1HE SOIL ENGIN£ER SHALL SU8MJT DESIGN, ��G�=ixI° �a.:��r� ��S1R�1�si:JE11011 OF 11£ BUTIRESSING AND C8mFY TO 1HE STASUTY OF 1HE SLOPE AND AOJACOIT SlRUClURES UPON Clllll'l£1ION. CONSTRUCI10NNOTBS ALL WORKS SHALL CONFORM TO TliE GREEN BOOK", STANDARD SfECIE)CA]ONS FORPUBUC WORKS CONS]RUC]ON 20D9 EDITION. STANDARD DETAILS SHAIL CONFORM TO SIANPARO PLANS fOR PlJBI IC WORKS t;ONSIR\JGJJQN 2006 EDITION.
ENTIRE sm:-CONSTRUCTION WASTE SHALL BE RECYCLED OR SALVAGED FOR RE-USE PER GREEN 8.UILDING CODE RESIDENTIAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 4.408 ALL PVC PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 OR SDR-35, DIAMETER ANO SLOPE PER PLAN. lHE SURF ACE OF ALL CUT SLOPES MORE lHAN 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FILL . SLOPES MORE lHAN 3 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST DAMAGE FROM EROSION BY PLANTING WllH GRASS OR GROUND COVER PLANS. LANDSCAPING TO BE PER SEPARATE PLAN. LIMITS AND DEPlH OF OVER-EX TO BE DETERMINED IN F1ELD BY SOILS ENGINEER. @ NEW BUILDING ADDmON I REMODEL PER ARCHITECTURAL PL»IS. @ NEW GARAGE AND RECREAT ION ROOM PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. @ ���n:��if�NCREIE DRIVEWAY PER DETAn. 7, SHEETC3. JOIN @ CONSTRUCT NEW 12' WIDE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PER DETAn. 8, SHEET C3. @ ���:����-::-�:e��:=��S�ARA'"fe':e�. (i) CONSTRUCT 3' MAX RETAINING WALL "11" PER SEPARATE STRUCTURAL PLANS. SEE DETAIL ·1. St-EET C3 FCRSCHEMATIC. TO 8E CONSTRUCTED PER SEPARATE �IT. CONSTRUCT 3' MAX RETAINING WALL ·c· PER SEPARATE STRUCTURAL PLANS. see DETAIL&, SHEET C3 FOR SCHEMATIC.TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER SEPARATE PEIWIT. CONSTRUCT 3' MAX RETAINING WALL "D" PER SEPARATE STRUCTURAL PLANS, SEE OETAJL 8, SHEET C3FOR SCHEMATIC.TO BE CONSTRUClEDPERSEPAAATE PERMIT CONSTR\JCT 6' MAX BOlLOING RETAINING WALL� PER SEPARATE STRUCTURAL PLANS. SEE DETAILS 2&3, SHT C3 FOR SCHEMAT IC. TO BE CONSTRUClEO PER SEPARATE PERMIT. CONSTRUCT 3' MAX RETAINING WALL "P FOR PLANTER AREAS PER SEPARATE SlRUCTURAL PLANS. SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C3 FOR SCHEMATIC.TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER SEPARATE PERMIT. CONSTRUCT 24" GARDEN W ALL PER SEPARATE STRUCTURAL PLANS. CONSTRUCT 18' CONCRETE TRIANGULAR SWALE WITH 3• MIN DEPTH ANO MINIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 1%. SEE OETAL 5, SHEET C3 FOR DETAIL. CONSTRUCT EROSION CONTROt.. OUTFALL·STRUClURE PER DETAIL 6, SKEET Cl. 3' MAX RETAINING WALL "C" PER SEPARATE. STRUCTURAL PLANS. RrP A.AP TO SE EAR11-1 TONED. INSTALL 11' BRASS AREA AREA DRAIN NOS #9188 (U.N.O), CONNECT TO DRAIN LINE PER PLAN. SEE DETAIL 9, SHEET ca.o. NOT USED INSTAll. 4• ATRIUM GRATE NOS #15, FINISH PER AACHrTECT, LOCATtON AS SHOWN PER PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO SET ELEVATION AND CONNECT TO NEW UNDERGROIIND DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER PIAN. SEE DETAIL 9, SHEET C3.0. INSTAU. PVC PIPE, SI.OPE AND DIAMETER PER PLAN. 'INSTALL IT X1T NOS c;.,.TCH BASIN WITH NDSll1213 GRATE. CONNECT TO UNDE RGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM.SEE OETAtL:4, SHEET C3.0. INSTAU. 12•x: 12" NDS CATCH BASIN WITH NDS#f215 GRATE; CONNECTTO UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER PLAN. SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET C3.0. INSTALL 1e• X 18" NOS CATDi BASIN WITH NOS #1810, CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND IJRAJNAGE SYSTEM PER PLAN. @ CONNECT DOWNSPOUT, LOCATION PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, TO UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM. @ ;���I: �����T=•to:fe�o��S=�t�.ANDNOS
@ @ @ @ @ Qt
EX.AMI� EXJSTING DRAINAGE DEVICE, CLEAN OR REPLACE AS NECESSARY. REMOVE EXISTING DRAINAGE DEVICES. EXISTING RESIDENCE.� EXISTING \fl1JTIES UNDIERGROUND, LOCATION AND DEPTH UNKNOWN, PROTECT IN PLACE OR ADJUST AS NEEDEO. EXISTING 1/TILmES, ADJUST BOX TO MATCH GRADE, INSTALL 4• PERFORATED PIPE PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM. @ EXISTNGAPPROX. :r ASPHAI.T BERM. APFROX. LOCATION. @ INSTALLS' ATRIUM GRATE NDSl/80, FINISH PER ARCHITECT, LOCATION AS SHOY1N PER PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO SET ELEVATION AND CONNECT TO NEW UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSlEM PER PLAN. SEE DETAIL 9, SHEET C3.0. @ EXISTING POOL, TO BE REMOVED. REMOVAL SHAU. INCLUDE THE CONCRETE POND BEAMS A1«J POOL SHELL PER SOIUI REPORT. SEE REPORT FORA00ll10HAL ll£TAILS. @ � =�:F�Dl!TAIL 2, lHIS SHEET. VERIFY DIMENSIONS WITH son.s ENGINEER
SURVBYNOTBS
AllllfiES!i! l< QlfQ!RING ROAD ROUJNG HUS, CAURJRNIA lEGAL � lOT 3, TRACT f26J.l3 ASSESSal'S PM<n ll(l: 7567-017-012 BENCHMARK OENII' DIGlllll:RIN; Fcu,J NlT Ill:( l01m AT MOST EASTERI.Y PROl'£fl1Y CORNER N&T ru:v. 912.37'. ADDl1IONAL N&T Ra: 30701 FIIIJI> AT WTERLY PROPERTY CORNER ru:v. 914.45'.
<a:::::::>
<� < z
0y
::i::: (/) g I
z <
< z
<{ a:: C C z <
c., z C < a::: c., •
N Cl 0 Ol<( O< a::u
<.:l • zCfl cr2 :c :c
Z<.:l -z (J :::J -.j-..J NO "II,, Q:
'<I-r--N Cl 0 <( Ol
O<a:: (J
<.:l -z� er :::!:c :cu z (.!) -z u :::J '<I- ..J NO "11,,Cl:: -�.U.21:t1S .... .. _ .....,, --.., ...... ""' ......
C2 01 .-
426
Resolution No. 1279
RESOLUTION NO. 1279
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING
AND RETAINING WALLS ABOVE THREE FEET; A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED MIXED-USE STRUCTURE;
VARIANCES TO LOCATE THE MIXED-USE STRUCTURE PARTIALLY
IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AND TO ALLOW A WALL UP TO FOUR
FEET HIGH ALONG THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE FRONT YARD AND A
WALL BEHIND THE PROPOSED MIXED-USE STRUCTURE TO
EXCEED FIVE FEET ON A LOT LOCATED AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD
(LOT 18-3-CH), ROLLING HILLS, CA, (NAKAMURA). PROJECT HAS
BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE
AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An Appeal Application was duly filed by Dr. Elliot H. Brunner and Dr.
Nourit H. Korzennik (“Appellants”), owners of property located at 26 Cinchring Road on April
29, 2021. Appellants are represented by their legal counsel Mr. Larry Hall. Appellants are
appealing Resolution 2021-04 approving Variances, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
for property located at 24 Cinchring Road, which is owned by Mr. Takashi and Mrs. Toshiko
Nakamura.
Section 2. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the
Appeal on June 14, 2021 at its Regular City Council Meeting. Notice of the public hearings were
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper on June 3, 2021. Notice of the public hearings
were also mailed to all residents within 1000 square feet of 24 Cinchring Road on June 3, 2021.
Agendas were posted at City Hall and on the City website on June 11, 2021 at 5 PM. Evidence
was presented by persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff
and the City Council at the public hearing. The Appellants and their representative were in
attendance at the public hearings.
Section 3. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Takashi Nakamura
(“Applicants”) with respect to real property located at 24 Cinchring Road (Lot 18-3-CH), Rolling
Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review for grading of 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic yards of
fill and for portions of a driveway retaining wall above three feet high, a Conditional Use Permit
for construction of a 1,400 square foot mixed use structure to contain a 650 square foot garage and
750 square foot recreation room, and Variances to locate the mixed use structure partially in the
front yard area, to construct a four-foot high wall that extends down slope of the driveway into the
front yard, and to construct the rear wall of the mixed use structure over the maximum 5-foot high
limitation.
Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application at its Adjourned Regular Meeting on March 16, 2021 at 7:30 a.m. and at
427
Resolution No. 1279
its Adjourned Regular Meeting on March 30, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. Notice of the public hearings were
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper on March 5, 2021 and March 19, 2021 for the
March 16, 2021 and March 30, 2021 public hearings, respectively. Notice of the public hearings
were also mailed to all residents within 1000 square feet of 24 Cinchring Road on March 4, 2021
and March 18, 2021 for the March 16, 2021 and March 30, 2021 public hearings, respectively.
Agendas were posted at City Hall and on the City website on March 12, 2021 at 4 PM and March
26, 2021 at 4 PM for the March 16, 2021 and March 30, 2021 public hearings. Evidence was
presented by persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and
the Planning Commission at the public hearings. The Applicants and their representative were in
attendance at the public hearings.
Section 5. In or around 1976, a 3,746 square foot residence with a 600 square foot
attached garage was constructed at 24 Cinchring Road pursuant to architectural plans designed by
the architect C. Hovland. The Applicants submitted an application for a major remodel designed
by architect Charles Belak-Berger to reconstruct the single-family dwelling within the existing
footprint and to construct an 850 square foot addition. On December 3, 2019, Applicants flagged
the entire proposed roof line and addition; the City verified the staking conformed with the plans
underlying the application. That same day, the City notified in writing by regular mail the owners
of property located within one thousand feet of the exterior property line of 24 Cinchring Road of
the proposed project. On December 16, 2019, the City received an objection from the property
owners of the property located at 26 Cinchring Road. The City did not receive any other objections
to the proposed plan. Accordingly, the project qualified for administrative review and did not
warrant review by the Planning Commission. On December 30, 2020, City staff administratively
approved the application for the residential remodel. With the conversion of the attached two-car
garage to living space, Applicants must construct a two-car garage elsewhere on the property.
Section 6. The proposed project has been determined not to have a significant effect
on the environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section
15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor alterations in
the condition of land, including but not limited to grading on land with a slope of less than 10
percent. The grading taking place on the property is on land with a slope of less than 10 percent to
account for the mixed use structure and widening of the driveway to 20 feet which requires two
walls. The proposed project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts
accessory structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. The mixed
use structure will consist of a three car garage and recreation room and qualifies as new
construction of small structures. Further the retaining walls ranging from a few inches up to six
feet in height (one wall has two 4-foot high sections totaling approximately 140 linear feet and
another is six feet high totaling 64 linear feet) qualify as construction of small structures. These
walls are necessary for purposes of construction of the mixed use structure and widening of the
driveway.
Section 7. There exists a 50-foot Flood Hazard Area along the southern property line
and a 40-foot Flood Hazard Area along the northern property line of subject property. Any
construction or grading in these Flood Hazard Areas must be reviewed and approved by the by the
Building and Safety Department and any other appropriate agency.
428
Resolution No. 1279
Section 8. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires Site Plan Review for a project
that proposes grading pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020(A)(1) and walls over three feet high
under RHMC Section 17.16.190(F). The project proposes grading of 390 cubic yards of cut and
390 cubic yards of fill and two walls one of which is up to four feet high in two sections totaling
approximately 140 feet long and the second of which is six feet high by approximately 64 feet
long. The Planning Commission made the following findings:
A. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the
general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The grading is necessary for the widening of the main driveway to meet Fire Code access
requirements and to access the mixed use structure, including garage required by the Municipal
Code. The Fire Code requires a 20-foot driveway, clear of any horizontal or vertical obstructions,
to accommodate the width and height of a fire truck and its equipment. Grading for the secondary
driveway is required to access the required garage that will serve the existing residence. Due to
the current topography of the lot, a retaining wall ranging from a few inches high to a maximum
of four feet high by approximately 140-feet long will be needed to support and stabilize the
proposed cut and fill for the proposed driveways. A six-foot high by approximately 64-foot long
wall is also needed to retain the soil behind the mixed use structure but will not be visible from
any other property. To minimize grading and maximize preservation of the existing terrain, the
proposed mixed-use will be built partially into the hillside in the front yard. The six-foot high by
64-foot long wall will retain the cut portion of the hillside. Variances to locate the mixed use
structure partially in the front yard and to construct a section of a four-foot high wall in the front
yard and the six-foot high by 64-foot long mixed-use retaining wall above the maximum five feet
are the subject of approval in this Resolution.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the
actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot.
The mixed use structure will be located on existing secondary pad where a previous stable
was located. Using an existing pad minimizes potential lot disturbance resulting from grading for
the proposed mixed-use structure. The pad expansion will be kept to a minimum by not exceeding
the required vehicular access requirements. The maximum heights of walls are necessary to
stabilize and support the proposed driveways and vehicular access in front of the garage.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site. The proposed project is located out of sight of the street and will be visible to
one neighbor, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties
in the vicinity.
The site is currently developed with a single family residence and the area surrounding the
residence has been graded in the past to accommodate a pool and stable that have been demolished.
The grading will increase lot disturbance by less than 3%. Disturbance to the existing terrain will
be kept at a minimal by not exceeding code requirements. The grading serves the construction of
the mixed use structure and related driveways. The proposed mixed use is 1,400 square feet with
429
Resolution No. 1279
a maximum height of 13.5 feet and is located on a lower pad than the primary residence and is
tucked into the hillside. The mixed-use is low in profile, and the massing is partially screened by
the hillside from the adjacent neighbors. The front façade of the mixed-use structure will be seen
from the adjacent land conservancy site and trail but is minimally visible from public view due to
being setback from the edge of slope. The walls are necessary to stabilize and support the proposed
driveways and vehicular access in front of the garage and will also be screened by landscaping to
minimize visual impact and improve aesthetics.
D. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent
possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature
trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls).
The site is already developed with a single family residence and has been graded to
accommodate a pool and stable that have been demolished. The location of the mixed-use structure
minimizes lot disturbance by using an existing pad that previously accommodated a stable and will
require minimal grubbing and clearing of the site. The mixed-use structure will be tucked into the
hillside to minimize expansion of the secondary building pad and thus, minimize alteration to the
existing terrain. In addition, the project will be conditioned to use native vegetation that will blend
in with the surrounding area while complying with the Fire Department’s Fuel Modification
requirements. The walls will be screened by native vegetation to minimize its visual impact.
E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize
the amount of grading required to create the building area.
The location of the mixed use was previously graded to accommodate a stable and access
to the stable. The majority of the grading is required to meet emergency access and access to the
required garage. The location of the mixed use structure and required retaining walls have been
designed to minimize disturbance to the natural terrain of the site.
F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow,
unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.
The location of the mixed use was previously graded to accommodate a stable and access
to the stable. The majority of the grading is required to meet emergency access and access to the
required garage. The grading will incorporate water catchment systems to minimize impact to the
hillside. Majority of the site will remain permeable and undisturbed to allow water to penetrate
naturally into the ground. The walls support the location of the mixed use structure and vehicular
access to minimize the amount of grading and redirect drainage flow into an existing drainage
course.
G. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and
supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area
between private and public areas.
The location of the mixed-use structure minimizes lot disturbance by using an existing pad
that previously accommodated a stable and will require minimal grubbing and clearing of the site.
No mature trees will be eliminated as a result of the project. The project will incorporate
430
Resolution No. 1279
landscaping that has been approved by the Fire Department in conformance with its fire fuel
modification standards. The project also incorporates landscaping and planting in front of the
retaining walls to minimize their visual impact.
H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement
of pedestrians and vehicles.
The project will not change the on- and off-site circulation patterns. The location of the
mixed use structure uses existing access that previously provided access to a stable. The access
will be improved to accommodate vehicular access to the required garage. The primary access to
the site will remain in the same location and will be widened to 20 feet to accommodate emergency
fire vehicles. The retaining walls will help guide drivers and pedestrians to different uses located
on the site.
I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15304 (Minor Alterations
to Land) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor alterations in the condition of land,
including but not limited to grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent. The grading taking
place on the property is on land with a slope of less than 10 percent to account for the mixed use
structure and widening of the driveway to 20 feet which requires two walls. The project has been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from
the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts accessory structures including garages,
carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. The mixed use structure and two walls one, of which
has two sections up to 4 feet high totaling 140 feet long and the second of which is a 6 feet high
by 64 feet long, similarly qualify as construction of small structures.
Section 9. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code require a Conditional Use Permit for a
project a mixed use structure pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.040(A)(3) subject to certain
conditions pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.210(A)(6). The project proposes to construct a new
mixed use structure consisting of a 650 square foot detached garage and 750 square foot recreation
room. The Planning Commission made the following findings:
A. That the proposed conditional use (a mixed use structure) is consistent with the
General Plan. The mixed use structure consisting of a 650 square foot detached garage and 750
square foot recreation room is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a permitted use
with a CUP. Although the mixed use structure requires a variance to allow it in the front yard, the
positioning of the mixed use structure will be located where a previous stable was located.
Therefore, it will not change the existing configuration of the structures on the lot and will
minimize the amount of disturbance on the lot. Further, adequate area remains on the property to
construct a stable and corral in the future. Lastly, the proposed structure is tucked into the hillside
at a lower pad elevation than the existing residence thus, it is partially screened by the natural
terrain of the site and additional landscaping will minimize visual impact from public view.
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
431
Resolution No. 1279
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures. The mixed use structure will be on a
lower pad than the residence and is almost 200 feet from nearby residences so that the structure
will not impact the privacy of surrounding neighbors. Due to the existing development, location,
and configuration of the residence, the Applicants are limited in where a garage could be
constructed. Due to the location of the existing driveway, it is impossible to construct a garage on
the other side of the residence. In addition, the proposed size and height of the mixed use structure
blends in with the scale of the existing development in the neighborhood. The proposed grading
required to construct the mixed-use is minimized by locating the structure on a previously graded
pad and with existing access to the pad.
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed. The mixed use structure is located on the existing
secondary building pad, which is at a lower elevation than the primary building pad. Although the
secondary pad will need to be expanded to accommodate the required vehicle turning radius in
front of the garage, it is the only area that will cause the least disturbance to the natural terrain of
the site. Placing the proposed mixed used in another location will result in significant grading of
the hillside and will most likely require higher retaining walls to support and stabilize the cut and
fill. The current site is already developed with the existing secondary building pad and the existing
access which help minimize grading and allow for shorter walls.
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district. The mixed use structure complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution. Although the mixed use structure
requires a variance to allow it in the front yard, the positioning of a majority of the mixed use
structure will be located where a previous stable was located. Therefore, it will not change the
existing configuration of the structures on the lot and will minimize the amount of disturbance on
the lot. The proposed location was previously used for a stable and access to the stable. Thus, the
project causes minimal impact to the previously disturbed site. Even with the additional grading,
the project complies with the code requirement as to disturbance on the lot.
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste
and Substances Sites List.
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. The
zoning code requires a minimum of a two-car garage. The construction of the mixed use structure
allows the Applicants the ability to meet this requirement. Construction of the mixed use structure
in the front yard, allows the Applicants to minimize the amount of grading on the lot. Even with
the construction of the mixed use structure, there is sufficient set aside area on the property for a
future stable and corral. Allowing the mixed-use would allow the applicant the same rights to
amenities enjoyed by other residents in the community.
Section 10. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a Variance for a mixed use
structure that projects into the front yard pursuant to RHMC Sections 17.16.210(A)(6) and
17.12.250, for a wall that projects into the front yard pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.190(F), and
for a wall that exceeds five feet in height pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.190(F). The project
432
Resolution No. 1279
proposes to locate a mixed use structure partially in front yard area, to construct a wall that extends
down slope of the driveway into the front yard, and to construct a wall over the maximum 5 foot
limitation along the mixed use structure. The Planning Commission made the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The
lot is unique in that it is a landlocked lot and takes access over another property. It does not front
any street. The existence of two Flood Hazard Areas on the property, one along the front (50 feet
in depth) and one along the rear (40 feet in depth) dictate the determination of the setbacks.
The mixed use structure exceeds the leading edge of the house and thus requires a variance.
The proposed location of the mixed use is the most viable location in that it will cause the least
amount of grading and disturbance on site. The proposed location is where a previous stable was
located. The location of the mixed use structure will preserve nearly all of the existing open space
of the property and afford space for a future stable and corral. The existing pad has existing access
that will be widened to meet vehicular access requirements. Due to the widening of the driveway
to accommodate Fire Department access and vehicular access to the garage, retaining walls will
be needed to stabilize and support the proposed cut and fill. To accommodate the location of the
mixed use structure and widening of the driveway to meet code requirements, one retaining wall
requires projection into the front yard while the other retaining wall requires height above 5 feet.
The walls be screened with landscaping to minimize visual impact to surrounding properties, the
trail, and land conservancy site. The six-foot high walls will be located behind the mixed-use and
will not be seen.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the
property in question;
The mixed use structure location is the most viable location because it is currently a graded
pad with existing access to the site. The mixed-use location will help preserve the natural terrain
of the rest of the site. Relocating the mixed-use at a different location will cause significant grading
due to the natural topography of the site and will result in higher retaining walls and could
potentially cause drainage flow to change. The current location minimizes the heights of the
retaining walls from a few inches to six feet, with the highest points being hidden from view behind
the mixed-use structure. The location of the mixed use structure and location and height of the
retaining walls are necessary to protect the undeveloped portion of the property while allowing the
Applicants to meet code requirements relating to the two-car garage and 20 foot wide driveway.
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
The location of the mixed-use structure in the front yard and into the hillside will protect
the undeveloped portion of the property and will minimize disturbance on site, which provides
benefits to other nearby properties. The retaining walls allow proper access to the mixed use
structure and widening of the driveway. The widening of the driveway to allow proper Fire
Department access in the event of an emergency which will benefit the site and surrounding sites.
The retaining walls will be screened and will not have any adverse impacts to public welfare or
433
Resolution No. 1279
cause injury to the other properties or improvements within the vicinity. The mixed use structure
and retaining walls will be constructed according to the Building Code.
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
The granting of relief from the code will allow the applicant to enjoy the same rights
enjoyed by other residents in the community. Many of the development in the City have approved
mixed-use structures. The garage is required by code to serve the existing residence. In order to
construct the mixed-use structure, Fire and Building Code compliant driveways are needed. To
meet these code requirements, Applicants must construct a wall that projects into the front yard
and a wall that exceeds 5 feet. To minimize visual impact of the walls, Applicants will landscape
the front of the walls to help improve aesthetics.
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
The location of the mixed use structure and location of the wall in the front yard and the
height of the wall above 5 feet allow Applicants to enjoy the same rights as other residents of the
community. The mixed-use structure consisting of a three-car garage and recreation room are
amenities that many residents in the community have on their properties. The two-car garage is a
required by code. The only viable place to have the garage/mixed-use is the proposed location.
The proposed location results in the least disturbance to the site while allowing other required uses
(i.e., the stable and corral) to occur in the future. The retaining walls are necessary to build the
mixed-use structure and to allow access to emergency responders. The natural topography limit
the buildable area on site and the use of the secondary pad allows for minimal disturbance that will
preserve the natural terrain of the site.
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste
and Substances Sites List.
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
The mixed-use structure and required retaining walls comply with the vision of the general
plan. The mixed use structure and walls preserve the rural character of the City. The mixed-use
structure is 1,400 square feet and 13.5 feet in height. The mass and scale of the structure are
consistent with the neighborhood character. Being tucked into the hillside on a lower pad provide
screening from adjacent properties. The retaining walls are required to allow fire access to the
site and vehicular access to the proposed garage. One retaining wall will project into the front
yard and ranges from a few inches to 4 feet high. The second retaining wall ranges from a few
inches to a maximum six feet high. The highest portions of the mixed-use retaining wall will not
be visible because it will be located behind the mixed-use. The visible portions of the walls will
be screened with landscaping. The location of the mixed use will cause the least disturbance to
the natural terrain thus preserving the natural grade and drainage in the area.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings of Resolution 2021-04, the Planning
Commission approved the Site Plan Review for grading of 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic
434
Resolution No. 1279
yards of fill and retaining walls one of which has two sections that are 4 feet high totaling
approximately 140 linear feet and the second of which is a 6-foot high by approximately 64 foot
long wall, a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 1,400 square foot mixed use structure to
contain a 650 square-foot garage and 750 square-foot recreation room, and Variances to locate the
mixed use structure partially in front yard area, to construct a four-foot high wall that extends down
slope of the driveway into the front yard, and to construct a retaining wall over the maximum 5-
foot limitation as part of the mixed use structure subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan, CUP and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the
effective date of approval if grading or construction has not commenced within two years of the
approval as defined in RHMC §§ 17.46.080, 17.42.070, 17.38.070, respectively, unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of those code sections.
B. If any condition of this Resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this
Resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of
written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall
immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required
to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicants cures
the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the
Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that a violation exists or
disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City
Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which
the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing.
The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council
shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council
determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the
Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation
has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline
to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the
violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the
cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at
the Applicant’s request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this
Resolution pursuant to RHMC Chapter 17.58.
C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor
lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements
and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied
with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval.
D. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
Site Plan on file in the City Planning Department dated March 4, 2021 or as may be further
amended and approved by the Los Angeles County Building Department, the City’s Community
Services and Planning Director, or Planning Commission pursuant to Section 17.38.065,
17.42.065, and 17.46.070.
E. The mixed-use structure shall not exceed 1,400 square feet as measured from the
outside walls, and may contain a not to exceed 650 square foot garage and not to exceed 750 square
435
Resolution No. 1279
foot recreation room. The mixed-use structure may not exceed 13.5 feet in height, and is further
subject to the following conditions:
a. Vehicular access to the mixed-use structure shall not occur within an easement or
within twenty-five feet of the side or rear lot line. The vehicular access, past the
main residential access, shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide with roughened surface
for equestrian passage, and a not to exceed 3 foot retaining wall and a 3 foot railing
or three-rail fence along the south side of the driveway.
b. That portion of the structure designed or intended to be used for a garage, shall be
separated by an interior common wall from the portion of the structure used as a
recreational use. The interior common wall shall be constructed in the same manner
as found in attached townhouse construction. No access from the interior of the
portion used for a garage to the interior of the portion used for the other use shall
be permitted;
c. For the portion of the structure intended to be used as a garage, there shall be no
sleeping quarters, occupancy or tenancy, kitchen or kitchen facilities in any portion
of the detached mixed-use structure. However, the following may be allowed in the
recreation room: a sink, microwave, hot plate and under a counter refrigerator.
d. Where the garage or the recreation room as specified on the approved plan is
converted to another use, or if the proportions of any approved use is changed
without required approvals, the permit granting the mixed use structure may be
revoked, pursuant to Chapter 17.58, and the structure shall be removed at the cost
of the property owner.
e. If any conditions of the permit are violated, or if any law, statute or ordinance is
violated, the permit may be revoked and the privileges granted by the permit shall
lapse, provided that the Applicants have been given written notice to cease such
violation and have failed to do so for a period of thirty days, and further provided
that the Applicants have been given an opportunity for a hearing.
F. The driveway shall not exceed 20 feet in width. The wall, which will be constructed
along the western portion of the main driveway, shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any one point
and 140 feet long. The wall, which will be constructed as part of the mixed-use, shall not exceed
6 feet in height at any one point and 64 feet long. If required by the Building and Safety
Department, a rail or other type of fence may be constructed on top of the retaining wall for safety
of cars and pedestrians. In addition to County Building and Safety, access to the project shall be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
G. There shall be a minimum of 8’3” distance from the outer edge of the recreation
room to the top of the slope, for safe passage to the area of a future stable and corral. The retaining
wall behind the structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height and 64 feet in length.
H. There shall be a minimum of 25-foot back up area from the garage portion of the
mixed-use structure.
436
Resolution No. 1279
I. All utility lines serving the mixed-use structure and the residence shall be placed
underground.
J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,257 square feet or 11.0% in conformance
with lot coverage limitations of the Zoning Ordinance.
K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 18,767 square feet
or 25.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations of the Zoning Ordinance.
L. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 28,050 square feet or 37.9%, which
is in conformance with 40% maximum lot disturbance limitations.
M. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,520 square foot building pad shall not
exceed 6,105 square feet or 39.3%. The coverage on the 4,984 square foot garage/stable building
pad shall not exceed 1,850 square feet or 37.4%, which includes the future stable.
N. Grading for this project shall not exceed 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic yards
of fill and shall be balanced on site.
O. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide
an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto as is shown on the plan dated
March 4, 2021.
P. 65% of the demolition and construction materials shall be recycled/diverted. Prior
to granting a final inspection, verification to be submitted to staff regarding the amount of
recycled/diverted material and where it was taken on forms provided by the City. The hauling
company shall obtain a hauling permit and pay the applicable fees. The applicant shall apply for a
Construction and Demolition Debris permit if clearing, grubbing and demolition will take place
prior to issuance of the Final Planning Approval.
Q. Throughout the construction process the easterly property line along the driveway
shall be staked and no construction or grading shall take place beyond the property line.
R. No irrigation or drainage device may be located on a property in such a manner as
to contribute to erosion or in any way adversely affect easements, natural drainage course or a trail.
Drainage for this project shall be approved by the Building and Safety Department.
S. All graded areas shall be landscaped. Landscaping shall be designed using native
plants, shrubs and trees. Any new trees and shrubs planned to be planted in conjunction with this
project shall, at maturity, not be higher than the ridge height of the mixed-use structure. No plants
shall be planted, which would result in a hedge like screen.
T. The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC), and shall be submitted to the City prior to
obtaining a grading permit. .
U. There exists a 50-foot Flood Hazard Area along the southern property line and a
40-foot Hoed Hazard Area along the northern property line on subject property. No construction,
437
Resolution No. 1279
grading, or any other construction activity may take place in these Flood Hazard Areas unless
approved by the Building and Safety Department and other appropriate agencies. There shall be
no dumping of debris, trees, or any other flatters into the canyons and flood hazard areas.
V. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from
wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local
ordinances, and engineering practices.
W. During construction, activities shall conform with air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances, and
engineering practices so that people and property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise,
dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence.
X. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the project
site, but if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the nearby roadway easements,
without blocking access to and over the common driveway to the residences adjacent thereto.
Y. The Applicants shall be responsible for keeping the common access roadway in
good condition during the entire construction process and shall, at their sole expense, make
necessary repairs to the common access roadway should any damage occur during construction of
their project.
Z. During construction, the Applicants shall be required to schedule and regulate
construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM,
Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted,
so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
AA. If an above ground drainage design is utilized, it shall be designed in such a manner
as not to cross over any equestrian trails. Any drainage system shall not discharge water onto a
trail, shall incorporate earth tone colors, including in the design of the dissipater and be screened
from any trail and neighbors views to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the
function of the drain system.
BB. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing
and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FIRE. It is
the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag
warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the
property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher.
CC. The Applicants shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
requirements related to solid waste, drainage, cisterns, and storm water drainage facilities
management and to the City’s Low Impact development Ordinance (LID), if applicable. Further
the Applicants shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a
septic system.
438
Resolution No. 1279
DD. Prior to finaling of the project an “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and
certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the
Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in
compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during
construction, shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan and one hardcopy and one electronic
copy shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of the Final Certificate of
Occupancy.
EE. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any permits.
FF. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety
for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D.
GG. Prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of grading
and/or building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the
final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission
HH. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, Applicant shall execute an
Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the
approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the Resolution against
the Property. Applicants shall be and remain in compliance with all conditions of this permit.
II. Prior to finaling of the project an “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and
certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the
Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in
compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during
construction, shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan.
JJ. The applicant shall comply with the Requirements of the Fire Department for
access, water flow and fire fuel modification prior to issuance of the Building permit.
KK. The conditions of approval enumerated in this Resolution shall be printed on the front
sheet of the development plans and shall be available at the site at all times.
LL. Before construction, Applicants shall clear the property of any dead or alive
tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant.
MM. Applicants shall remove the temporary construction fence on the site and obtain a
permit for a new temporary construction fence pursuant to RHMC Section 17.48.040. Such fence
shall not be placed beyond Applicants’ property line.
NN. Throughout the construction process, no construction shall take place beyond the
property line.
OO. Applicants shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold the City, and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers and
instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus,
439
Resolution No. 1279
and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or
adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively
“Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof
(including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such
Actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning
Law, the Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state, or local
constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought
and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action.
PP. Prior to building plan review submittal, applicants shall provide revised plans showing
location of stable and corral on the mixed use pad.
Section 12. The Appellants claim that the Planning Commission issued the approval of
the mixed-use in error due to post-hoc approval, illegal status of the subject property, mandates of
Resolution No. 1221 and adverse impacts to the Appellants’ property.
Section 13. Based upon the foregoing findings of Planning Commission Resolution No.
2021-04 and the lack of evidence supporting the Appellants’ claim, the City Council finds the
request to appeal Resolution 2021-04 unsubstantiated, adopts the findings of the Planning
Commission in Resolution No. 2021-04, denies the Appeal, and upholds the Planning
Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variances for the mixed
use project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2021.
BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR
ATTEST: JENALY SANDOVAL, CITY CLERK
440
Resolution No. 1279
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1279 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING
AND RETAINING WALLS ABOVE THREE FEET; A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED MIXED-USE STRUCTURE;
VARIANCES TO LOCATE THE MIXED-USE STRUCTURE PARTIALLY
IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AND TO ALLOW A WALL UP TO FOUR
FEET HIGH ALONG THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE FRONT YARD AND A
WALL BEHIND THE PROPOSED MIXED-USE STRUCTURE TO
EXCEED FIVE FEET ON A LOT LOCATED AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD
(LOT 18-3-CH), ROLLING HILLS, CA, (NAKAMURA). PROJECT HAS
BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council on
June 14, 2021 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Officer
JANELY SANDOVAL, CITY CLERK
441
Resolution 2021-04
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS ABOVE THREE FEET; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED MIXED-USE
STRUCTURE; VARIANCES TO LOCATE THE MIXED-USE
STRUCTURE PARTIALLY IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AND TO
ALLOW A WALL UP TO FOUR FEET HIGH ALONG THE DRIVEWAY
INTO THE FRONT YARD AND A WALL BEHIND THE PROPOSED
MIXED-USE STRUCTURE TO EXCEED FIVE FEET ON A LOT
LOCATED AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD (LOT 18-3-CH), ROLLING HILLS,
CA, (NAKAMURA). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Takashi Nakamura
(“Applicants”) with respect to real property located at 24 Cinchring Road (Lot 18-3-CH), Rolling
Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review for grading of 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic yards of
fill and for portions of a driveway retaining wall above three feet high, a Conditional Use Permit
for construction of a 1,400 square foot mixed use structure to contain a 650 square foot garage and
750 square foot recreation room, and Variances to locate the mixed use structure partially in the
front yard area, to construct a four-foot high wall that extends down slope of the driveway into the
front yard, and to construct the rear wall of the mixed use structure over the maximum 5-foot high
limitation.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application at its Adjourned Regular Meeting on March 16, 2021 at 7:30 a.m. and at
its Adjourned Regular Meeting on March 30, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. Notice of the public hearings were
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper on March 5, 2021 and March 19, 2021 for the
March 16, 2021 and March 30, 2021 public hearings, respectively. Notice of the public hearings
were also mailed to all residents within 1000 square feet of 24 Cinchring Road on March 4, 2021
and March 18, 2021 for the March 16, 2021 and March 30, 2021 public hearings, respectively.
Agendas were posted at City Hall and on the City website on March 12, 2021 at 4 PM and March
26, 2021 at 4 PM for the March 16, 2021 and March 30, 2021 public hearings. Evidence was
presented by persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and
the Planning Commission at the public hearings. The Applicants and their representative were in
attendance at the public hearings.
Section 3. In or around 1976, a 3,746 square foot residence with a 600 square foot
attached garage was constructed at 24 Cinchring Road pursuant to architectural plans designed by
the architect C. Hovland. The Applicants submitted an application for a major remodel designed
by architect Charles Belak-Berger to reconstruct the single-family dwelling within the existing
footprint and to construct an 850 square foot addition. On December 3, 2019, Applicants flagged
the entire proposed roof line and addition; the City verified the staking conformed with the plans
442
Resolution 2021-04
underlying the application. That same day, the City notified in writing by regular mail the owners
of property located within one thousand feet of the exterior property line of 24 Cinchring Road of
the proposed project. On December 16, 2019, the City received an objection from the property
owners of the property located at 26 Cinchring Road. The City did not receive any other objections
to the proposed plan. Accordingly, the project qualified for administrative review and did not
warrant review by the Planning Commission. On December 30, 2020, City staff administratively
approved the application for the residential remodel. With the conversion of the attached two-car
garage to living space, Applicants must construct a two-car garage elsewhere on the property.
Section 4. The proposed project has been determined not to have a significant effect
on the environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section
15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor alterations in
the condition of land, including but not limited to grading on land with a slope of less than 10
percent. The grading taking place on the property is on land with a slope of less than 10 percent to
account for the mixed use structure and widening of the driveway to 20 feet which requires two
walls. The proposed project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts
accessory structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. The mixed
use structure will consist of a three car garage and recreation room and qualifies as new
construction of small structures. Further the retaining walls ranging from a few inches up to six
feet in height (one wall has two 4-foot high sections totaling approximately 140 linear feet and
another is six feet high totaling 64 linear feet) qualify as construction of small structures. These
walls are necessary for purposes of construction of the mixed use structure and widening of the
driveway.
Section 4. There exists a 50-foot Flood Hazard Area along the southern property line
and a 40-foot Flood Hazard Area along the northern property line of subject property. Any
construction or grading in these Flood Hazard Areas must be reviewed and approved by the by the
Building and Safety Department and any other appropriate agency.
Section 5. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires Site Plan Review for a project
that proposes grading pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020(A)(1) and walls over three feet high
under RHMC Section 17.16.190(F). The project proposes grading of 390 cubic yards of cut and
390 cubic yards of fill and two walls one of which is up to four feet high in two sections totaling
approximately 140 feet long and the second of which is six feet high by approximately 64 feet
long. The Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan
and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The grading is necessary for the widening of the main driveway to meet Fire Code access
requirements and to access the mixed use structure, including garage required by the Municipal
Code. The Fire Code requires a 20-foot driveway, clear of any horizontal or vertical obstructions,
to accommodate the width and height of a fire truck and its equipment. Grading for the secondary
driveway is required to access the required garage that will serve the existing residence. Due to
the current topography of the lot, a retaining wall ranging from a few inches high to a maximum
443
Resolution 2021-04
of four feet high by approximately 140-feet long will be needed to support and stabilize the
proposed cut and fill for the proposed driveways. A six-foot high by approximately 64-foot long
wall is also needed to retain the soil behind the mixed use structure but will not be visible from
any other propert y. To minimize grading and maximize preservation of the existing terrain, the
proposed mixed-use will be built partially into the hillside in the front yard. The six-foot high by
64-foot long wall will retain the cut portion of the hillside. Variances to locate the mixed use
structure partially in the front yard and to construct a section of a four-foot high wall in the front
yard and the six-foot high by 64-foot long mixed-use retaining wall above the maximum five feet
are the subject of approval in this Resolution.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the
actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot.
The mixed use structure will be located on existing secondary pad where a previous stable
was located. Using an existing pad minimizes potential lot disturbance resulting from grading for
the proposed mixed-use structure. The pad expansion will be kept to a minimum by not exceeding
the required vehicular access requirements. The maximum heights of walls are necessary to
stabilize and support the proposed driveways and vehicular access in front of the garage.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site. The proposed project is located out of sight of the street and will be visible to
one neighbor, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties
in the vicinity.
The site is currently developed with a single family residence and the area surrounding the
residence has been graded in the past to accommodate a pool and stable that have been demolished.
The grading will increase lot disturbance by less than 3%. Disturbance to the existing terrain will
be kept at a minimal by not exceeding code requirements. The grading serves the construction of
the mixed use structure and related driveways. The proposed mixed use is 1,400 square feet with
a maximum height of 13.5 feet and is located on a lower pad than the primary residence and is
tucked into the hillside. The mixed-use is low in profile, and the massing is partially screened by
the hillside from the adjacent neighbors. The front façade of the mixed-use structure will be seen
from the adjacent land conservancy site and trail but is minimally visible from public view due to
being setback from the edge of slope. The walls are necessary to stabilize and support the proposed
driveways and vehicular access in front of the garage and will also be screened by landscaping to
minimize visual impact and improve aesthetics.
D. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent
possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature
trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls).
The site is already developed with a single family residence and has been graded to
accommodate a pool and stable that have been demolished. The location of the mixed-use structure
minimizes lot disturbance by using an existing pad that previously accommodated a stable and will
require minimal grubbing and clearing of the site. The mixed-use structure will be tucked into the
444
Resolution 2021-04
hillside to minimize expansion of the secondary building pad and thus, minimize alteration to the
existing terrain. In addition, the project will be conditioned to use native vegetation that will blend
in with the surrounding area while complying with the Fire Department’s Fuel Modification
requirements. The walls will be screened by native vegetation to minimize its visual impact.
E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize
the amount of grading required to create the building area.
The location of the mixed use was previously graded to accommodate a stable and access
to the stable. The majority of the grading is required to meet emergency access and access to the
required garage. The location of the mixed use structure and required retaining walls have been
designed to minimize disturbance to the natural terrain of the site.
F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow,
unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.
The location of the mixed use was previously graded to accommodate a stable and access
to the stable. The majority of the grading is required to meet emergency access and access to the
required garage. The grading will incorporate water catchment systems to minimize impact to the
hillside. Majority of the site will remain permeable and undisturbed to allow water to penetrate
naturally into the ground. The walls support the location of the mixed use structure and vehicular
access to minimize the amount of grading and redirect drainage flow into an existing drainage
course.
G. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and
supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area
between private and public areas.
The location of the mixed-use structure minimizes lot disturbance by using an existing pad
that previously accommodated a stable and will require minimal grubbing and clearing of the site.
No mature trees will be eliminated as a result of the project. The project will incorporate
landscaping that has been approved by the Fire Department in conformance with its fire fuel
modification standards. The project also incorporates landscaping and planting in front of the
retaining walls to minimize their visual impact.
H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement
of pedestrians and vehicles.
The project will not change the on- and off-site circulation patterns. The location of the
mixed use structure uses existing access that previously provided access to a stable. The access
will be improved to accommodate vehicular access to the required garage. The primary access to
the site will remain in the same location and will be widened to 20 feet to accommodate emergency
fire vehicles. The retaining walls will help guide drivers and pedestrians to different uses located
on the site.
I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is
445
Resolution 2021-04
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15304 (Minor Alterations
to Land) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor alterations in the condition of land,
including but not limited to grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent. The grading taking
place on the property is on land with a slope of less than 10 percent to account for the mixed use
structure and widening of the driveway to 20 feet which requires two walls. The project has been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from
the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts accessory structures including garages,
carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. The mixed use structure and two walls one, of which
has two sections up to 4 feet high totaling 140 feet long and the second of which is a 6 feet high
by 64 feet long, similarly qualify as construction of small structures.
Section 6. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code require a Conditional Use Permit for a
project a mixed use structure pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.040(A)(3) subject to certain
conditions pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.210(A)(6). The project proposes to construct a new
mixed use structure consisting of a 650 square foot detached garage and 750 square foot recreation
room. The Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. That the proposed conditional use (a mixed use structure) is consistent with the
General Plan. The mixed use structure consisting of a 650 square foot detached garage and 750
square foot recreation room is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a permitted use
with a CUP. Although the mixed use structure requires a variance to allow it in the front yard, the
positioning of the mixed use structure will be located where a previous stable was located.
Therefore, it will not change the existing configuration of the structures on the lot and will
minimize the amount of disturbance on the lot. Further, adequate area remains on the property to
construct a stable and corral in the future. Lastly, the proposed structure is tucked into the hillside
at a lower pad elevation than the existing residence thus, it is partially screened by the natural
terrain of the site and additional landscaping will minimize visual impact from public view.
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures. The mixed use structure will be on a
lower pad than the residence and is almost 200 feet from nearby residences so that the structure
will not impact the privacy of surrounding neighbors. Due to the existing development, location,
and configuration of the residence, the Applicants are limited in where a garage could be
constructed. Due to the location of the existing driveway, it is impossible to construct a garage on
the other side of the residence. In addition, the proposed size and height of the mixed use structure
blends in with the scale of the existing development in the neighborhood. The proposed grading
required to construct the mixed-use is minimized by locating the structure on a previously graded
pad and with existing access to the pad.
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed. The mixed use structure is located on the existing
secondary building pad, which is at a lower elevation than the primary building pad. Although the
secondary pad will need to be expanded to accommodate the required vehicle turning radius in
front of the garage, it is the only area that will cause the least disturbance to the natural terrain of
the site. Placing the proposed mixed used in another location will result in significant grading of
446
Resolution 2021-04
the hillside and will most likely require higher retaining walls to support and stabilize the cut and
fill. The current site is already developed with the existing secondary building pad and the existing
access which help minimize grading and allow for shorter walls.
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district. The mixed use structure complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution. Although the mixed use structure
requires a variance to allow it in the front yard, the positioning of a majority of the mixed use
structure will be located where a previous stable was located. Therefore, it will not change the
existing configuration of the structures on the lot and will minimize the amount of disturbance on
the lot. The proposed location was previously used for a stable and access to the stable. Thus, the
project causes minimal impact to the previously disturbed site. Even with the additional grading,
the project complies with the code requirement as to disturbance on the lot.
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste
and Substances Sites List.
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. The
zoning code requires a minimum of a two-car garage. The construction of the mixed use structure
allows the Applicants the ability to meet this requirement. Construction of the mixed use structure
in the front yard, allows the Applicants to minimize the amount of grading on the lot. Even with
the construction of the mixed use structure, there is sufficient set aside area on the property for a
future stable and corral. Allowing the mixed-use would allow the applicant the same rights to
amenities enjoyed by other residents in the community.
Section 7. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a Variance for a mixed use
structure that projects into the front yard pursuant to RHMC Sections 17.16.210(A)(6) and
17.12.250, for a wall that projects into the front yard pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.190(F), and
for a wall that exceeds five feet in height pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.190(F). The project
proposes to locate a mixed use structure partially in front yard area, to construct a wall that extends
down slope of the driveway into the front yard, and to construct a wall over the maximum 5 foot
limitation along the mixed use structure. The Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The
lot is unique in that it is a landlocked lot and takes access over another property. It does not front
any street. The existence of two Flood Hazard Areas on the property, one along the front (50 feet
in depth) and one along the rear (40 feet in depth) dictate the determination of the setbacks.
The mixed use structure exceeds the leading edge of the house and thus requires a variance.
The proposed location of the mixed use is the most viable location in that it will cause the least
amount of grading and disturbance on site. The proposed location is where a previous stable was
located. The location of the mixed use structure will preserve nearly all of the existing open space
of the property and afford space for a future stable and corral. The existing pad has existing access
that will be widened to meet vehicular access requirements. Due to the widening of the driveway
447
Resolution 2021-04
to accommodate Fire Department access and vehicular access to the garage, retaining walls will
be needed to stabilize and support the proposed cut and fill. To accommodate the location of the
mixed use structure and widening of the driveway to meet code requirements, one retaining wall
requires projection into the front yard while the other retaining wall requires height above 5 feet.
The walls be screened with landscaping to minimize visual impact to surrounding properties, the
trail, and land conservancy site. The six-foot high walls will be located behind the mixed-use and
will not be seen.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the
property in question;
The mixed use structure location is the most viable location because it is currently a graded
pad with existing access to the site. The mixed-use location will help preserve the natural terrain
of the rest of the site. Relocating the mixed-use at a different location will cause significant grading
due to the natural topography of the site and will result in higher retaining walls and could
potentially cause drainage flow to change. The current location minimizes the heights of the
retaining walls from a few inches to six feet, with the highest points being hidden from view behind
the mixed-use structure. The location of the mixed use structure and location and height of the
retaining walls are necessary to protect the undeveloped portion of the property while allowing the
Applicants to meet code requirements relating to the two-car garage and 20 foot wide driveway.
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
The location of the mixed-use structure in the front yard and into the hillside will protect
the undeveloped portion of the property and will minimize disturbance on site, which provides
benefits to other nearby properties. The retaining walls allow proper access to the mixed use
structure and widening of the driveway. The widening of the driveway to allow proper Fire
Department access in the event of an emergency which will benefit the site and surrounding sites.
The retaining walls will be screened and will not have any adverse impacts to public welfare or
cause injury to the other properties or improvements within the vicinity. The mixed use structure
and retaining walls will be constructed according to the Building Code.
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
The granting of relief from the code will allow the applicant to enjoy the same rights
enjoyed by other residents in the community. Many of the development in the City have approved
mixed-use structures. The garage is required by code to serve the existing residence. In order to
construct the mixed-use structure, Fire and Building Code compliant driveways are needed. To
meet these code requirements, Applicants must construct a wall that projects into the front yard
and a wall that exceeds 5 feet. To minimize visual impact of the walls, Applicants will landscape
the front of the walls to help improve aesthetics.
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
The location of the mixed use structure and location of the wall in the front yard and the
height of the wall above 5 feet allow Applicants to enjoy the same rights as other residents of the
448
Resolution 2021-04
community. The mixed-use structure consisting of a three-car garage and recreation room are
amenities that many residents in the community have on their properties. The two-car garage is a
required by code. The only viable place to have the garage/mixed-use is the proposed location.
The proposed location results in the least disturbance to the site while allowing other required uses
(i.e., the stable and corral) to occur in the future. The retaining walls are necessary to build the
mixed-use structure and to allow access to emergency responders. The natural topography limit
the buildable area on site and the use of the secondary pad allows for minimal disturbance that will
preserve the natural terrain of the site.
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste
and Substances Sites List.
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
The mixed-use structure and required retaining walls comply with the vision of the general
plan. The mixed use structure and walls preserve the rural character of the City. The mixed-use
structure is 1,400 square feet and 13.5 feet in height. The mass and scale of the structure are
consistent with the neighborhood character. Being tucked into the hillside on a lower pad provide
screening from adjacent properties. The retaining walls are required to allow fire access to the
site and vehicular access to the proposed garage. One retaining wall will project into the front
yard and ranges from a few inches to 4 feet high. The second retaining wall ranges from a few
inches to a maximum six feet high. The highest portions of the mixed-use retaining wall will not
be visible because it will be located behind the mixed-use. The visible portions of the walls will
be screened with landscaping. The location of the mixed use will cause the least disturbance to
the natural terrain thus preserving the natural grade and drainage in the area.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings of this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for grading of 390 cubic yards of cut and 390
cubic yards of fill and retaining walls one of which has two sections that are 4 feet high totaling
approximately 140 linear feet and the second of which is a 6-foot high by approximately 64 foot
long wall, a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 1,400 square foot mixed use structure to
contain a 650 square-foot garage and 750 square-foot recreation room, and Variances to locate the
mixed use structure partially in front yard area, to construct a four-foot high wall that extends down
slope of the driveway into the front yard, and to construct a retaining wall over the maximum 5-
foot limitation as part of the mixed use structure subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan, CUP and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the
effective date of approval if grading or construction has not commenced within two years of the
approval as defined in RHMC §§ 17.46.080, 17.42.070, 17.38.070, respectively, unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of those code sections.
B. If any condition of this Resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this
Resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of
written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall
449
Resolution 2021-04
immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required
to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicants cures
the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the
Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that a violation exists or
disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City
Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which
the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing.
The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council
shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council
determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the
Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation
has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline
to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the
violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the
cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at
the Applicant’s request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this
Resolution pursuant to RHMC Chapter 17.58.
C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor
lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements
and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied
with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval.
D. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
Site Plan on file in the City Planning Department dated March 4, 2021 or as may be further
amended and approved by the Los Angeles County Building Department, the City’s Community
Services and Planning Director, or Planning Commission pursuant to Section 17.38.065,
17.42.065, and 17.46.070.
E. The mixed-use structure shall not exceed 1,400 square feet as measured from the
outside walls, and may contain a not to exceed 650 square foot garage and not to exceed 750 square
foot recreation room. The mixed-use structure may not exceed 13.5 feet in height, and is further
subject to the following conditions:
a. Vehicular access to the mixed-use structure shall not occur within an easement or
within twenty-five feet of the side or rear lot line. The vehicular access, past the
main residential access, shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide with roughened surface
for equestrian passage, and a not to exceed 3 foot retaining wall and a 3 foot railing
or three-rail fence along the south side of the driveway.
b. That portion of the structure designed or intended to be used for a garage, shall be
separated by an interior common wall from the portion of the structure used as a
recreational use. The interior common wall shall be constructed in the same manner
as found in attached townhouse construction. No access from the interior of the
portion used for a garage to the interior of the portion used for the other use shall
be permitted;
450
Resolution 2021-04
c. For the portion of the structure intended to be used as a garage, there shall be no
sleeping quarters, occupancy or tenancy, kitchen or kitchen facilities in any portion
of the detached mixed-use structure. However, the following may be allowed in the
recreation room: a sink, microwave, hot plate and under a counter refrigerator.
d. Where the garage or the recreation room as specified on the approved plan is
converted to another use, or if the proportions of any approved use is changed
without required approvals, the permit granting the mixed use structure may be
revoked, pursuant to Chapter 17.58, and the structure shall be removed at the cost
of the property owner.
e. If any conditions of the permit are violated, or if any law, statute or ordinance is
violated, the permit may be revoked and the privileges granted by the permit shall
lapse, provided that the Applicants have been given written notice to cease such
violation and have failed to do so for a period of thirty days, and further provided
that the Applicants have been given an opportunity for a hearing.
F. The driveway shall not exceed 20 feet in width. The wall, which will be constructed
along the western portion of the main driveway, shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any one point
and 140 feet long. The wall, which will be constructed as part of the mixed-use, shall not exceed
6 feet in height at any one point and 64 feet long. If required by the Building and Safety
Department, a rail or other type of fence may be constructed on top of the retaining wall for safety
of cars and pedestrians. In addition to County Building and Safety, access to the project shall be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
G. There shall be a minimum of 8’3” distance from the outer edge of the recreation
room to the top of the slope, for safe passage to the area of a future stable and corral. The retaining
wall behind the structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height and 64 feet in length.
H. There shall be a minimum of 25-foot back up area from the garage portion of the
mixed-use structure.
I. All utility lines serving the mixed-use structure and the residence shall be placed
underground.
J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,257 square feet or 11.0% in conformance
with lot coverage limitations of the Zoning Ordinance.
K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 18,767 square feet
or 25.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations of the Zoning Ordinance.
L. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 28,050 square feet or 37.9%, which
is in conformance with 40% maximum lot disturbance limitations.
M. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,520 square foot building pad shall not
exceed 6,105 square feet or 39.3%. The coverage on the 4,984 square foot garage/stable building
pad shall not exceed 1,850 square feet or 37.4%, which includes the future stable.
451
Resolution 2021-04
N. Grading for this project shall not exceed 390 cubic yards of cut and 390 cubic yards
of fill and shall be balanced on site.
O. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide
an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto as is shown on the plan dated
March 4, 2021.
P. 65% of the demolition and construction materials shall be recycled/diverted. Prior
to granting a final inspection, verification to be submitted to staff regarding the amount of
recycled/diverted material and where it was taken on forms provided by the City. The hauling
company shall obtain a hauling permit and pay the applicable fees. The applicant shall apply for a
Construction and Demolition Debris permit if clearing, grubbing and demolition will take place
prior to issuance of the Final Planning Approval.
Q. Throughout the construction process the easterly property line along the driveway
shall be staked and no construction or grading shall take place beyond the property line.
R. No irrigation or drainage device may be located on a property in such a manner as
to contribute to erosion or in any way adversely affect easements, natural drainage course or a trail.
Drainage for this project shall be approved by the Building and Safety Department.
S. All graded areas shall be landscaped. Landscaping shall be designed using native
plants, shrubs and trees. Any new trees and shrubs planned to be planted in conjunction with this
project shall, at maturity, not be higher than the ridge height of the mixed-use structure. No plants
shall be planted, which would result in a hedge like screen.
T. The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC), and shall be submitted to the City prior to
obtaining a grading permit. .
U. There exists a 50-foot Flood Hazard Area along the southern property line and a
40-foot Hoed Hazard Area along the northern property line on subject property. No construction,
grading, or any other construction activity may take place in these Flood Hazard Areas unless
approved by the Building and Safety Department and other appropriate agencies. There shall be
no dumping of debris, trees, or any other flatters into the canyons and flood hazard areas.
V. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from
wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local
ordinances, and engineering practices.
W. During construction, activities shall conform with air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances, and
engineering practices so that people and property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise,
dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence.
452
Resolution 2021-04
X. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the project
site, but if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the nearby roadway easements,
without blocking access to and over the common driveway to the residences adjacent thereto.
Y. The Applicants shall be responsible for keeping the common access roadway in
good condition during the entire construction process and shall, at their sole expense, make
necessary repairs to the common access roadway should any damage occur during construction of
their project.
Z. During construction, the Applicants shall be required to schedule and regulate
construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM,
Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted,
so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
AA. If an above ground drainage design is utilized, it shall be designed in such a manner
as not to cross over any equestrian trails. Any drainage system shall not discharge water onto a
trail, shall incorporate earth tone colors, including in the design of the dissipater and be screened
from any trail and neighbors views to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the
function of the drain system.
BB. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing
and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FIRE. It is
the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag
warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the
property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher.
CC. The Applicants shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
requirements related to solid waste, drainage, cisterns, and storm water drainage facilities
management and to the City’s Low Impact development Ordinance (LID), if applicable. Further
the Applicants shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a
septic system.
DD. Prior to finaling of the project an “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and
certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the
Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in
compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during
construction, shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan and one hardcopy and one electronic
copy shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of the Final Certificate of
Occupancy.
EE. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any permits.
FF. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety
for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D.
453
Resolution 2021-04
GG. Prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of grading
and/or building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the
final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission
HH. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, Applicant shall execute an
Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the
approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the Resolution against
the Property. Applicants shall be and remain in compliance with all conditions of this permit.
II. Prior to finaling of the project an “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and
certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the
Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in
compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during
construction, shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan.
JJ. The applicant shall comply with the Requirements of the Fire Department for
access, water flow and fire fuel modification prior to issuance of the Building permit.
KK. The conditions of approval enumerated in this Resolution shall be printed on the front
sheet of the development plans and shall be available at the site at all times.
LL. Before construction, Applicants shall clear the property of any dead or alive
tumbleweed or dead tree, shrub, palm frond or other plant.
MM. Applicants shall remove the temporary construction fence on the site and obtain a
permit for a new temporary construction fence pursuant to RHMC Section 17.48.040. Such fence
shall not be placed beyond Applicants’ property line.
NN. Throughout the construction process, no construction shall take place beyond the
property line.
OO. Applicants shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold the City, and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers and
instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus,
and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or
adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively
“Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof
(including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such
Actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning
Law, the Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state, or local
constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
454
Resolution 2021-04
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought
and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action.
PP. Prior to building plan review submittal, applicants shall provide revised plans showing
location of stable and corral on the mixed use pad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: ELAINE JENG, ACTING CITY CLERK
455
Resolution 2021-04
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2021-04 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND TWO WALLS ABOVE THREE FEET; A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED MIXED-USE STRUCTURE; VARIANCES
TO LOCATE THE MIXED-USE STRUCTURE PARTIALLY IN THE FRONT
YARD AREA AND TO ALLOW A WALL ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND
BEHIND THE PROPOSED MIXED -USE STRUCTURE TO EXCEED FIVE
FEET ON A LOT LOCATED AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD (LOT 18-3-CH),
ROLLING HILLS, CA, (NAKAMURA). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED
TO BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION).
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
March 30, 2021 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Officer
ACTING CITY CLERK
456
457
458
459
460
461
Agenda Item No.: 8.A
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JANELY SANDOVAL, CITY CLERK
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING A PENINSULA CITIES JOINT
LETTER EXPRESSING CONCERNS REGARDING SPECIAL
DIRECTIVE POLICIES IMPACTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
On May 24, 2021, the City Council directed Mayor Pro Tem Jim Black to sign the Peninsula joint letter
on Concerns Regarding Special Directive Policies Impacting Public Safety. Staff reported that at the
time of the City Council's directive, the issue was also discussed at other Peninsula Cities. In light of
this, at the May 24, 2021 meeting, the City Council also directed staff to report on the participation of
other Peninsula Cities on the matter, before the letter is signed.
DISCUSSION:
Staff corresponded with the three other three Peninsula Cities and Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho
Palos Verdes will sign or have signed the joint letter as presented on May 24, 2021. Rolling Hills
Estates may not move forward with the joint letter, but this has not been confirmed by Rolling Hills
Estates staff. Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes have expressed that they like to move
forward with the joint letter without Rolling Hills Estates.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council continue participation in the joint letter with the cities of Palos
Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Three PV Peninsula Cities_Gascon Policy Concerns.docx
462
June 15, 2021 Via Email
The Honorable George Gascón
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
211 West Temple Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: Concerns Regarding Special Directive Policies Impacting Public
Safety
Dear District Attorney Gascón:
The cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, and Rolling Hills are writing
to you today to express our concerns regarding your Special Directive policies which
are negatively impacting public safety.The District Attorney’s Office has a legal and
ethical responsibility to execute laws enacted by voters and the Legislature, to prevent
and prosecute crime,and protect the general public.Your unilaterally-issued Special
Directives undermine the legislative and ballot process and risk the safety of the general
public.
One of the major concerns of our communities is that criminals believe they can commit
certain crimes with impunity under your Special Directives.When deterrence is
undermined, people and businesses are threatened,and their ability to operate and live
within a secure environment is compromised.Moreover, it hinders our public safety
programs with local law enforcement. We ask that you consider the impact of your
policies on the fate of residents, workers, and businesses.
The cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, and Rolling Hills value and
place the highest priority on public safety, with an emphasis on deterring crime and
crime prevention.The issuance of numerous Special Directives and two subsequent
amendments raised a red flag as these directives pose a serious threat to the well-being
and safety of the residents of Los Angeles County and the residents of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula. These directives included the following:
Special Directive 20-06 eliminates cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious
felony, or non-violent felony offense.
Special Directive 20-07 declines or dismisses several misdemeanor charges,
including trespassing, disturbing the peace, criminal threats, drug and
paraphernalia possession, under the influence of controlled substance, public
intoxication, and resisting arrest.
463
District Attorney Gascón
Page 2
Special Directive 20-08 eliminates several sentence enhancements, including the
Three Strikes Law, gang enhancements, and violations of bail.
The Special Directives listed undermine the legislative and ballot initiative process and
risk the safety of the general public. It is of the utmost importance for our cities that
policies which aim to restructure or amend prosecutorial directives are consistent with
state law and issued with reasonable intent and priority to enhance public safety to
protect the general public and victims’ rights. It is imperative the District Attorney’s
Office uphold its duties and responsibilities to appropriately prosecute criminals, based
on the evidence presented and consistent with state law.
We are supportive of policies that protect public safety through mental health and social
services, but these Special Directives instead undermine the ability for crime deterrence
and prevention.
The cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, and Rolling Hills demand
that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office uphold the laws of the state,
whether they were established by the state Legislature or the voters, and demand no
Special Directives be issued which contradict these laws.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria Michael Kemps
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor, City of Palos Verdes Estates
James Black, M.D
Mayor Pro Tem, City of Rolling Hills
cc:L.A. County Board of Supervisors
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Jacki Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
Palos Verdes Estates City Council and City Manager
Rolling Hills City Council and City Manager
Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, L.A. County Sheriff’s Department
Chief Tony Best, Palos Verdes Estates Police Department
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
464
Agenda Item No.: 8.B
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REVIEW OVERALL PROJECT COST ESTIMATES AT 65% DESIGN
PROGRESS FOR TWO LAYOUT OPTIONS FOR THE CITY HALL ADA
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
In December 2019, the City released a Request For Proposal for Architectural and Engineering Design
Services to prepare ADA Improvement Plans for the Rolling Hills City Hall, excluding building exterior
path of travel.
At the January 27, 2020 City Council Meeting, City Council considered and approved a Professional
Services Agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. to prepare Improvement Plans
(ADA and Space Planning).
A kick off meeting with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. was held February 27, 2020.
At the May 26, 2020 City Council Meeting, City Council received a presentation from staff on the
options developed to bring the restrooms up to date and comply with ADA and related codes.
At the July 13, 2020 City Council Meeting, City Council received a presentation from staff with
additional information to the two preferred options including opinions of probable costs of construction.
At this July 13, 2021 City Council Meeting, City Council voted to move forward with the more
economic Option 2 which kept the restrooms in the same location. Option 1 and Option 2 layouts
presented at the July 13, 2020 City Council meeting are attached to this report.
Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. has submitted the 65% plans for City review on March 9,
2021. This submittal incorporated the restroom option selected at the July 13, 2020 City Council
Meeting. The City has reviewed the 65% plans with comments. Before City review comments are
returned to Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. to further develop the plans to 90% design,
Councilmember Jeff Piper noted that the City considered the options with the cost estimate capturing
the cost to improve the restrooms and not the overall project. Councilmember Pieper recommended
that the City Council revisit the restroom options. In response to Councilmember Pieper's suggestion, at
465
the April 12, 2021 meeting, the City Council directed staff to provide a comprehensive project cost
estimate for restroom layout Options 1 and 2.
DISCUSSION:
In July 2020, staff was directed to develop layout Option 2 to design completion. In March 2021,
design development of Option 2 reached 65%. In response to the City Council's directive from the
April 12, 2021 meeting, Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc.was authorized to use budget
dedicated for design of Option 2 to prepare comprehensive project cost estimates for both restroom
options/layouts. To do so, Option 1 needed to be developed to the 65% level to have a project cost
estimate that can be compared to the project cost estimate of Option 2.
Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. estimated that at 65% design completion, the overall project
cost for implementing Option 2 is approximately $784,390. At 65% design completion, the overall
project cost for implementing Option 1 is approximately $952,810. The cost difference between the
two options is approximately $168,420.
Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. estimated that at 10% design completion, the cost estimate to
implement restroom improvements only for Option 2 was $268,660. At 10% design completion, the
cost estimate to implement restroom improvements only for Option 1 was $671,420. The cost
difference between the two restroom improvement options was $402,760.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of implementing the City Hall ADA improvement project is recommended to be budgeted in
the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2021-2022.
Depending on the City Council's direction after reviewing the additional cost estimates, additional
budget may be needed for Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. to complete the design
development to 100% and prepare construction documents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review additional data for the project and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
rolling hills city hall _option1_202006008 Layout1 (1).pdf
rolling hills city hall _option2_202006008d Layout1 (1).pdf
20210519_city hall renovation cost estimate_two options.pdf
20200509_rollinghills_costestimate10.pdf
466
467
468
ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
May 17, 2021
PREPARED BY
FOR
PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING, INC.
Rev 0
469
PACIFIC ARCH & ENG, INC. 0FFICE: 424-3301721 DATE: 05/17/21
NO: 20-06
REV: 1
PROJECT: ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
OWNER: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
CLIENT: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DESIGN TEAM: PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING. INC.
ARCHITECTURAL: PACIFIC ARCH & ENG 310-405-3878
STRUCTURAL: TBD
MECHANICAL: TBD
ELECTRICAL: TBD
ESTIMATING TEAM:
ARCH/STRUCT: RW
PLUMBING: RW
ELECTRICAL: RW
CHECKED BY: JF
ESTIMATE LEVEL:TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ESTIMATE TYPE:OPINION OF COST
PLAN DATE:2021-05-06, 14 PAGES
SPEC DATE:NONE
PROJECT TYPE:ADA & NON-ADA UPGRADES
PROJECT SCOPE:
ESTIMATE BASIS:
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS IS MODERNIZING THEIR CITY HALL BUILDING WITH ADA UPGRADES IN THE RESTROOMS FOR OPTIONS 1 & 2
AND ADDITIONAL NON-ADA UPGRADES IN OTHER AREAS OF THE FACILITY IN OPTION 1 ONLY.
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS DEFINED AS AN “OPINION OF COST” MEANING THAT THE COSTS REFLECTED IN THE ESTIMATE ARE THE
CONSIDERED OPINION OF THE ESTIMATOR BASED ON THE CURRENT COSTS OF MATERIAL AND LABOR, UPON INFORMATION
AVAILABLE IN PUBLISHED REFERENCE SOURCES, HISTORICAL COST DATA, CLIENT OR VENDOR PROVIDED COST DATA AND THE
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ESTIMATOR. THE FINAL COST OF THE PROJECT MAY VARY FROM THE ESTIMATOR’S “OPINION OF COST”
BASED ON FACTORS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ESTIMATOR SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE NUMBER OF GENERAL
CONTRACTORS AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE BID PROCESS; SUDDEN CHANGES IN NATIONAL AND LOCAL
MARKET CONDITIONS; THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL ECONOMY; AND DECISIONS MADE BY THE CLIENT.
Page 1 of 3 470
PACIFIC ARCH & ENG, INC. 0FFICE: 424-3301721 DATE: 05/17/21
NO: 20-06
REV: 1
COMPETITIVE BIDDING:
ESCALATION:
WAGE RATES:
WORK SCOPE CHANGES:
PHASES:NONE
PRORATES: AREA SF: GSF
GENERAL CONDITIONS:25.0%ADA AREAS 0
DESIGN CONTINGENCY:25.0%NON-ADA AREAS 0
ESCALATION:6.0%
INSURANCE & BONDS:1.2%
OVERHEAD & PROFIT:25.0%TOTAL BUILDING AREA 0
ESCALATION:
ESCALATION (9 MONTHS TO MPC AT 3.5% P/A)
ESCALATION PER YEAR:6.0%
ESTIMATE DATE:05/17/21
START DATE:01/15/22 CONST. LEN: 6.0 MONTHS
FINISH DATE:07/15/22 MID-POINT: 12.0 MONTHS
THE PRICES IN THIS ESTIMATE ARE BASED ON COMPETITIVE BIDDING. COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS RECEIVING RESPONSIVE BIDS FROM AT
LEASTFIVEORMOREGENERALCONTRACTORSANDTHREEORMORERESPONSIVEBIDSFROMMAJORSUBCONTRACTORSOR
TRADES. MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS ARE CONCRETE, MASONRY, STRUCTURAL STEEL, FRAMING, ROOFING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING
AND ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTORS AND ANY OTHER MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT.
WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING, CONTRACTOR BIDS CAN AND HAVE RANGED FROM 25% TO 100% AND MORE OVER THE PRICES IN
THIS ESTIMATE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE JOB. WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING, CONTRACTOR BIDS CAN RANGE AS LOW AS 25%
BELOW THE PRICES IN THIS ESTIMATE BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.
ESCALATION IS BASED ON 3.5% PER YEAR AND CARRIED FROM THE ESTIMATE DATE TO THE MID-POINT OF CONSTRUCTION. ONE
MAJOR FACTOR IN ESCALATION IS INFLATION AND WE MAY BE IN A PERIOD WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR EXTREME INFLATIONARY
PRESSURES. THERE ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES TO DETERMINE HOW ESCALATION WILL IMPACT ANY SPECIFIC PROJECT. THERE MAY
ONLY BE NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT OR IT MAY BE GREATER THAN PREDICTED.
THIS OPINION OF COST IS BASED ON MARKET WAGE-RATES & CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY APPLICABLE PREVAILING WAGES IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY.
THE USER IS CAUTIONED THAT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, OR ALTERATIONS TO THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS
AFTER COMPLETION OF THIS OPINION OF COST ESTIMATE CAN CAUSE MAJOR COST CHANGES. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, TEAM
SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AND AN APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO THIS OPINION OF COST ESTIMATE.
Page 2 of 3 471
PACIFIC ARCH & ENG, INC. 0FFICE: 424-3301721 DATE: 05/17/21
NO: 20-06
REV: 1
SUPPLIER PROVIDED QUOTES & OTHER CONTACTS:
NONE
GENERAL EXCLUSIONS (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED):
1. ARCHITECTURAL FEES, ENGINEERING FEES & OTHER SOFT COSTS.
2. THE COST OF LAND & EASEMENT ACQUISITION.
3. ASSESSMENTS, TAXES, FINANCE, LEGAL & DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.
4. COMPRESSION OF SCHEDULE & PREMIUM OR SHIFT WORK.
5. RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONTRACTOR'S WORKING HOURS.
6. BUILDER'S RISK, PROJECT WRAP-UP & OTHER OWNER PROVIDED INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
7. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN & LEED REQUIREMENTS.
8. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL HANDLING, DISPOSAL & ABATEMENT.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION.
10. OWNER SUPPLIED & INSTALLED FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT.
11. LOOSE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED.
Page 3 of 3 472
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:PROJECT SUMMARY ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
REV: 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
TAB DESCRIPTION ADJ SF UNIT COST TOTAL
PROJECT SUMMARY
OPT 1 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS 3,100 SF $307.36 952,810$
OPT 2 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS 2,590 SF $302.85 784,390$
DELTA 168,420$
SPECULATIVE BID RANGE FORECAST
BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR BIDDER PARTICIPATION LEVELS
% OPTION 1 OPTION 2
1 - 2 GC BIDDERS 100% 1,905,620$ 1,568,780$
2 - 3 GC BIDDERS 75% 1,667,420$ 1,372,690$
3 - 4 GC BIDDERS 50% 1,429,220$ 1,176,590$
4 - 5 GC BIDDERS 25% 1,191,020$ 980,490$
5 - 6 GC BIDDERS 0% 952,810$ 784,390$
6 - 7 GC BIDDERS -5% 905,170$ 745,180$
7 - 8 GC BIDDERS -10% 857,530$ 705,960$
8 - 9 GC BIDDERS -15% 809,890$ 666,740$
10 + GC BIDDERS -20% 762,250$ 627,520$
NOTE: THE BASIC CONCEPT IS THAT HISTORICALLY WITH FEWER GC BIDDERS PRICES WILL
GENERALLY RISE AND WITH MORE GC BIDDERS PRICES WILL GENERALLY FALL.
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf (F-86) Page 1 of 1
473
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 3,100
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
OPTION 1
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN PRORATES - NONE
2.10 SITEWORK 5.1% 8.55 26,500
2.20 DEMOLITION 5.7% 9.57 29,670
3.10 CONCRETE 4.8% 8.04 24,910
6.10 CARPENTRY 11.3% 18.98 58,850
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS 12.7% 21.37 66,250
9.10 FINISHES 16.4% 27.55 85,420
9.50 TILE 4.6% 7.72 23,930
10.10 SPECIALTIES 1.6% 2.72 8,430
15.10 PLUMBING 7.1% 11.94 37,000
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION 0.9% 1.50 4,650
15.30 HVAC 11.9% 20.00 62,000
16.10 ELECTRICAL 17.9% 30.00 93,000
TOTAL DIRECT COST $167.94 520,610$
PRORATES
GENERAL CONDITIONS 20.0% 104,130
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 25.0% 130,160
ESCALATION 6.0% 31,240
SUBTOTAL $253.59 786,140$
CONTRACTOR BURDENS
BONDS 1.2% 9,440
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 20.0% 157,230
OPTION 1 - TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $307.36 952,810$
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 1 of 6 474
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 3,100
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS
See Prorates Above. 0.00 -
-
SUBTOTAL 1.10 $0.00 SF NONE
2.10 SITEWORK
Reroute (e) Sewer Line, 4" 165 LF 100.00 16,500
Restore Landscaping & Hardscape (Allowance) 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
-
SUBTOTAL 2.10 $8.55 SF 26,500
2.20 DEMOLITION
Mass Demolition Areas (Per SF Allowance) 250 SF 10.00 2,500
Power & Data Trench, 18"w 41 LF 50.00 2,050
Demo for New Restroom Concrete 224 SF 10.00 2,240
Demo Flooring Only (Per SF Allowance) 2,976 SF 5.00 14,880
Haul & Disposal Fees (Allowance) 1 LS 5,500.00 5,500
Sawcutting (Allowance) 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500
-
SUBTOTAL 2.20 $9.57 SF 29,670
3.10 CONCRETE
New Restroom Sloping Concrete & Substrate 224 SF 35.00 7,840
Float & Level Previous Restroom Floor 70 SF 10.00 700
Concrete Curb, 6" 96 LF 65.00 6,240
Power & Data Trench, 18"w 41 LF 125.00 5,130
Misc. Concrete Work (Allowance) 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
-
SUBTOTAL 3.10 $8.04 SF 24,910
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 2 of 6
475
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 3,100
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
6.10 CARPENTRY
Rough Carpentry
Wood Framed Walls, 2x4 x 134 lf 1,340 SF 20.00 26,800
Wood Framed Furr Walls, 2x4 x 54 lf 540 SF 20.00 10,800
Reframe (e) Door Openings 14 EA 500.00 7,000
Finish Carpentry
Lobby Reception Desk 10 LF 650.00 6,500
Misc. Finish Carpentry (Per SF Allowance) 3,100 SF 2.50 7,750
-
SUBTOTAL 6.10 $18.98 SF 58,850
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS
Doors, Frames & Std Hardware
New Interior Doors, SC Wood, 3'x7' 9 EA 3,250.00 29,250
New Exterior Doors, SC Wood, 3'x7' 4 EA 3,250.00 13,000
New Exterior Doors, SC Wood, 6'x7' 1 PR 6,000.00 6,000
Includes Frames & Standard Hardware
Additional Hardware
Panic Hardware 5 EA 1,500.00 7,500
Self Closers 14 EA 750.00 10,500
-
SUBTOTAL 8.10 $21.37 SF 66,250
9.10 FINISHES
Wall Finishes
Stucco, Exterior, 3 Coats 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
Gypboard, Walls, Type X, 5/8" 3,220 SF 5.00 16,100
Insulation/Sound Batts 1,880 SF 2.50 4,700
Misc. Patch & Repair (Per SF Allowance) 3,100 SF 2.50 7,750
Walls include gypboard, sound batts & paint.
Flooring
Carpet Tiles 2,536 SF 10.00 25,360
Vinyl Base, 4" 670 LF 7.50 5,030
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 3 of 6
476
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 3,100
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
Ceilings
Acoustic Ceiling Tile, 2x4 1,060 SF 7.50 7,950
Gypboard, Ceilings, Type X, 5/8" 230 SF 5.00 1,150
Painting
Painting, Walls, 3 Coats 3,220 SF 2.50 8,050
Painting, Ceilings, 3 Coats 230 SF 2.50 580
Paint/Stain Doors 15 EA 150.00 2,250
Misc. Additional Painting (Allowance) 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500
-
SUBTOTAL 9.10 $27.55 SF 85,420
9.50 TILE
Restrooms
Ceramic Tile, Floor 224 SF 25.00 5,600
Ceramic Tile, Wainscot, 4' 336 SF 30.00 10,080
Lobby
Ceramic Tile, Floor 216 SF 25.00 5,400
Ceramic Tile, Base 95 LF 30.00 2,850
-
SUBTOTAL 9.50 $7.72 SF 23,930
10.10 SPECIALTIES
Toilet Partitions & Accessories
Toilet Partition, ADA 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500
Toilet Partition, Door & Panel 1 EA 500.00 500
Coat Hooks 3 EA 75.00 230
Grab Bar Sets 2 EA 350.00 700
Mirrors 3 EA 120.00 360
Paper Towel Dispenser & Waste Combo 2 EA 750.00 1,500
Seat Cover Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Soap Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Toilet Paper Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
General Building Specialties
Corner Guards 8 EA 75.00 600
Markerboards, 6'x4' 1 EA 600.00 600
TV Wall Mounting Bracket 1 EA 750.00 750
Misc. General Building Specialties (Allowance) 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000
-
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 4 of 6 477
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 3,100
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
SUBTOTAL 10.10 $2.72 SF 8,430
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 5 of 6
478
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 3,100
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
15.10 PLUMBING
Toilets 3 EA 2,500.00 7,500
Urinals 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500
Lavatories 3 EA 1,000.00 3,000
Plumbing Rough-Ins 7 EA 3,500.00 24,500
Sterilization & Testing 1 LS 1,000.00 500
-
SUBTOTAL 15.10 $11.94 SF 37,000
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION
Adjust Sprinkler Heads (Per SF Allowance) 3,100 SF 1.50 4,650
-
SUBTOTAL 15.20 $1.50 SF 4,650
15.30 HVAC
Reconfigure Existing HVAC (Per SF Allowance) 3,100 SF 20.00 62,000
-
SUBTOTAL 15.30 $20.00 SF 62,000
16.10 ELECTRICAL
Reconfigure Existing Electrical (Per SF Allowance) 3,100 SF 30.00 93,000
-
SUBTOTAL 16.10 $30.00 SF 93,000
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 6 of 6
479
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 2,590
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
OPTION 2
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN PRORATES - NONE
2.10 SITEWORK 0.0% - NONE
2.20 DEMOLITION 6.1% 9.33 24,170
3.10 CONCRETE 5.1% 7.83 20,290
6.10 CARPENTRY 12.4% 19.15 49,600
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS 11.7% 18.07 46,800
9.10 FINISHES 16.5% 25.31 65,560
9.50 TILE 4.2% 6.51 16,870
10.10 SPECIALTIES 1.2% 1.83 4,730
15.10 PLUMBING 9.3% 14.29 37,000
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION 1.0% 1.50 3,890
15.30 HVAC 13.0% 20.00 51,800
16.10 ELECTRICAL 19.5% 30.00 77,700
TOTAL DIRECT COST $153.83 398,410$
PRORATES
GENERAL CONDITIONS 25.0% 99,610
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 25.0% 99,610
ESCALATION 6.0% 23,910
SUBTOTAL $239.98 621,540$
CONTRACTOR BURDENS
BONDS 1.2% 7,460
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 25.0% 155,390
OPTION 2 - TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $302.85 784,390$
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 1 of 5
480
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 2,590
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS
See Prorates Above. 0.00 -
-
SUBTOTAL 1.10 $0.00 SF NONE
2.10 SITEWORK
None -
-
SUBTOTAL 2.10 $0.00 SF NONE
2.20 DEMOLITION
Mass Demolition Areas (Per SF Allowance) 250 SF 10.00 2,500
Power & Data Trench, 18"w 41 LF 50.00 2,050
Demo for New Restroom Concrete 260 SF 10.00 2,600
Demo Flooring Only (Per SF Allowance) 2,264 SF 5.00 11,320
Haul & Disposal Fees (Allowance) 1 LS 4,700.00 4,700
Sawcutting (Allowance) 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000
-
SUBTOTAL 2.20 $9.33 SF 24,170
3.10 CONCRETE
New Restroom Sloping Concrete & Substrate 186 SF 35.00 6,510
Concrete Curb, 6" 110 LF 65.00 7,150
Power & Data Trench, 18"w 41 LF 125.00 5,130
Misc. Concrete Work (Allowance) 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500
-
SUBTOTAL 3.10 $7.83 SF 20,290
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 2 of 5
481
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 2,590
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
6.10 CARPENTRY
Rough Carpentry
Wood Framed Walls, 2x4 x 80 lf 800 SF 20.00 16,000
Wood Framed Furr Walls, 2x4 x 38 lf 380 SF 20.00 7,600
Finish Carpentry
Lobby Reception Desk 9 LF 650.00 5,850
Coffee Break, Base Cab 9 LF 450.00 4,050
Coffee Break, Wall Cab 9 LF 350.00 3,150
Misc. Finish Carpentry (Per SF Allowance) 2,590 SF 5.00 12,950
-
SUBTOTAL 6.10 $19.15 SF 49,600
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS
New Interior Doors, SC Wood, 3'x7' 13 EA 3,600.00 46,800
Includes Frames & Standard Hardware
-
SUBTOTAL 8.10 $18.07 SF 46,800
9.10 FINISHES
Wall Finishes
Stucco, Exterior, 3 Coats 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
Gypboard, Type X, 5/8" 1,980 SF 5.00 9,900
Insulation/Sound Batts 1,180 SF 2.50 2,950
Misc. Patch & Repair (Per SF Allowance) 2,590 SF 2.50 6,480
Walls include gypboard, sound batts & paint.
Flooring
Carpet Tiles 2,264 SF 10.00 22,640
Vinyl Base, 4" 530 LF 7.50 3,980
Ceilings
Suspended/Framed' Gypboard Ceiling 242 SF 20.00 4,840
Gypboard, Ceilings, Type X, 5/8" 242 SF 2.50 610
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 3 of 5
482
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 2,590
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
Painting
Painting, Walls, 3 Coats 1,980 SF 2.50 4,950
Painting, Ceilings, 3 Coats 242 SF 2.50 610
Paint/Stain Doors 13 EA 200.00 2,600
Misc. Additional Painting (Allowance) 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000
-
SUBTOTAL 9.10 $25.31 SF 65,560
9.50 TILE
Restrooms
Ceramic Tile, Floor 190 SF 25.00 4,750
Ceramic Tile, Wainscot, 4' 404 SF 30.00 12,120
-
SUBTOTAL 9.50 $6.51 SF 16,870
10.10 SPECIALTIES
Toilet Accessories
Coat Hooks 3 EA 75.00 230
Grab Bar Sets 2 EA 350.00 700
Mirrors 3 EA 120.00 360
Paper Towel Dispenser & Waste Combo 3 EA 750.00 2,250
Seat Cover Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Soap Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Toilet Paper Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
General Building Specialties
Misc. General Building Specialties (Allowance) 1 LS 500.00 500
-
SUBTOTAL 10.10 $1.83 SF 4,730
15.10 PLUMBING
Toilets 3 EA 2,500.00 7,500
Urinals 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500
Lavatories 3 EA 1,000.00 3,000
Plumbing Rough-Ins 7 EA 3,500.00 24,500
Sterilization & Testing 1 LS 500.00 500
-
SUBTOTAL 15.10 $14.29 SF 37,000
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 4 of 5
483
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - OFFICES, PUBLIC AREAS & RESTROOMS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/17/21
ADJUSTED GSF: 2,590
REV 0
TWO OPTIONS COMPARISION
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION
Adjust Sprinkler Heads (Per SF Allowance) 2,590 SF 1.50 3,890
-
SUBTOTAL 15.20 $1.50 SF 3,890
15.30 HVAC
Reconfigure Existing HVAC (Per SF Allowance) 2,590 SF 20.00 51,800
-
SUBTOTAL 15.30 $20.00 SF 51,800
16.10 ELECTRICAL
Reconfigure Existing Electrical (Per SF Allowance) 2,590 SF 30.00 77,700
-
SUBTOTAL 16.10 $30.00 SF 77,700
5/19/2021 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 20% SD Estimate Rev 0 Options 1&2_jf Page 5 of 5
484
ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
May 9, 2020
20-06
PREPARED BY
PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING, INC.
HERMOSA BEACH, CA
Rev 0
RHWCC JOB NUMBER:
485
PACIFIC ARCH & ENG, INC.0FFICE: 310-698-8711 DATE: 05/09/20
2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 218 RHW NO: 20-06
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REV: 0
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
OWNER:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DESIGN TEAM:PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING. INC.
ARCHITECTURAL: PACIFIC ARCH & ENG
STRUCTURAL:TBD
MECHANICAL:TBD
ELECTRICAL:TBD
ESTIMATING TEAM:
ARCH/STRUCT: RW
PLUMBING:RW
ELECTRICAL:RW
CHECKED BY:JFH
ESTIMATE LEVEL:10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE TYPE:OPINION OF COST
PLAN DATE:2020-05-06, 3 PAGES
SPEC DATE:NONE
PROJECT TYPE:ADA & NON-ADA UPGRADES
PROJECT SCOPE:
ESTIMATE BASIS:
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS IS MODERNIZING THEIR CITY HALL BUILDING WITH ADA UPGRADES
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS DEFINED AS AN “OPINION OF COST” MEANING THAT THE COSTS REFLECTED IN THE ESTIMATE ARE THE
CONSIDERED OPINION OF THE ESTIMATOR BASED ON THE CURRENT COSTS OF MATERIAL AND LABOR, UPON INFORMATION
AVAILABLE IN PUBLISHED REFERENCE SOURCES, HISTORICAL COST DATA, CLIENT OR VENDOR PROVIDED COST DATA AND THE
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ESTIMATOR. THE FINAL COST OF THE PROJECT MAY VARY FROM THE ESTIMATOR’S “OPINION OF COST”
BASED ON FACTORS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ESTIMATOR SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE NUMBER OF GENERAL
CONTRACTORS AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE BID PROCESS; SUDDEN CHANGES IN NATIONAL AND LOCAL
MARKET CONDITIONS; THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL ECONOMY; AND DECISIONS MADE BY THE CLIENT.
Page 1 of 3 486
PACIFIC ARCH & ENG, INC.0FFICE: 310-698-8711 DATE: 05/09/20
2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 218 RHW NO: 20-06
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REV: 0
COMPETITIVE BIDDING:
ESCALATION:
WAGE RATES:
WORK SCOPE CHANGES:
PHASES:NONE
PRORATES: AREA SF: GSF
GENERAL CONDITIONS:25.0%ADA AREAS 0
DESIGN CONTINGENCY:35.0%NON-ADA AREAS 0
ESCALATION:2.1%
INSURANCE & BONDS:1.2%
OVERHEAD & PROFIT:25.0%TOTAL BUILDING AREA 0
ESCALATION:
ESCALATION (9 MONTHS TO MPC AT 3.5% P/A)
ESCALATION PER YEAR:3.5%
ESTIMATE DATE:05/09/20
START DATE:09/01/20 CONST. LEN: 6.0 MONTHS
FINISH DATE:03/01/21 MID-POINT: 7.0 MONTHS
THE PRICES IN THIS ESTIMATE ARE BASED ON COMPETITIVE BIDDING. COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS RECEIVING RESPONSIVE BIDS FROM AT
LEASTFIVEORMOREGENERALCONTRACTORSANDTHREEORMORERESPONSIVEBIDSFROMMAJORSUBCONTRACTORSOR
TRADES. MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS ARE CONCRETE, MASONRY, STRUCTURAL STEEL, FRAMING, ROOFING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING
AND ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTORS AND ANY OTHER MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT.
WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING, CONTRACTOR BIDS CAN AND HAVE RANGED FROM 25% TO 100% AND MORE OVER THE PRICES IN
THIS ESTIMATE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE JOB. WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING, CONTRACTOR BIDS CAN RANGE AS LOW AS 25%
BELOW THE PRICES IN THIS ESTIMATE BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.
ESCALATION IS BASED ON 3.5% PER YEAR AND CARRIED FROM THE ESTIMATE DATE TO THE MID-POINT OF CONSTRUCTION. ONE
MAJOR FACTOR IN ESCALATION IS INFLATION AND WE MAY BE IN A PERIOD WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR EXTREME INFLATIONARY
PRESSURES. THERE ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES TO DETERMINE HOW ESCALATION WILL IMPACT ANY SPECIFIC PROJECT. THERE MAY
ONLY BE NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT OR IT MAY BE GREATER THAN PREDICTED.
THIS OPINION OF COST IS BASED ON MARKET WAGE-RATES & CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY APPLICABLE PREVAILING WAGES IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY.
THE USER IS CAUTIONED THAT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, OR ALTERATIONS TO THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS
AFTER COMPLETION OF THIS OPINION OF COST ESTIMATE CAN CAUSE MAJOR COST CHANGES. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, RHWCC
SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AND AN APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO THIS OPINION OF COST ESTIMATE.
Page 2 of 3 487
PACIFIC ARCH & ENG, INC.0FFICE: 310-698-8711 DATE: 05/09/20
2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 218 RHW NO: 20-06
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REV: 0
SUPPLIER PROVIDED QUOTES & OTHER CONTACTS:
NONE
GENERAL EXCLUSIONS (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED):
1.ARCHITECTURAL FEES, ENGINEERING FEES & OTHER SOFT COSTS.
2.THE COST OF LAND & EASEMENT ACQUISITION.
3.ASSESSMENTS, TAXES, FINANCE, LEGAL & DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.
4.COMPRESSION OF SCHEDULE & PREMIUM OR SHIFT WORK.
5.RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONTRACTOR'S WORKING HOURS.
6.BUILDER'S RISK, PROJECT WRAP-UP & OTHER OWNER PROVIDED INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
7.SUSTAINABLE DESIGN & LEED REQUIREMENTS.
8.H AZARDOUS MATERIAL HANDLING, DISPOSAL & ABATEMENT.
9.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION.
10.OWNER SUPPLIED & INSTALLED FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT.
11.LOOSE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED.
Page 3 of 3 488
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:PROJECT SUMMARY ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
REV: 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
TAB DESCRIPTION ADJ SF UNIT COST TOTAL
PROJECT SUMMARY
OPTION 1 - RESTROOMS & RECONFIGURATION 1,390 SF $483.04 671,420$
OPTION 2 - RESTROOMS 260 SF $1,033.31 268,660$
SPECULATIVE BID RANGE FORECAST
BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR BIDDER PARTICIPATION LEVELS
%OPTION 1 OPTION 2
1 - 2 GC BIDDERS 100%1,342,840$ 537,320$
2 - 3 GC BIDDERS 75%1,174,990$ 470,160$
3 - 4 GC BIDDERS 50%1,007,130$ 402,990$
4 - 5 GC BIDDERS 25%839,280$ 335,830$
5 - 6 GC BIDDERS 0%671,420$ 268,660$
6 - 7 GC BIDDERS -5%637,850$ 255,230$
7 - 8 GC BIDDERS -10%604,280$ 241,800$
8 - 9 GC BIDDERS -15%570,710$ 228,370$
10 + GC BIDDERS -20%537,140$ 214,930$
NOTE: THE BASIC CONCEPT IS THAT HISTORICALLY WITH FEWER GC BIDDERS PRICES WILL
GENERALLY RISE AND WITH MORE GC BIDDERS PRICES WILL GENERALLY FALL.
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 (F-86)Page 1 of 1 489
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - RESTROOMS & MISC. AREAS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 1,390
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM #DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
OPTION 1
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN PRORATES - NONE
2.10 SITEWORK 7.1% 17.99 25,000
2.20 DEMOLITION 8.2% 20.86 28,990
3.10 CONCRETE 5.5% 13.95 19,390
6.10 CARPENTRY 7.5% 19.05 26,480
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS 10.9% 27.68 38,480
9.10 FINISHES 18.8% 47.68 66,280
9.50 TILE 4.4% 11.28 15,680
10.10 SPECIALTIES 2.4% 6.06 8,430
15.10 PLUMBING 10.5% 26.62 37,000
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION 1.0% 2.50 3,480
15.30 HVAC 9.9% 25.00 34,750
16.10 ELECTRICAL 13.8% 35.00 48,650
TOTAL DIRECT COST $253.68 352,610$
PRORATES
GENERAL CONDITIONS 20.0%70,530
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 35.0%123,420
ESCALATION 2.1%7,410
SUBTOTAL $398.54 553,970$
CONTRACTOR BURDENS
BONDS 1.2%6,650
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 20.0%110,800
OPTION 1 - TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $483.04 671,420$
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 1 of 5 490
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - RESTROOMS & MISC. AREAS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 1,390
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM #DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS
See Prorates Above. 0.00 -
-
SUBTOTAL 1.10 $0.00 SF NONE
2.10 SITEWORK
Sewer Line, 4"150 LF 100.00 15,000
Restore Landscaping & Hardscape (Allowance)1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
-
SUBTOTAL 2.10 $17.99 SF 25,000
2.20 DEMOLITION
Mass Demolition Areas (Per SF Allowance)1,200 SF 15.00 18,000
Demo for New Restroom Concrete 224 SF 10.00 2,240
Demo Flooring Only (Per SF Allowance)190 SF 5.00 950
Haul & Disposal Fees (Allowance)1 LS 5,300.00 5,300
Sawcutting (Allowance)1 LS 2,500.00 2,500
-
SUBTOTAL 2.20 $20.86 SF 28,990
3.10 CONCRETE
New Restroom Sloping Concrete & Substrate 224 SF 35.00 7,840
Float & Level Previous Restroom Floor 70 SF 10.00 700
Concrete Curb, 6"90 LF 65.00 5,850
Misc. Concrete Work (Allowance)1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
-
SUBTOTAL 3.10 $13.95 SF 19,390
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 2 of 5 491
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - RESTROOMS & MISC. AREAS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 1,390
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM #DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
6.10 CARPENTRY
Rough Carpentry
Wood Framed Walls, 2x4 1,250 SF 10.00 12,500
Wood Framed Walls, 2x8 200 SF 12.50 2,500
Reframe (e) Door Openings 6 EA 500.00 3,000
Finish Carpentry
Lobby Reception Desk, 10 lf 1 EA 5,000.00 5,000
Misc. Finish Carpentry (Per SF Allowance)1,390 SF 2.50 3,480
-
SUBTOTAL 6.10 $19.05 SF 26,480
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS
New Interior Doors, SC Wood, 3'x7'13 EA 2,960.00 38,480
Includes Frames & Standard Hardware -
-
SUBTOTAL 8.10 $27.68 SF 38,480
9.10 FINISHES
Wall Finishes
New Walls, 2x4 x 125 lf 1,250 SF 20.00 25,000
New Walls, 2x8 x 20 lf 200 SF 25.00 5,000
Misc. Patch & Repair (Per SF Allowance)1,390 SF 2.50 3,480
Walls include gypboard, sound batts & paint.
Flooring
Resilient Flooring 570 SF 10.00 5,700
Carpet Tiles 110 SF 10.00 1,100
Lobby Brick (Remove & Replace)380 SF 20.00 7,600
Vinyl Base, 4"410 LF 7.50 3,080
Ceilings
Acoustic Ceiling Tile, 2x4 1,060 SF 7.50 7,950
Suspended Gypboard Ceiling 224 SF 15.00 3,360
Paint Gypboard Ceiling 224 SF 2.50 560
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 3 of 5 492
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - RESTROOMS & MISC. AREAS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 1,390
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM #DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
Additional Painting
Paint/Stain Doors 13 EA 150.00 1,950
Misc. Additional Painting (Allowance)1 LS 1,500.00 1,500
-
SUBTOTAL 9.10 $47.68 SF 66,280
9.50 TILE
Ceramic Tile, Floor 224 SF 25.00 5,600
Ceramic Tile, Wainscot, 4'336 SF 30.00 10,080
-
SUBTOTAL 9.50 $11.28 SF 15,680
10.10 SPECIALTIES
Toilet Partitions & Accessories
Toilet Partition, ADA 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500
Toilet Partition, Door & Panel 1 EA 500.00 500
Coat Hooks 3 EA 75.00 230
Grab Bar Sets 2 EA 350.00 700
Mirrors 3 EA 120.00 360
Paper Towel Dispenser & Waste Combo 2 EA 750.00 1,500
Seat Cover Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Soap Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Toilet Paper Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
General Building Specialties
Corner Guards 8 EA 75.00 600
Markerboards, 6'x4'1 EA 600.00 600
TV Wall Mounting Bracket 1 EA 750.00 750
Misc. General Building Specialties (Allowance)1 LS 1,000.00 1,000
-
SUBTOTAL 10.10 $6.06 SF 8,430
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 4 of 5 493
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 1 - RESTROOMS & MISC. AREAS ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 1,390
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
15.10 PLUMBING
Toilets 3 EA 2,500.00 7,500
Urinals 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500
Lavatories 3 EA 1,000.00 3,000
Plumbing Rough-Ins 7 EA 3,500.00 24,500
Sterilization & Testing 1 LS 1,000.00 500
-
SUBTOTAL 15.10 $26.62 SF 37,000
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION
Adjust Sprinkler Heads (Per SF Allowance) 1,390 SF 2.50 3,480
-
SUBTOTAL 15.20 $2.50 SF 3,480
15.30 HVAC
Reconfigure Existing HVAC (Per SF Allowance) 1,390 SF 25.00 34,750
-
SUBTOTAL 15.30 $25.00 SF 34,750
16.10 ELECTRICAL
Reconfigure Existing Electrical (Per SF Allowance) 1,390 SF 35.00 48,650
-
SUBTOTAL 16.10 $35.00 SF 48,650
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 5 of 5
494
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - RESTROOMS ONLY ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 260
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM #DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
OPTION 2
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN PRORATES - NONE
2.10 SITEWORK 0.0%- NONE
2.20 DEMOLITION 7.0% 35.38 9,200
3.10 CONCRETE 11.9% 60.04 15,610
6.10 CARPENTRY 4.6% 23.46 6,100
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS 6.8% 34.15 8,880
9.10 FINISHES 12.3% 62.23 16,180
9.50 TILE 13.2% 66.81 17,370
10.10 SPECIALTIES 3.6% 18.19 4,730
15.10 PLUMBING 28.2% 142.31 37,000
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION 0.5% 2.50 650
15.30 HVAC 4.9% 25.00 6,500
16.10 ELECTRICAL 6.9% 35.00 9,100
TOTAL DIRECT COST $505.08 131,320$
PRORATES
GENERAL CONDITIONS 25.0%32,830
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 35.0%45,970
ESCALATION 2.1%2,760
SUBTOTAL $818.77 212,880$
CONTRACTOR BURDENS
BONDS 1.2%2,560
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 25.0%53,220
OPTION 2 - TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,033.31 268,660$
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 1 of 5 495
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - RESTROOMS ONLY ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 260
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
1.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS
See Prorates Above. 0.00 -
-
SUBTOTAL 1.10 $0.00 SF NONE
2.10 SITEWORK
None -
-
SUBTOTAL 2.10 $0.00 SF NONE
2.20 DEMOLITION
Mass Demolition Areas (Per SF Allowance) 260 SF 15.00 3,900
Demo for New Restroom Concrete 260 SF 10.00 2,600
Haul & Disposal Fees (Allowance) 1 LS 1,700.00 1,700
Sawcutting (Allowance) 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000
-
SUBTOTAL 2.20 $35.38 SF 9,200
3.10 CONCRETE
New Restroom Sloping Concrete & Substrate 210 SF 35.00 7,350
Concrete Curb, 6" 104 LF 65.00 6,760
Misc. Concrete Work (Allowance) 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500
-
SUBTOTAL 3.10 $60.04 SF 15,610
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 2 of 5
496
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - RESTROOMS ONLY ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 260
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
6.10 CARPENTRY
Rough Carpentry
Wood Framed Walls, 2x4 120 SF 10.00 1,200
Wood Framed Walls, Dbl 2x4 340 SF 12.50 4,250
Finish Carpentry
Misc. Finish Carpentry (Per SF Allowance) 260 SF 2.50 650
-
SUBTOTAL 6.10 $23.46 SF 6,100
8.10 DOORS & WINDOWS
New Interior Doors, SC Wood, 3'x7' 3 EA 2,960.00 8,880
Includes Frames & Standard Hardware
-
SUBTOTAL 8.10 $34.15 SF 8,880
9.10 FINISHES
Wall Finishes
New Walls, 2x4 x 12 lf 120 SF 20.00 2,400
New Walls, Dbl 2x4 x 34 lf 340 SF 25.00 8,500
Misc. Patch & Repair (Per SF Allowance) 260 SF 2.50 650
Walls include gypboard, sound batts & paint.
Ceilings
Suspended Gypboard Ceiling 210 SF 15.00 3,150
Paint Gypboard Ceiling 210 SF 2.50 530
Additional Painting
Paint/Stain Doors 3 EA 150.00 450
Misc. Additional Painting (Allowance) 1 LS 500.00 500
-
SUBTOTAL 9.10 $62.23 SF 16,180
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 3 of 5
497
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - RESTROOMS ONLY ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 260
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
9.50 TILE
Ceramic Tile, Floor 210 SF 25.00 5,250
Ceramic Tile, Wainscot, 4' 404 SF 30.00 12,120
-
SUBTOTAL 9.50 $66.81 SF 17,370
10.10 SPECIALTIES
Toilet Accessories
Coat Hooks 3 EA 75.00 230
Grab Bar Sets 2 EA 350.00 700
Mirrors 3 EA 120.00 360
Paper Towel Dispenser & Waste Combo 3 EA 750.00 2,250
Seat Cover Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Soap Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
Toilet Paper Dispensers 3 EA 75.00 230
General Building Specialties
Misc. General Building Specialties (Allowance) 1 LS 500.00 500
-
SUBTOTAL 10.10 $18.19 SF 4,730
15.10 PLUMBING
Toilets 3 EA 2,500.00 7,500
Urinals 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500
Lavatories 3 EA 1,000.00 3,000
Plumbing Rough-Ins 7 EA 3,500.00 24,500
Sterilization & Testing 1 LS 500.00 500
-
SUBTOTAL 15.10 $142.31 SF 37,000
15.20 FIRE PROTECTION
Adjust Sprinkler Heads (Per SF Allowance) 260 SF 2.50 650
-
SUBTOTAL 15.20 $2.50 SF 650
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 4 of 5
498
PROJECT:ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL RENOVATIONS RHWCC JOB NO.: 20-06
LOCATION:ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: RW
CLIENT:CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CHECKED BY: JFH
DESCRIPTION:OPTION 2 - RESTROOMS ONLY ESTIMATE DATE: 05/09/20
ADJUSTED GSF: 260
REV 0
10% SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
15.30 HVAC
Reconfigure Existing HVAC (Per SF Allowance) 260 SF 25.00 6,500
-
SUBTOTAL 15.30 $25.00 SF 6,500
16.10 ELECTRICAL
Reconfigure Existing Electrical (Per SF Allowance) 260 SF 35.00 9,100
-
SUBTOTAL 16.10 $35.00 SF 9,100
5/9/2020 Rolling Hills City Hall Renovations 10% SD Estimate Rev 0 pg4 Page 5 of 5
499
Agenda Item No.: 8.C
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER AND APPROVE A PROPOSAL FROM PACIFIC
ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
EMERGENCY POWER SOLUTION TO REPLACE THE NON-WORKING
EMERGENCY STANDBY GENERATOR.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The current emergency standby generator is outdated and no longer functioning properly. Over the past
few years City staff has enlisted several maintenance firms to service the existing generator. The
existing emergency standby generator is at the end of its life cycle and the City is looking to replace the
existing equipment with a new emergency standby generator. Repair activities for the current generator
was presented to the City Council on October 26, 2020. Based on the information provided, the City
Council directed staff to seek professional expertise to assist staff with unit replacement.
At the January 11, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council approved an amended agreement with
Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. to assess the existing standby generator for the City Hall
campus, provide a report on their findings, and discuss options to replace the existing non-working
standby generator. The draft of the Standby Generator Assessment Report was delivered to the City on
April 21, 2021. Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. met with City staff on April 30, 2021 to
review and discuss the report and findings. The Final Report was updated and submitted to the City on
May 5, 2021 and City Staff presented to City Council on May 10, 2021. In summary, The report
identified the parameters and constraints for the replacement standby generator/system Based on review
of the prior 12 months electric bills, determined the existing 75 kw could be replaced with an equivalent
sized system that would sufficient for the current building loads (City Hall and Rolling Hills
Community Association (RHCA) Building). The existing structure housing the generator does not
comply with current code requirements for clearances and has water intrusion with water collecting in
the fuel moat with the potential infiltrate into the electrical system and cause damage. This building
would need to be removed, replaced, or repaired for repurposing. The report provided 3 Options for
consideration and an interim solution: Option 1a: Proposes a new 75 kw Diesel Generator, new code
compliant structure, and possible new electrical components at an estimated total cost of $240,000. This
option would replace the existing facilities in their entirety to comply with all current codes, and would
require permitting through AQMD. Option 1b: Proposes a new 75 kw Diesel Generator and possible
500
new electrical components at an estimated total cost of $150,000. This option would place new
generator outside and would comply with all current codes, and would require permitting through
AQMD. The existing structure could be demolished or repurposed. Cost of removing the existing
structure or repurposing (storage?) is not included in the cost estimate. Option 2: Proposes a Solar PV
System with backup battery/storage for use in an emergency at an estimated total cost of $225,000
(final cost dependent on the size of the PV system and backup storage/battery). No AQMD permits are
required and the Solar PV system would reduce the amount of the electric bill for City Hall and the
RHCA building. Interim Solution: Implementation of any of the options stated above will take a
minimum of 12 months to design, permit and construct. In the interim, the City could elect to lease a
portable generator at a cost of approximately $1,900 per month. This interim solution would also
require improvements to install a connection switch/disconnect for the portable generator to connect to
the building electrical system. This improvement has an estimated cost of $20,000. Proposed Immediate
Actions: The existing generator is not functional, it is recommended to remove this generator and either
demolish/remove the existing building or fill in the fuel most to prevent the possibility of further water
intrusion/collection and the potential for water intrusion into the electrical system.
City Council raised numerous questions about the report during the May 10, 2021 meeting and moved
to continue this item to a future meeting pending responses to questions raised. Pacific Architecture and
Engineering Inc. provided responses to the list of questions generated. The questions and responses
were reviewed and discussed at the May 24, 2021 City Council meeting. At the May 24, 2021 meeting
City Council directed staff to: 1) Pursue the Solar Option to replace the existing Emergency Standby
Generator, and; 2) Consider leasing portable generator to provide emergency standby power until the
Solar option is designed and installed, and; 3) Verify the portable generator could connect to the
existing Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS), and; 4) Remove the existing non-functioning emergency
standby generator, and: 5) Repair the water intrusion problem at the existing generator structure
repaired.
DISCUSSION:
Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. prepared the Emergency Standby Generator assessment
report and has performed significant research in working with the City on the existing emergency
standby generator and the City Hall ADA improvements.
Staff requested a proposal from Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. to provide the design services
required to address the direction provided by City Council and outlined in items 1 through 5 in the last
paragraph in the background section for approximately $59,000. The proposal from Pacific Architecture
and Engineering Inc. is attached to this staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The design fee of $59,000 is recommended to be included in the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc.'s proposal to
design the solar power solution.
ATTACHMENTS:
210210604_Rolling HIlls Solar.pdf
501
Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc.(PAC)
730 Arizona Ave, Santa Monica CA 90401
(424)330-1721
June 4, 2021
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL for Solar Panel Installation and Generator Structure Upgrades
Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc., is pleased to submit this proposal for additional work for the City of
Rolling Hills.
Scope of Work:
The Scope of Work includes bid documents for the installation of a photo voltaic system per the
Generator Assessment Report dated April 19, 2021. The structure that houses the current generator also
requires upgrade and removal of moat and generator. This structure also has extensive water intrusion,
and the waterproofing requires replacement and detailing by a Waterproofing Consultant. The new
solar panels will also require waterproofing details at penetrations at the connections and penetrations
and may require a replacement roof. The Solar Panel connections shall also require a structural engineer
to calculate the loads and connections. Scope of work includes plans, specifications and cost estimate.
FEES:
SCOPE OF WORK TASKS:
Generator Structure
The structure housing the generator has failing waterproofing and needs to be replaced, a
waterproofing consultant will detail this condition to replace the waterproofing.
Determine best way to eliminate moat and prepare Construction Documents.
Roofing
Specification of new roof and waterproofing details for penetrations through roof membrane for Solar
Photovoltaic System.
Solar
Electrical infrastructure for Solar Photovoltaic System.
Provide Calculations for new solar system inverters and equipment.
Determine with City exact configuration of solar panel and prepare layout of location of solar panels
Rolling Hills Solar Panel Installation
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT & COST ESTIMATE 10,316.48$
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS & COST ESTIMATE 34,640.64$
PERMITTING 3,461.66$
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 9,478.64$
Reimbursable 1,000.00$
GRAND TOTAL $58,897.42
502
Solar Equipment
Locate and obtain approval from city for location of solar equipment
Leave room for future battery back up.
Fence around Solar Equipment
Solar equipment will need to be fenced as it is high voltage
Temporary Power
Examine if ATS is in use currently, and discuss with city further decisions for temporary power via a
rented generator.
Solar Panel Structural Load
Calculate structural load of solar panels and detail connection to building
Remove Generator
Include removal of current generator in demo plans
Cost Estimate
Include cost estimate in each phase
*City shall provide survey of surrounding area of building showing grading of area determined by civil
engineer.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer this proposal. If you have any questions please contact me for any
further information you may need at (310)405-3878 or jun@pacific-ae.com
Sincerely,
Jun Fujita Hall, RA, LEED AP BD & C, Lic# C 30954
Principal Project Manager, Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc.
310-405-3878
jun@pacific-ae.com
503
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT & COST ESTIMATE
Project Manager 171.00$ 14 2,394.00$
Senior Engineer II 147.90$ 16 2,366.40$
Designer II 137.33$ 16 2,197.28$
Senior Engineer III 164.22$ 0 -$
Designer III 127.50$ 16 2,040.00$
Engineer II 107.10$ 0 -$
Designer I 86.70$ 0 -$
Engineer I 76.50$ 0 -$
Engineering Aide 56.10$ 0 -$
Landscape Architect VII 137.38$ 0 -$
Project Manager Landscape VII 82.43$ 0 -$
Landscape Drafter VII 71.44$ 0 -$
Sr Principal Engineer IV 236.29$ 0 -$
Sr Engineer IV 186.83$ 0 -$
Sr Project Manager IV 164.85$ 8 1,318.80$
Sr Designer IV 153.86$ 0 -$
Project Engineer IV 148.37$ 0 -$
Project Drafter IV 137.38$ 0 -$
Engineer 131.88$ 0 -$
Drafter IV 131.88$ 0 -$
Clerical IV 60.45$ 0 -$
Engineer Project Manager V 186.83$ 0 -$
Engineer V 153.86$ 0 -$
Designer V 126.39$ 0 -$
Drafter V 93.42$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 208.81$ 0 -$
Engineer PM VI 181.34$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 137.38$ 0 -$
Designer VI 120.89$ 0 -$
Drafter VI 98.91$ 0 -$
Specialists I 159.50$ 0 -$
Specialists II 175.00$ 0 -$
Specialists III 158.00$ 0 -$
Specialist IV 187.00$ 0 -$
Specialist VI 184.00$ 0 -$
SUBTOTAL 10,316.48$
504
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS & COST ESTIMATE
Project Manager 171.00$ 24 4,104.00$
Senior Engineer II 147.90$ 8 1,183.20$
Designer II 137.33$ 32 4,394.56$
Senior Engineer III 164.22$ 0 -$
Designer III 127.50$ 30 3,825.00$
Engineer II 107.10$ 0 -$
Designer I 86.70$ 0 -$
Engineer I 76.50$ 0 -$
Engineering Aide 56.10$ 0 -$
Landscape Architect VII 137.38$ 0 -$
Project Manager Landscape VII 82.43$ 0 -$
Landscape Drafter VII 71.44$ 0 -$
Sr Principal Engineer IV 236.29$ 0 -$
Sr Engineer IV 186.83$ 0 -$
Sr Project Manager IV 164.85$ 0 -$
Sr Designer IV 153.86$ 0 -$
Project Engineer IV 148.37$ 0 -$
Project Drafter IV 137.38$ 12 1,648.56$
Engineer 131.88$ 0 -$
Drafter IV 131.88$ 0 -$
Clerical IV 60.45$ 0 -$
Engineer Project Manager V 186.83$ 40 7,473.20$
Engineer V 153.86$ 42 6,462.12$
Designer V 126.39$ 0 -$
Drafter V 93.42$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 208.81$ 0 -$
Engineer PM VI 181.34$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 137.38$ 0 -$
Designer VI 120.89$ 0 -$
Drafter VI 98.91$ 0 -$
Specialists I 159.50$ 0 -$
Specialists II 175.00$ 0 -$
Specialists III 158.00$ 0 -$
Specialist IV 187.00$ 10 1,870.00$
Specialist VI 184.00$ 20 3,680.00$
0 -$
-$
-$
SUBTOTAL 34,640.64$
505
PERMITTING Hours
Project Manager 171.00$ 8 1,368.00$
Senior Engineer II 147.90$ 0 -$
Designer II 137.33$ 0 -$
Senior Engineer III 164.22$ 0 -$
Designer III 127.50$ 0 -$
Engineer II 107.10$ 0 -$
Designer I 86.70$ 0 -$
Engineer I 76.50$ 0 -$
Engineering Aide 56.10$ 0 -$
Landscape Architect VII 137.38$ 0 -$
Project Manager Landscape VII 82.43$ 0 -$
Landscape Drafter VII 71.44$ 0 -$
Sr Principal Engineer IV 236.29$ 0 -$
Sr Engineer IV 186.83$ 0 -$
Sr Project Manager IV 164.85$ 0 -$
Sr Designer IV 153.86$ 0 -$
Project Engineer IV 148.37$ 0 -$
Project Drafter IV 137.38$ 6 824.28$
Engineer 131.88$ 0 -$
Drafter IV 131.88$ 0 -$
Clerical IV 60.45$ 0 -$
Engineer Project Manager V 186.83$ 0 -$
Engineer V 153.86$ 0 -$
Designer V 126.39$ 0 -$
Drafter V 93.42$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 208.81$ 0 -$
Engineer PM VI 181.34$ 7 1,269.38$
Engineer VI 137.38$ 0 -$
Designer VI 120.89$ 0 -$
Drafter VI 98.91$ 0 -$
Specialists I 159.50$ 0 -$
Specialists II 175.00$ 0 -$
Specialists III 158.00$ 0 -$
Specialist IV 187.00$ 0 -$
Specialist VI 184.00$ 0 -$
SUBTOTAL 3,461.66$
506
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
Project Manager 171.00$ 8 1,368.00$
Senior Engineer II 147.90$ 0 -$
Designer II 137.33$ 0 -$
Senior Engineer III 164.22$ 0 -$
Designer III 127.50$ 0 -$
Engineer II 107.10$ 0 -$
Designer I 86.70$ 0 -$
Engineer I 76.50$ 0 -$
Engineering Aide 56.10$ 0 -$
Landscape Architect VII 137.38$ 0 -$
Project Manager Landscape VII 82.43$ 0 -$
Landscape Drafter VII 71.44$ 0 -$
Sr Principal Engineer IV 236.29$ 0 -$
Sr Engineer IV 186.83$ 0 -$
Sr Project Manager IV 164.85$ 4 659.40$
Sr Designer IV 153.86$ 0 -$
Project Engineer IV 148.37$ 0 -$
Project Drafter IV 137.38$ 0 -$
Engineer 131.88$ 0 -$
Drafter IV 131.88$ 0 -$
Clerical IV 60.45$ 0 -$
Engineer Project Manager V 186.83$ 4 747.32$
Engineer V 153.86$ 40 6,154.40$
Designer V 126.39$ 0 -$
Drafter V 93.42$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 208.81$ 0 -$
Engineer PM VI 181.34$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 137.38$ 4 549.52$
Designer VI 120.89$ 0 -$
Drafter VI 98.91$ 0 -$
Specialists I 159.50$ 0 -$
Specialists II 175.00$ 0 -$
Specialists III 158.00$ 0 -$
Specialist IV 187.00$ 0 -$
Specialist VI 184.00$ 0 -$
SUBTOTAL 9,478.64$
507
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
Project Manager 171.00$ 8 1,368.00$
Senior Engineer II 147.90$ 0 -$
Designer II 137.33$ 0 -$
Senior Engineer III 164.22$ 0 -$
Designer III 127.50$ 0 -$
Engineer II 107.10$ 0 -$
Designer I 86.70$ 0 -$
Engineer I 76.50$ 0 -$
Engineering Aide 56.10$ 0 -$
Landscape Architect VII 137.38$ 0 -$
Project Manager Landscape VII 82.43$ 0 -$
Landscape Drafter VII 71.44$ 0 -$
Sr Principal Engineer IV 236.29$ 0 -$
Sr Engineer IV 186.83$ 0 -$
Sr Project Manager IV 164.85$ 4 659.40$
Sr Designer IV 153.86$ 0 -$
Project Engineer IV 148.37$ 0 -$
Project Drafter IV 137.38$ 0 -$
Engineer 131.88$ 0 -$
Drafter IV 131.88$ 0 -$
Clerical IV 60.45$ 0 -$
-$ -$ 0 -$
Engineer Project Manager V 186.83$ 4 747.32$
Engineer V 153.86$ 40 6,154.40$
Designer V 126.39$ 0 -$
Drafter V 93.42$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 208.81$ 0 -$
Engineer PM VI 181.34$ 0 -$
Engineer VI 137.38$ 4 549.52$
Designer VI 120.89$ 0 -$
Drafter VI 98.91$ 0 -$
Specialists I 159.50$ 0 -$
Specialists II 175.00$ 0 -$
Specialists III 158.00$ 0 -$
Specialist IV 187.00$ 0 -$
Specialist VI 184.00$ 0 -$
SUBTOTAL 9,478.64$
508
Agenda Item No.: 9.A
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT ON THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE
MEETING HELD ON JUNE 2, 2021; AND APPROVE THE FIRE FUEL
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO FUND AN ANNUAL CANYON
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The City Council Fire Fuel Committee met on Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 6:30pm. Eleven members of
t h e public attended the meeting. The Committee met for two hours and 30 minutes and received
documentation and maps that outlined blue line streams within the community, and canyons of highest
priority for wildfire risk. The Committee also reviewed approaches to fire fuel management in the
canyons from the experts, the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Committee also discussed
staff's recommended program to manage fuel in the canyons, and other options to incentivize fire fuel
management activities.
DISCUSSION:
The Committee took the following actions at the June 2, 2021 meeting:
1. Receive and file maps of the canyons except the blue line streams map because Committee member
Jim Black noted that the map was "inaccurate". Committee member Black suggested to have the
Department of Fish and Wildlife generate a map of the blue line streams in Rolling Hills for Rolling
Hills.
2. The Committee recommends that the City Council approve a fire fuel management program in the
canyons program comprising of the following elements:
City to fund one fire fuel abatement project in the community annually using general fund.
The location of the fire fuel abatement project should be pre-determined. Committee member
Leah Mirsch supports having the Los Angeles County Fire Department establish the project areas
based on their assessment of the highest level of wildfire risk. Committee member Black wanted
the City Council to be able to identify project areas.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department will assist the City in determining the proper scope of
509
work for abatement projects annually.
The City will fund the environmental assessment, and clearance. The City will also fund the
abatement work based on a capped allocation set by the City Council, provided that the City's
budget can support the expenditure. Budgetary constraints will be evaluated annually and the cap
on the allocation can be set annually during the budget workshop.
Working with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City shall notify property owners
within the fire fuel abatement project areas and achieve property owners' permission for
abatement work. In exchange for the abatement work, property owners must consent to a
maintenance period for the initial abatement work funded by the City. if the majority property
owners do not provide permission and or consent to the maintenance period, the City will select
another location for the fire fuel abatement based on an established list of project areas.
3. The Committee received a report on Storm Hill Park provided by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department. The Fire Department conducted site visits and observed that the Storm family established
a fire fuel break surrounding the Storm Hill Park. While dense vegetation was observed at the center of
the park, the Fire Department recommended that if the City were to fund fire fuel reduction work, the
City should focus the limited resources on the surrounding residential structures and work from the
structures out towards the park. This would create a fire break for the surrounding structures. The Fire
Department also provided their observations that with limited resources, Storm Hill Park is not a
priority area to minimize wildfire risks. The areas of the Storm Hill Park adjacent to the Storm
properties has a fire break. Additionally, the property owners of the residential structures located
adjacent to the Storm Hill Park could conduct more fire fuel management work with guidance from the
Fire Department in the upcoming brush clearance inspections.
4. The Committee discussed the concept of additional regulations on vegetation management in the
canyons or continue with the voluntary approach. The Committee also considered a cash disbursement
incentive program to motivate vegetation management in the canyons. The Committee talked about
having the Fire Department conduct an assessment of all properties within Rolling Hills and providing a
scope of work to eliminate fire fuel. The Committee did not take formal positions on these discussion
items.
5. The Committee scheduled another Fire Fuel Committee meeting for June 16, 2021 at 6:30pm but did
not specify agenda items for the meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file report and approve the Fire Fuel Committee's recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
6.2.2021 FF Supplemental AgendaPacket.pdf
510
1.PARTICIPANTS:
James Black, M.D. Mayor Pro Tem
Leah Mirsch, City Councilmember
Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager
2.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.A.RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT ON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
AGENDA
Special Fire Fuel Management
Committtee Meeting
FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
Wednesday, June 02, 2021
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
6:30 PM
SUPPLEMENTAL
This meeting is held pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on
March 17, 2020. All Committee members will participate by teleconference.
Public Participation: City Hall will be closed to the public until further notice. A live audio of the
City Council meeting will available on the City’s website (http://www.rolling-hills.org/). The
meeting agenda is on the City’s website.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83444907576?pwd=UHhpMGtIczlZUDhyNmJTVW9tMXJoQT09
Or dial (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 834 4490 7576; Passcode: 906138
Members of the public may submit comments in real time by emailing the City Clerk at
cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. Please
provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information (i.e., phone
numbers, addresses, etc.) that you do not want to be published.
1511
WILDLIFE'S REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO BLUE LINE STREAMS AND MAPS
SHOWING CANYONS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
2.B.REVIEW THE PROPOSED FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS
PROGRAM AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOCATE BUDGET
ANNUALLY FOR THE PROPOSED PROGRAM.
R EC O MM EN D ATION : Review the proposed program from staff and consider
recommending the proposed program to the City Council.
2.C.DISCUSS (1) REGULATOR VERSUS VOLUNTARY APPROACH TO FUEL
MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS; (2) DISCUSS IF THE CITY SHOULD
CONSIDER GIVING THE COMMUNITY A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO MANAGE
FUEL IN THE CANYONS; AND (3) CONSIDER CONDUCTING AN ASSESSMENT
OF PROPERTIES THAT PRESENT A HAZARD TO THE COMMUNITY.
R E C O M M E ND AT IO N : Discuss topics and develop recommendations for City
Council consideration.
3.
COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN BY EMAIL IN REAL TIME - PUBLIC COMMENT
WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items no listed on this agenda.
Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.
4.
ADJOURNMENT
Blue Line Streams_Map_20210527.pdf
Map of fire risks in the canyons.pdf
SUPPLEMENTAL LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.docx
Supplemental RH CANYONS.pdf
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City
Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting
due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and
attendance at this meeting.
2512
Agenda Item No.: 2.A
Mtg. Date: 06/02/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT ON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE'S REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO BLUE LINE
STREAMS AND MAPS SHOWING CANYONS IN THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS.
DATE:June 02, 2021
BACKGROUND:
At previous City Council Fire Fuel Committee meetings, the Committee discussed environmental
concerns specifically to blueline streams when conducting fire fuel abatement work in the canyons. The
Committee directed staff to research information relating to locations of blueline streams in the City of
Rolling Hills to assist the community in understanding environmental regulations. The Committee also
directed staff to provide maps that show the canyons in the City of Rolling Hills.
DISCUSSION:
According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fish and Wildlife), Rolling Hills, CA is
recorded in the Department's Region 5 also known as the South Coast Region. The Department of Fish
and Wildlife's main concern reviewing projects that are attempting to remove vegetation is over the
amount of vegetation to be removed. When large amounts of vegetation are clear cut (even if it is
mostly non-native) it can result in loss of habitat and the potential for increased erosion due to loss of
bank stabilizing root structure. In order to minimize effects to wildlife habitat, a good strategy is to
stick to the removal of built up brush and selective non-native weed removal. If larger patches of
vegetation need to be removed there should be measures to stabilize the bank from erosion for the
temporary (i.e., straw wattles) and long term (i.e., seed mix, and native plantings). Other things to think
about include potential to impact breeding birds and if the work requires people or equipment to enter a
wetted creek.
Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600 requires notification about projects that may alter any river,
stream, or lake. The Lake and Streambed Alteration program is in place to protect sensitive streambed
habitats and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) may be required if a project may
substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. If a project is determined to potentially
3513
impact a streambed area (has a bed, bank, and/or channel), it is up to the project proponent to submit a
notification to Fish and Wildlife through the department's online portal at:
https://epims.wildlife.ca.gov/index.do.
Based on the Los Angeles County Fire Department's assessment, eleven canyons were prioritized for
fire fuel removal. According to the Department, Portuguese Bend Canyon is a big canyon that
encompasses Ishibashi Canyon. Forrestal Canyon is another big canyon that encompasses the Klondike
Canyon. The smaller areas of big canyons may not show in maps and because of that, there may be
confusion when the smaller areas of big canyons are referenced but not found on maps. Per the
Committee's request, staff consulted with several sources of mapping and as a part of this report,
several maps are provided to locate steams and canyons.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff's research of maps of streams and canyons for the City of Rolling Hills is a part of the operational
cost for FY2020-2021.
RECOMMENDATION:
If you would like to view the Blue Line Stream Maps go to:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=12b73ea284d54339be1305085881f7b5
Wake County Government United States Geological Survey (USGS) Blue Line Streams (GIS), using
Chrome or Mozilla Browser.
ATTACHMENTS:
Blue Line Streams_Map_20210527.pdf
Map of fire risks in the canyons.pdf
SUPPLEMENTAL LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.docx
Supplemental RH CANYONS.pdf
4514
n l
Ñ×
5
Torrance
RollingHillsEstates
RanchoPalosVerdes Delos DrEmptyS
a
d
dl
eLnDelacr o ixRdA ca d e m y D rPeppertreeRdVia El MiroEmpty Saddle Rd
Middlerid
g
e
RdLariatLn
A
d
m
ira
ble D
r
Crest Rd E
HightideDr
Greve Dr
DauntlessDrPalos
Verdes
Dr
S Southfield DrSilverSpurRd
Bronco DrSaddleback RdRolling Hills RdLucaniaDrEastvaleRdUpperBlackwaterCanyonRdF
o
rr
e
st
al
D
r
CrestRdW
S eahurst Rd
P onyLnBeechgate DrOrePascalPl
LowerBlackwaterCanyonRdCartesian Cir
Deepbro
o
k
Dr
Wideloo p Rd
R o u s s e a u L n
Blackhorse
Rd
Ganado Dr Cr
ownv
i
e
wDr
Mustang Rd
PalosVerdesDr
EPalomin
oLnHighpointRdLoftyview Dr
FlyingManeRdPalosVerdesDrNSha
d
y
VistaRd
DianoraDr
Eastfield Dr DapplegrayLnOceanaire Dr
Reata Ln CayuseLnAcaciaRdP in to L n
NewridgeDrP
ortu
g
u
e
s
eBendRdCrenshaw BlvdYachtHarborDr
LonghillDr
QuinlinDr
Lim
etree Ln
M a r i on DrDobbin LnElkridgeDrHoneyCreekRd
Roessler Ct
Crest Rd
Narcissa Dr DeerhillD r
Pinto RdChadwick Ln
PheasantLnSunnyfieldLnPrivateDrwyBendigo DrMain Sail DrBuckboardLnStalw
art
D
r
CoveviewDr
Lariat Ln
CrestRd
Hillside L n HitchingPostDrRingbitRd
E
DelunaDrCorinnaDrDelosDr
Amber Sky Dr
O p e n B r a n d Rd
Chestnut Ln Chapa rra lL n
E
xultant Dr Corinna DrSunnyridgeRdBowieRd HeadlandDr
Av e n i d a D e R o s a
Surrey Ln
Golden Arrow Dr
Coolheights
Dr
Elm
bridg
e
Dr
Por
t
ugues
e Bend RdBrowndeer Ln
St
arlineDrPaseoDeCastanaStallio
n
R
dWilliamsburgLnMartingale
Dr
GeorgeffRd
DelunaD rMor
gan LnMiddleridgeLnNCaballeros RdS a n t a B e lla R d
PossumRidgeRdR o a d ru n n e r Rd
ChuckwagonRdQuailRi
dge
R
d
NJohnsCa
n
y
o
n
R
d RainbowRidgeRdSt
r
awber
r
y LnAppaloosaLnPalo Verdes Dr NWestvale RdP o p p y T r lCinchringRdO
u
tri
d
e
r
Rd BuckskinLnPinetree LnMiddleridgeLnSBuggyWhipDrBurma Rd
Crenshaw Blvd
Rolling HillsCity Hall
Rolling HillsCommunityAssociation
Los Angeles CountyFire Department- Station 56
Ranchodel Mar HighSchool
Incorp orate d Areas
Unincorp orate d Areas
Pa rks and O pen Space
Streams
RoadsCity of R olling HillsMap of Streams
Map created by Christine Lam (CLam@dpw.lacounty.gov)Los Ange les Co unty P ublic Works 5 /27 /2 021
Ü
0 0.2 0.4Miles
5515
Palos Verdes Dr S
AguaArmaga
CanyonOpen
Space
LosVerdesGolf
Course
Monaco
RanchoPalos
Verdes
213
Crest Rd Pal
os
VerdesDrN
Pal os Verdes Dr N
HighridgeRdCrenshaw Bl vd
Palos
Ve
r
desDrSPalos
V
e
r
desDrS
W9thSt
W25thSt
TrumpNational
GolfClub
ForrestalNature
Preserve
Portuguese
BendNature
Preserve
AbaloneCove
ShorelinePark
DeaneDana
FriendshipPark
GeorgeF
CanyonNature
Parkand
Preserve
Miraleste
OCEAN
FIRE; 1992
PALOS VERDES
FIRE; 1992
SAN RAMON
FIRE; 1995
CREST FIRE;
1993 SAN
CLEMENTE; 2005
PV; 2009
SantaClarita
LongBeach
LosAngeles
Angeles
NationalForest Rolling Hills Peninsula:
Fire History and Canyons at Risk
(1992 to 2020)
FPU
NAD 83
02/09/21
0 10.5 Km
0 10.5 MiNorth East South West Other
1992 1993 1995 2005 2009
Potential Fire Risk From:
Historical Fire Year:
6516
Supplemental
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
PRIORITY CANYON LOCATIONS FOR FIRE FUEL REMOVAL
List provided to April 14, 2021 Community Focus Group
Participants
The Los Angeles County Fire Department conducted site visits in Rolling Hills between December
2020 and February 2021 to identify priority locations to apply the recently awarded CalOES/FEMA
Grant for vegetation management in the canyons.
The Fire Department assessed 11 canyons and prioritized canyons based on directional winds.
Canyons at risk from wind driven fires originating from the southwest are as follows:
1. Paint Brush Canyon
2. Portuguese Canyon (This canyon encompasses Ishibashi Canyon)
3. Altamira Canyon
4. Klondike Canyon (Klondike Canyon is inside the Forrestal Canyon
Based on fire history maps, these above listed south facing canyons have the highest risk for a wildfire
in the future.
Canyons that would be at risk during northeast winds are as follows:
5. Blackwater Canyon
6. George F. Canyon
7. Purple Canyon
8. WillowCanyon
9. Sepulveda Canyon
10. John’s Canyon
11. Agua Magna Canyon
7517
Supplemental
City of Rolling Hills Canyons
3. Altamira Canyon
2. Portuguese Canyon
1. Paintbrush Canyon
4. Klondike Canyon
7. Purple Canyon
8. Willow Canyon
6. Georgeff Canyon11. Agua Magna Canyon
5. Blackwater Canyon
9. Sepulveda Canyon
10. John's Canyon
8518
Agenda Item No.: 2.B
Mtg. Date: 06/02/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REVIEW THE PROPOSED FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE
CANYONS PROGRAM AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
TO ALLOCATE BUDGET ANNUALLY FOR THE PROPOSED
PROGRAM.
DATE:June 02, 2021
BACKGROUND:
In response to the community's feedback that the amount of fire fuel in the canyons is a major safety
concern, the City Council created a standing committee, the Fire Fuel Committee, to tackle the issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Jim Black and Councilmember Mirsch were assigned to the committee at the April 26,
2021 meeting and since then the committee held three meetings on May 5, 2021, May 12, 2021 and
May 19, 2021. To kick off the committee's charter, Councilmember Mirsch also collected feedback
from the community at a focus group held on April 14, 2021.
Over the course of three meetings, the committee discussed a variety of topics, all of which were
intended to support the community in managing fire fuel to reduce wildfire risks.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the community's input, the committee's discussions, the City Council's discussion, legal
counsel's findings on public benefit, and the recommendations of the subject matter experts - the Los
Angeles County Fire Department, staff is proposing the following fire fuel management program to
commence in Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
City to fund one fire fuel abatement project in the community annually using general fund.
The location of the fire fuel abatement project should be based on the priority areas assessed by
the Los Angeles County Fire Department starting with the location or area determined to present
the highest level of wildfire risk.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department will assist the City in determining the proper scope of
work for abatement projects annually.
The City will fund the environmental assessment, and clearance. The City will also fund the
abatement work based on a capped allocation set by the City Council, provided that the City's
budget can support the expenditure. Budgetary constraints will be evaluated annually and the cap
9519
on the allocation can be set annually during the budget workshop.
Working with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City shall notify property owners
within the fire fuel abatement project areas and achieve property owners' permission for
abatement work. In exchange for the abatement work, property owners must consent to a
maintenance period for the initial abatement work funded by the City. If the majority property
owners do not provide permission and or consent to the maintenance period, the City will select
another location for fire fuel abatement based on the priority list assessed by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department.
The proposal above aims to address the community's desire for action, the appropriate scope of work,
the potential environmental impacts to the habitat, and providing an on-going program to tackle an
ongoing issue.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City does not currently have data on the cost of fire fuel abatement in the canyons. The cost may
be heavily dependent on the locations of work. But to have a reference point, the Committee can direct
staff to inquire with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy the cost to abate fire fuel in the
Nature Preserve. That data could be used as a comparable average cost per acre to determine the cap
for the annual allocation for fire fuel abatement projects in Rolling Hills. Additionally, the Committee
can direct staff to seek relevant data from the Los Angeles County Fire Department for abatement work
elsewhere in the County for reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the proposed program from staff and consider recommending the proposed program to the City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
10520
Agenda Item No.: 2.C
Mtg. Date: 06/02/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:DISCUSS (1) REGULATOR VERSUS VOLUNTARY APPROACH TO
FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS; (2) DISCUSS IF THE CITY
SHOULD CONSIDER GIVING THE COMMUNITY A FINANCIAL
INCENTIVE TO MANAGE FUEL IN THE CANYONS; AND (3)
CONSIDER CONDUCTING AN ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTIES THAT
PRESENT A HAZARD TO THE COMMUNITY.
DATE:June 02, 2021
BACKGROUND:
At the May 19, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting, Committee member Leah Mirsch suggested that at
the next committee meeting, the committee discuss if the City should consider additional regulations to
mandate fire fuel management in the canyons or continue with the current voluntary approach.
Committee member Mirsch also suggested that the committee discuss if the City should consider
providing a financial incentive to the community to manage fuel in the canyons.
At the May 24, 2021 City Council meeting, Committee member Mirsch asked to add another agenda
item to the June 2, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting: discuss evaluating properties that present a
hazard to the community.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss topics and develop recommendations for City Council consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
11521
Agenda Item No.: 9.B
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER AND APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM THE PALOS VERDES
PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR ADDITIONAL FUEL LOAD
REDUCTION IN THE NATURE PRESERVE IN THE AREAS ADJACENT
TO THE CITY BORDER.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
Over the past three years (2019, 2020, and 2021) the city has received services from the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy for the removal of vegetation and fuel load reduction. The Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) is aware of the fire concerns on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, and have previously provided the city with excellent services.
DISCUSSION:
The Conservancy understands that vegetation exists beyond current fuel mod zones that pose fire
threats. Therefore, the Conservancy is offering technical expertise to aid the City and augment city staff
in the effort to continue the reduction of fuel load vegetation by targeting the removal of invasive plants
such as Acacia and Mustard and other non-native plants.
The proposal attached outlines the potential areas for this extra 2021 work. The areas identified in
Portuguese Bend Reserve include the areas abutting and leading into Rolling Hills in Portuguese
Canyon. In total, an approximate 7.5 acres are proposed for fuel load reduction in the Preserve. This
work can be completed in less than 4 weeks by simultaneously removing Acacia and mowing dry brush,
this process will complete the work in a timely manner. For these additional efforts, the Conservancy
requests a one-time grant from the city up to $87,000 for the proposed work outlined herein. The
Conservancy understands the city’s timing considerations and would be prepared to begin the work as
soon as funding is made available.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This expenditure to receive services from the conservancy is new and was not included in the budget.
Therefore, if council decides to move forward with this the funds will be pulled from the general fund
522
reserves to satisfy the services for the price of $87,000.00
These costs are based on best estimates provided by contractors for the Acacia removal and for mowing
as two separate projects. For maximum benefit for fuel load reduction and habitat, both projects are
recommended to be completed concurrently.
Project Acres Budget
Acacia Cutting
and Chipping
~2 $61,000
Mowing and
removal of 5-6
Acacia
~5.5 $26,000
One-time
Project Total
~7.5 $87,000
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider proposal and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
PVPLC Reducing Fuel Load Project RH 2021.pdf
Fuel Load Reduction Phases.docx
523
1
Proposal to the City of Rolling Hills
Fuel Load Reduction in 2021
Submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) is intimately aware of the fire
concerns on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and continues to discuss measures to reduce fire risk
with the four peninsula cities. Conservancy staff members continue to work with City of Rolling
Hills staff to implement fuel modification work as required by County Department of
Agriculture Weights and Measures as part of landowner responsibilities for fuel modification
near adjacent homes as well as measures above and beyond. Additionally, the Conservancy
clears over 90 acres of weeds in restoration sites within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and
clears 30+ miles of trails annually. This weeding approach is very specialized and must be
accomplished while complying with the NCCP/HCP implementation guidelines and respecting
the natural resources on the preserve. We understand that the city desires to continue to
prioritize efforts to reduce fuel load in Preserve areas, and the Conservancy understands that
vegetation exists beyond current fuel mod zones that pose fire threats. Therefore, the
Conservancy is offering technical expertise to aid the City and augment city staff in the effort
to continue reduce fuel load vegetation by targeting the removal of invasive plants such as
Acacia and Mustard and other non-native plants, which in turn improves habitat for local
wildlife, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, a
state species of concern and the federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly.
This proposal outlines the potential areas for this extra 2021 work. The areas identified in
Portuguese Bend Reserve include the areas abutting and leading into Rolling Hills in Portuguese
Canyon. In total, an approximate 7.5 acres are proposed for fuel load reduction in the
Preserve. This work can be completed in less than 4 weeks by simultaneously
removing Acacia and mowing dry brush in order to complete this work in a
timely manner during fire season. For these additional efforts, the Conservancy
requests a one-time grant from the city up to $87,000 for the proposed work
outlined herein. The Conservancy understands the city’s timing considerations and would be
prepared to begin the work as soon as funding is made available.
The Conservancy has identified the priority removal of tall Acacia shrubs due to their combustible
nature (Acacia shrub contain an estimated 90% dry plant matter and volatile resins) and their
prevalence throughout the Preserve and border areas. The locations for the proposed Acacia
removal were chosen due to prior fires occurring in those areas, proximity to homes and risk to
the community as well as the ecological benefits of invasive plant removal. Fire agencies agree
that Acacia is a highly flammable plant and that it should be removed wherever possible. It was
included as a high-hazard plant in the L.A. County Fire Department’s recently published “Ready!
Set! Go!” pamphlet. This proposal also includes the removal of other non-native shrubs and trees
524
2
like Chinese Pistache, Myoporum and Ash trees. Mustard when dry, continues to be a high fire
risk species. The continued expansion of mowing areas is also included in this proposal.
The Conservancy, as Habitat Managers for the Preserve, has qualified experts on staff with the
experience required to oversee the work to be performed and will assure the correct and safe
removal of the invasive plants using the best techniques at the most efficient cost. The results of
this work will be shared with the City provided at the conclusion of the work performed.
Where possible and with simpler tasks, volunteers will be deployed to augment the work volume
and control costs. In ongoing maintenance activities, the Conservancy will create internship and
volunteer opportunities for invasive plant management to keep the Acacia from re-invading the
areas and to assist in monitoring activities. In this way, additional valuable learning opportunities
will be made available to local youth.
As projects are completed and conditions are assessed, restoration in these locations may be
appropriate and funding may be pursued, since this proposal does not include replanting in the
Acacia removal sites.
Acacia Removal
Approximately 2 acres
This Acacia removal site is situated in the northern portion of Portuguese Bend Reserve along the
border with the city of Rolling Hills. A fire occurred at this location in 2009 burning approximately
230 acres. Much of the vegetation was burned, including the non-native Acacia, which has since
begun to grow back from stump sprouting and seed germination.
It is recommended that crews enter the area on foot as possible and remove shrubs with
chainsaws and lighter equipment can be brought in via the Fire Station Trail or Ishibashi Trail as
needed. Trees should be chipped in designated areas and treated to prevent regrowth. Tree
stumps will need to be treated to prohibit any regrowth and the site will be monitored for seed
germination and removal.
The Acacia throughout this area totals approximately 2 acres. This site is known habitat of the
federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the cactus wren, a state species of
concern as well as other species of concern.
525
3
Acacia Removal Site in Red Polygon
Mowing Area
Approximately 5.5 acres
There is a large stand of invasive mustard in north of Portuguese Canyon that is dry and can be
mowed if access is possible. This site is adjacent to historical farmland and were disked in
subsequent years, so the loose soils have provided a disturbance regime which is particularly
favorable to mustard and non-native grasses and weeds. Approximately 5.5 acres of mustard is
at this location. Slopes are very steep and high quality coastal sage scrub habitat is scattered
throughout the slope. Careful consideration to not damage native plants and close oversight
will be needed. In response to community concern about the vast expanse of dry mustard
growth at Portuguese Bend Reserve, the Conservancy will oversee mowing in this area and
conduct bird nesting surveys. In addition to the mowing, 5-6 Acacia trees on this
southeastern facing slope will be cut and chipped.
526
4
Mowing Area in Blue Polygon
527
10
Budget
The budget reflects a typical detailed tree and shrub removal project within the preserve with
minimal disturbance to native habitat and to the surrounding vegetation, following NCCP/HCP
protocols. Careful non-native tree removals proposed in this project, increase the habitat value
for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, a state species of
concern, as well as other native species while providing public benefit. These costs reflect the
estimated time it would take the contractors to complete the project using hand tools and
machinery to either chip tree material or haul plant material offsite, stump treat the cut Acacia
to prevent regrowth were needed, and oversight and bird monitoring by Conservancy biologists
to assure that best management practices are implemented (ie. minimization and avoidance
measures such as nesting bird surveys are required by the NCCP/HCP).
These costs are based on best estimates provided by contractors for the Acacia removal and for
mowing as two separate projects. For maximum benefit for fuel load reduction and habitat,
both projects are recommended to be completed concurrently.
Project Acres Budget
Acacia Cutting and Chipping ~2 $61,000
Mowing and removal of 5-6 Acacia ~5.5 $26,000
One-time Project Total ~7.5 $87,000
528
11
Other Project Considerations
This project is a worthwhile investment into the long-term benefit of the communities adjacent
to the open space and wildlife within. While more costly per acre to implement new, labor-
intensive work than annual fuel modification weed whacking efforts, removing Acacia and other
non-native trees is a positive, visible impact to the landscape and a one-time project cost to the
City in these target areas. This is unlike areas of mustard which, while needed to reduce fire
threat, require annual treatment and ongoing maintenance costs. To help ensure that this
investment is successful, the Conservancy recommends annual monitoring of areas to prevent
regrowth. This project strategy is supported by the Fire Department, which has identified Acacia
removal as a priority effort to reduce fire fuel load in the Preserve. This project is also
responding to the nearby community requests to respond to nuisance Acacia and mustard near
homes on the Preserve border.
Community Partnerships
As part of the Conservancy’s collaborative approach, we partner with various organizations to
complete projects and provide various benefits to the community. If the timing and logistics are
appropriate, we would work with some of our partner organizations to add to the costs savings.
We work with the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens which accept fresh Acacia greenery
for the enhancement of their animal’s physical and mental health. We will save many of the
straight long branches from the Acacia tree for delineation of trails and to provide ground snags
for lizards and insects. We also have a partnership with the local schools that offer
woodworking classes for instructional teaching. Lastly, if the material does not contain seeds,
we will use the chipped wood as a mulch in fuel modification zones to keep weeds down into
the future.
The Conservancy will also engage the local colleges with applicable internships which allow
students to gain a better understanding of the natural world, resource management and gain
experience to prepare to enter the workforce. Thousands of hours of intern
assistance with projects have been logged and counting. By
engaging these students who span from across the globe, we are creating a lasting experience
and leaving a lasting impression of the great natural habitat that exists on the peninsula.
Potential for Restoration and Supplemental Work
As these projects are completed, the cleared land can provide opportunity for habitat
restoration and enhancement. A species that is potentially applicable to many of the local habitat
types of Palos Verdes, is our local cactus. While no plant is fireproof, there are certain
characteristics which make some plants more resistive to fire, such as cactus. Where applicable,
529
12
cactus can be planted and maintained until establishment, if supplemental funding is available.
Mature cactus holds a mutual relationship with the cactus wren, a state species of concern, since
the cacti needles protect young nestlings from predators, providing the best habitat.
To make a larger impact, the Conservancy typically plants mature cactus that is appropriate for
immediate nesting, giving us more value per dollar spent. The approximate cost for planting and
maintaining a 1 acre cactus restoration project over a 5 year span is approximately $30,000, and
the Conservancy would be pleased to provide a restoration plan for lands along the Rolling
Hills border of the Preserve for the benefit of community and wildlife.
530
PHASE 1
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 3
Fuel Load Reduction Phases
531
Agenda Item No.: 9.C
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:ACCEPT SMALL CITIES ALLOCATION FROM THE AMERICAN
RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA)
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
In March 2021, the $1.9 trillion bill called the American Rescue Plan Act 2021 was enacted that
included relief for cities. In May 2021, the US Department of Treasury released guidance on
distribution of the funds to non-entitlement cities. These guidelines were issued to assist the California
Department of Finance (DOF) in issuing final city-by-city allocations to help the process of distributing
non-entitlement city funds.
Based on guidance from the US Department of Treasury, the money will be disbursed in two tranches,
half in June 2021 and half in June 2022. Based on DOF's preliminary review, no city exceeds the plan's
allocation limit - 75% of a city's most recent budget.
As of June 3, 2021, DOF estimated that the City of Rolling Hills allocation was $441,363.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Rolling Hills is a non-entitlement unity of local government. Per the US Department of
Treasury, non-entitlement units of government (NEUs) are local governments typically serving
populations less than 50,000. NEUs include cities, villages, towns, townships, or other types of local
governments. NEUs should expect to receive payments through their state governments. State
governments will receive a specific allocation of these funds from Treasury for this purpose and are
responsible for distributing these funds to NEUs within their state. Award amounts are based on the
population of the NEUs.
The state has developed a secure web form for eligible cities and towns to request funding and upload
certification documents required by Treasury. Each eligible city and town will receive a unique NEU
Recipient Number and password to access the required web form and request funds. The NEU Receipt
Number must be retained by the city or town as it will be used for the reporting to Treasury through the
lifecycle of the program. DOF will send individual e-mails to the city's contact and City Manager. The
portal will be available on June 10, 2021. To request funds, cities must complete the web form, provide
532
total annual operating budget, accept the award terms and conditions, and comply with Title VI.
Request for funds must be submitted no later than 11:59 pm on June 23, 2021.
Recipients may use these funds for the following:
Respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency and support various activities to decrease the
spread of the virus.
Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency including assistance
to households, small businesses, nonprofits, or to provide aid to impacted industries such as
tourism, travel, and hospitality.
Replace lost public sector revenue, using this funding to provide government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue experienced due to the pandemic.
Provide premium pay to eligible workers or grants to eligible employers of workers who perform
essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency (up to an additional $13 per hour
and not to exceed $25,000 per worker).
Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure.
Of the eligible uses, infrastructure investment is the most applicable use for the City of Rolling Hills.
The funds can be used for the construction of the proposed 8" sewer main line along Portuguese Bend
Road/Rolling Hills Road or expand the Southbay Fiber Network into the community to provide another
broadband choice for residents.
The City Attorney reviewed the award terms and conditions and assurances of compliance with Title
VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and noted that conditions are typical of requirements for receipt of federal
funds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Should the City Council accept the funds, there will be an offset of $441,363 to the City's general fund
for Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the ARPA allocation and direct staff to file the necessary documents for the acceptance of the
funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
SLFRP-Fact-Sheet-FINAL1-508A.pdf
2021-10283.pdf
SLFRPFAQ.pdf
Award_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf
Title_VI_Assurances.pdf
Certification-Form.pdf
533
1
FACT SHEET: The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Will Deliver
$350 Billion for State, Local, Territorial, and Tribal Governments to Respond to the
COVID-19 Emergency and Bring Back Jobs
May 10, 2021
Aid to state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments will help turn the tide on the pandemic, address its
economic fallout, and lay the foundation for a strong and equitable recovery
Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the launch of the Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds, established by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, to provide $350 billion in
emergency funding for eligible state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments. Treasury also released
details on how these funds can be used to respond to acute pandemic response needs, fill revenue
shortfalls among these governments, and support the communities and populations hardest-hit by the
COVID-19 crisis. With the launch of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, eligible
jurisdictions will be able to access this funding in the coming days to address these needs.
State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments have been on the frontlines of responding to the
immense public health and economic needs created by this crisis – from standing up vaccination sites to
supporting small businesses – even as these governments confronted revenue shortfalls during the
downturn. As a result, these governments have endured unprecedented strains, forcing many to make
untenable choices between laying off educators, firefighters, and other frontline workers or failing to
provide other services that communities rely on. Faced with these challenges, state and local
governments have cut over 1 million jobs since the beginning of the crisis. The experience of prior
economic downturns has shown that budget pressures like these often result in prolonged fiscal
austerity that can slow an economic recovery.
To support the immediate pandemic response, bring back jobs, and lay the groundwork for a strong and
equitable recovery, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 established the Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds, designed to deliver $350 billion to state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments
to bolster their response to the COVID-19 emergency and its economic impacts. Today, Treasury is
launching this much-needed relief to:
• Support urgent COVID-19 response efforts to continue to decrease spread of the virus and bring
the pandemic under control;
• Replace lost public sector revenue to strengthen support for vital public services and help retain
jobs;
• Support immediate economic stabilization for households and businesses; and,
• Address systemic public health and economic challenges that have contributed to the inequal
impact of the pandemic on certain populations.
The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide substantial flexibility for each jurisdiction
to meet local needs—including support for households, small businesses, impacted industries, essential
workers, and the communities hardest-hit by the crisis. These funds also deliver resources that
recipients can invest in building, maintaining, or upgrading their water, sewer, and broadband
infrastructure.
534
2
Starting today, eligible state, territorial, metropolitan city, county, and Tribal governments may request
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds through the Treasury Submission Portal. Concurrent
with this program launch, Treasury has published an Interim Final Rule that implements the provisions
of this program.
FUNDING AMOUNTS
The American Rescue Plan provides a total of $350 billion in Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Funds to help eligible state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments meet their present needs and build
the foundation for a strong recovery. Congress has allocated this funding to tens of thousands of
jurisdictions. These allocations include:
Type
Amount
($ billions)
States & District of Columbia $195.3
Counties $65.1
Metropolitan Cites $45.6
Tribal Governments $20.0
Territories $4.5
Non-Entitlement Units of
Local Government
$19.5
Treasury expects to distribute these funds directly to each state, territorial, metropolitan city, county,
and Tribal government. Local governments that are classified as non-entitlement units will receive this
funding through their applicable state government. Treasury expects to provide further guidance on
distributions to non-entitlement units next week.
Local governments should expect to receive funds in two tranches, with 50% provided beginning in May
2021 and the balance delivered 12 months later. States that have experienced a net increase in the
unemployment rate of more than 2 percentage points from February 2020 to the latest available data as
of the date of certification will receive their full allocation of funds in a single payment; other states will
receive funds in two equal tranches. Governments of U.S. territories will receive a single payment.
Tribal governments will receive two payments, with the first payment available in May and the second
payment, based on employment data, to be delivered in June 2021.
USES OF FUNDING
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide eligible state, local, territorial, and Tribal
governments with a substantial infusion of resources to meet pandemic response needs and rebuild a
stronger, more equitable economy as the country recovers. Within the categories of eligible uses,
recipients have broad flexibility to decide how best to use this funding to meet the needs of their
communities. Recipients may use Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to:
535
3
• Support public health expenditures, by funding COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical expenses,
behavioral healthcare, and certain public health and safety staff;
• Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency, including
economic harms to workers, households, small businesses, impacted industries, and the public
sector;
• Replace lost public sector revenue, using this funding to provide government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue experienced due to the pandemic;
• Provide premium pay for essential workers, offering additional support to those who have
borne and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical infrastructure
sectors; and,
• Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, making necessary investments to
improve access to clean drinking water, support vital wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure, and to expand access to broadband internet.
Within these overall categories, Treasury’s Interim Final Rule provides guidelines and principles for
determining the types of programs and services that this funding can support, together with examples
of allowable uses that recipients may consider. As described below, Treasury has also designed these
provisions to take into consideration the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 public health
emergency on those hardest-hit by the pandemic.
1. Supporting the public health response
Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 continues to require an unprecedented public health response from
state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments. Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
provide resources to meet these needs through the provision of care for those impacted by the virus
and through services that address disparities in public health that have been exacerbated by the
pandemic. Recipients may use this funding to address a broad range of public health needs across
COVID-19 mitigation, medical expenses, behavioral healthcare, and public health resources. Among
other services, these funds can help support:
• Services and programs to contain and mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including:
Vaccination programs
Medical expenses
Testing
Contact tracing
Isolation or quarantine
PPE purchases
Support for vulnerable populations to
access medical or public health services
Public health surveillance (e.g.,
monitoring for variants)
Enforcement of public health orders
Public communication efforts
Enhancement of healthcare capacity,
including alternative care facilities
Support for prevention, mitigation, or
other services in congregate living
facilities and schools
Enhancement of public health data
systems
Capital investments in public facilities to
meet pandemic operational needs
Ventilation improvements in key settings
like healthcare facilities
536
4
• Services to address behavioral healthcare needs exacerbated by the pandemic, including:
Mental health treatment
Substance misuse treatment
Other behavioral health services
Hotlines or warmlines
Crisis intervention
Services or outreach to promote access
to health and social services
• Payroll and covered benefits expenses for public health, healthcare, human services, public
safety and similar employees, to the extent that they work on the COVID-19 response. For
public health and safety workers, recipients can use these funds to cover the full payroll and
covered benefits costs for employees or operating units or divisions primarily dedicated to the
COVID-19 response.
2. Addressing the negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency
The COVID-19 public health emergency resulted in significant economic hardship for many Americans.
As businesses closed, consumers stayed home, schools shifted to remote education, and travel declined
precipitously, over 20 million jobs were lost between February and April 2020. Although many have
since returned to work, as of April 2021, the economy remains more than 8 million jobs below its pre-
pandemic peak, and more than 3 million workers have dropped out of the labor market altogether since
February 2020.
To help alleviate the economic hardships caused by the pandemic, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds enable eligible state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments to provide a wide range
of assistance to individuals and households, small businesses, and impacted industries, in addition to
enabling governments to rehire public sector staff and rebuild capacity. Among these uses include:
• Delivering assistance to workers and families, including aid to unemployed workers and job
training, as well as aid to households facing food, housing, or other financial insecurity. In
addition, these funds can support survivor’s benefits for family members of COVID-19 victims.
• Supporting small businesses, helping them to address financial challenges caused by the
pandemic and to make investments in COVID-19 prevention and mitigation tactics, as well as to
provide technical assistance. To achieve these goals, recipients may employ this funding to
execute a broad array of loan, grant, in-kind assistance, and counseling programs to enable
small businesses to rebound from the downturn.
• Speeding the recovery of the tourism, travel, and hospitality sectors, supporting industries that
were particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 emergency and are just now beginning to mend.
Similarly impacted sectors within a local area are also eligible for support.
• Rebuilding public sector capacity, by rehiring public sector staff and replenishing
unemployment insurance (UI) trust funds, in each case up to pre-pandemic levels. Recipients
may also use this funding to build their internal capacity to successfully implement economic
relief programs, with investments in data analysis, targeted outreach, technology infrastructure,
and impact evaluations.
537
5
3. Serving the hardest-hit communities and families
While the pandemic has affected communities across the country, it has disproportionately impacted
low-income families and communities of color and has exacerbated systemic health and economic
inequities. Low-income and socially vulnerable communities have experienced the most severe health
impacts. For example, counties with high poverty rates also have the highest rates of infections and
deaths, with 223 deaths per 100,000 compared to the U.S. average of 175 deaths per 100,000.
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds allow for a broad range of uses to address the
disproportionate public health and economic impacts of the crisis on the hardest-hit communities,
populations, and households. Eligible services include:
• Addressing health disparities and the social determinants of health, through funding for
community health workers, public benefits navigators, remediation of lead hazards, and
community violence intervention programs;
• Investments in housing and neighborhoods, such as services to address individuals
experiencing homelessness, affordable housing development, housing vouchers, and residential
counseling and housing navigation assistance to facilitate moves to neighborhoods with high
economic opportunity;
• Addressing educational disparities through new or expanded early learning services, providing
additional resources to high-poverty school districts, and offering educational services like
tutoring or afterschool programs as well as services to address social, emotional, and mental
health needs; and,
• Promoting healthy childhood environments, including new or expanded high quality childcare,
home visiting programs for families with young children, and enhanced services for child
welfare-involved families and foster youth.
Governments may use Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to support these additional
services if they are provided:
• within a Qualified Census Tract (a low-income area as designated by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development);
• to families living in Qualified Census Tracts;
• by a Tribal government; or,
• to other populations, households, or geographic areas disproportionately impacted by the
pandemic.
4. Replacing lost public sector revenue
State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments that are facing budget shortfalls may use Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to avoid cuts to government services. With these additional
resources, recipients can continue to provide valuable public services and ensure that fiscal austerity
measures do not hamper the broader economic recovery.
538
6
Many state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments have experienced significant budget shortfalls,
which can yield a devastating impact on their respective communities. Faced with budget shortfalls and
pandemic-related uncertainty, state and local governments cut staff in all 50 states. These budget
shortfalls and staff cuts are particularly problematic at present, as these entities are on the front lines of
battling the COVID-19 pandemic and helping citizens weather the economic downturn.
Recipients may use these funds to replace lost revenue. Treasury’s Interim Final Rule establishes a
methodology that each recipient can use to calculate its reduction in revenue. Specifically, recipients
will compute the extent of their reduction in revenue by comparing their actual revenue to an
alternative representing what could have been expected to occur in the absence of the pandemic.
Analysis of this expected trend begins with the last full fiscal year prior to the public health emergency
and projects forward at either (a) the recipient’s average annual revenue growth over the three full
fiscal years prior to the public health emergency or (b) 4.1%, the national average state and local
revenue growth rate from 2015-18 (the latest available data).
For administrative convenience, Treasury’s Interim Final Rule allows recipients to presume that any
diminution in actual revenue relative to the expected trend is due to the COVID-19 public health
emergency. Upon receiving Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, recipients may
immediately calculate the reduction in revenue that occurred in 2020 and deploy funds to address any
shortfall. Recipients will have the opportunity to re-calculate revenue loss at several points through the
program, supporting those entities that experience a lagged impact of the crisis on revenues.
Importantly, once a shortfall in revenue is identified, recipients will have broad latitude to use this
funding to support government services, up to this amount of lost revenue.
5. Providing premium pay for essential workers
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide resources for eligible state, local, territorial,
and Tribal governments to recognize the heroic contributions of essential workers. Since the start of the
public health emergency, essential workers have put their physical well-being at risk to meet the daily
needs of their communities and to provide care for others.
Many of these essential workers have not received compensation for the heightened risks they have
faced and continue to face. Recipients may use this funding to provide premium pay directly, or through
grants to private employers, to a broad range of essential workers who must be physically present at
their jobs including, among others:
Staff at nursing homes, hospitals,
and home-care settings
Workers at farms, food production
facilities, grocery stores, and restaurants
Janitors and sanitation workers
Public health and safety staff
Truck drivers, transit staff, and
warehouse workers
Childcare workers, educators, and school
staff
Social service and human services staff
Treasury’s Interim Final Rule emphasizes the need for recipients to prioritize premium pay for lower
income workers. Premium pay that would increase a worker’s total pay above 150% of the greater of
the state or county average annual wage requires specific justification for how it responds to the needs
of these workers.
539
7
In addition, employers are both permitted and encouraged to use Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds to offer retrospective premium pay, recognizing that many essential workers have not
yet received additional compensation for work performed. Staff working for third-party contractors in
eligible sectors are also eligible for premium pay.
6. Investing in water and sewer infrastructure
Recipients may use Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to invest in necessary
improvements to their water and sewer infrastructures, including projects that address the impacts of
climate change.
Recipients may use this funding to invest in an array of drinking water infrastructure projects, such as
building or upgrading facilities and transmission, distribution, and storage systems, including the
replacement of lead service lines.
Recipients may also use this funding to invest in wastewater infrastructure projects, including
constructing publicly-owned treatment infrastructure, managing and treating stormwater or subsurface
drainage water, facilitating water reuse, and securing publicly-owned treatment works.
To help jurisdictions expedite their execution of these essential investments, Treasury’s Interim Final
Rule aligns types of eligible projects with the wide range of projects that can be supported by the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund. Recipients retain substantial flexibility to identify those water and sewer infrastructure
investments that are of the highest priority for their own communities.
Treasury’s Interim Final Rule also encourages recipients to ensure that water, sewer, and broadband
projects use strong labor standards, including project labor agreements and community benefits
agreements that offer wages at or above the prevailing rate and include local hire provisions.
7. Investing in broadband infrastructure
The pandemic has underscored the importance of access to universal, high-speed, reliable, and
affordable broadband coverage. Over the past year, millions of Americans relied on the internet to
participate in remote school, healthcare, and work.
Yet, by at least one measure, 30 million Americans live in areas where there is no broadband service or
where existing services do not deliver minimally acceptable speeds. For millions of other Americans, the
high cost of broadband access may place it out of reach. The American Rescue Plan aims to help remedy
these shortfalls, providing recipients with flexibility to use Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Funds to invest in broadband infrastructure.
Recognizing the acute need in certain communities, Treasury’s Interim Final Rule provides that
investments in broadband be made in areas that are currently unserved or underserved—in other
words, lacking a wireline connection that reliably delivers minimum speeds of 25 Mbps download and 3
Mbps upload. Recipients are also encouraged to prioritize projects that achieve last-mile connections to
households and businesses.
Using these funds, recipients generally should build broadband infrastructure with modern technologies
in mind, specifically those projects that deliver services offering reliable 100 Mbps download and 100
540
8
Mbps upload speeds, unless impracticable due to topography, geography, or financial cost. In addition,
recipients are encouraged to pursue fiber optic investments.
In view of the wide disparities in broadband access, assistance to households to support internet access
or digital literacy is an eligible use to respond to the public health and negative economic impacts of the
pandemic, as detailed above.
8. Ineligible Uses
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide substantial resources to help eligible state,
local, territorial, and Tribal governments manage the public health and economic consequences of
COVID-19. Recipients have considerable flexibility to use these funds to address the diverse needs of
their communities.
To ensure that these funds are used for their intended purposes, the American Rescue Plan Act also
specifies two ineligible uses of funds:
• States and territories may not use this funding to directly or indirectly offset a reduction in net
tax revenue due to a change in law from March 3, 2021 through the last day of the fiscal year
in which the funds provided have been spent. The American Rescue Plan ensures that funds
needed to provide vital services and support public employees, small businesses, and families
struggling to make it through the pandemic are not used to fund reductions in net tax revenue.
Treasury’s Interim Final Rule implements this requirement. If a state or territory cuts taxes, they
must demonstrate how they paid for the tax cuts from sources other than Coronavirus State
Fiscal Recovery Funds—by enacting policies to raise other sources of revenue, by cutting
spending, or through higher revenue due to economic growth. If the funds provided have been
used to offset tax cuts, the amount used for this purpose must be paid back to the Treasury.
• No recipient may use this funding to make a deposit to a pension fund. Treasury’s Interim
Final Rule defines a “deposit” as an extraordinary contribution to a pension fund for the purpose
of reducing an accrued, unfunded liability. While pension deposits are prohibited, recipients
may use funds for routine payroll contributions for employees whose wages and salaries are an
eligible use of funds.
Treasury’s Interim Final Rule identifies several other ineligible uses, including funding debt service, legal
settlements or judgments, and deposits to rainy day funds or financial reserves. Further, general
infrastructure spending is not covered as an eligible use outside of water, sewer, and broadband
investments or above the amount allocated under the revenue loss provision. While the program offers
broad flexibility to recipients to address local conditions, these restrictions will help ensure that funds
are used to augment existing activities and address pressing needs.
541
26786 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
COVID Data Tracker, http://www.covid.cdc.gov/
covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home (last visited
May 8, 2021).
2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment
Rate [UNRATE], retrieved from FRED, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, May 3, 2021.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Level
[LNU02000000], retrieved from FRED, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02000000, May 3,
2021.
3 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, All Employees,
Total Nonfarm [PAYEMS], retrieved from FRED,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS, May 7, 2021.
4 Nirmita Panchal et al., The Implications of
COVID–19 for Mental Health and Substance Abuse
(Feb. 10, 2021), https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-
covid-19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-
for-mental-health-and-substance-use/#:∼:text=
Older%20adults%20are%20also%20
more,prior%20to%20the%20current%20crisis; U.S.
Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey:
Measuring Social and Economic Impacts during the
Coronavirus Pandemic, https://www.census.gov/
programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey.html
(last visited Apr. 26, 2021); Rebecca T. Leeb et al.,
Mental Health-Related Emergency Department
Visits Among Children Aged <18 Years During the
COVID Pandemic—United States, January 1—
October 17, 2020, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.
69(45):1675–80 (Nov. 13, 2020), https://
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/
mm6945a3.htm.
5 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Monetary Policy Report (June 12, 2020),
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/
2020-06-mpr-summary.htm.
6 Joseph R. Biden, Remarks by President Biden on
Helping Small Businesses (Feb. 22, 2021), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-
remarks/2021/02/22/remarks-by-president-biden-
on-helping-small-businesses/.
7 Michael Leachman, House Budget Bill Provides
Needed Fiscal Aid for States, Localities, Tribal
Nations, and Territories (Feb. 10, 2021), https://
www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/
house-budget-bill-provides-needed-fiscal-aid-for-
states-localities.
8 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, All Employees,
State Government [CES9092000001] and All
Employees, Local Government [CES9093000001],
retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/
CES9092000001 and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
series/CES9093000001 (last visited May 8, 2021).
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
31 CFR Part 35
RIN 1505–AC77
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds
AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Treasury
(Treasury) is issuing this interim final
rule to implement the Coronavirus State
Fiscal Recovery Fund and the
Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund
established under the American Rescue
Plan Act.
DATES: Effective date: The provisions in
this interim final rule are effective May
17, 2021.
Comment date: Comments must be
received on or before July 16, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Please submit comments
electronically through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Comments can be
mailed to the Office of the
Undersecretary for Domestic Finance,
Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20220. Because postal mail may be
subject to processing delay, it is
recommended that comments be
submitted electronically. All comments
should be captions with ‘‘Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
Interim Final Rule Comments.’’ Please
include your name, organization
affiliation, address, email address and
telephone number in your comment.
Where appropriate, a comment should
include a short executive summary.
In general, comments received will be
posted on http://www.regulations.gov
without change, including any business
or personal information provided.
Comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, will be part of the public
record and subject to public disclosure.
Do not enclose any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katharine Richards, Senior Advisor,
Office of Recovery Programs,
Department of the Treasury, (844) 529–
9527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
A. Overview
Since the first case of coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID–19) was
discovered in the United States in
January 2020, the disease has infected
over 32 million and killed over 575,000
Americans.1 The disease has impacted
every part of life: As social distancing
became a necessity, businesses closed,
schools transitioned to remote
education, travel was sharply reduced,
and millions of Americans lost their
jobs. In April 2020, the national
unemployment rate reached its highest
level in over seventy years following the
most severe month-over-month decline
in employment on record.2 As of April
2021, there were still 8.2 million fewer
jobs than before the pandemic.3 During
this time, a significant share of
households have faced food and
housing insecurity.4 Economic
disruptions impaired the flow of credit
to households, State and local
governments, and businesses of all
sizes.5 As businesses weathered
closures and sharp declines in revenue,
many were forced to shut down,
especially small businesses.6
Amid this once-in-a-century crisis,
State, territorial, Tribal, and local
governments (State, local, and Tribal
governments) have been called on to
respond at an immense scale.
Governments have faced myriad needs
to prevent and address the spread of
COVID–19, including testing, contact
tracing, isolation and quarantine, public
communications, issuance and
enforcement of health orders,
expansions to health system capacity
like alternative care facilities, and in
recent months, a massive nationwide
mobilization around vaccinations.
Governments also have supported major
efforts to prevent COVID–19 spread
through safety measures in settings like
nursing homes, schools, congregate
living settings, dense worksites,
incarceration settings, and public
facilities. The pandemic’s impacts on
behavioral health, including the toll of
pandemic-related stress, have increased
the need for behavioral health resources.
At the same time, State, local and
Tribal governments launched major
efforts to address the economic impacts
of the pandemic. These efforts have
been tailored to the needs of their
communities and have included
expanded assistance to unemployed
workers; food assistance; rent, mortgage,
and utility support; cash assistance;
internet access programs; expanded
services to support individuals
experiencing homelessness; support for
individuals with disabilities and older
adults; and assistance to small
businesses facing closures or revenue
loss or implementing new safety
measures.
In responding to the public health
emergency and its negative economic
impacts, State, local, and Tribal
governments have seen substantial
increases in costs to provide these
services, often amid substantial declines
in revenue due to the economic
downturn and changing economic
patterns during the pandemic.7 Facing
these budget challenges, many State,
local, and Tribal governments have been
forced to make cuts to services or their
workforces, or delay critical
investments. From February to May of
2020, State, local, and Tribal
governments reduced their workforces
by more than 1.5 million jobs and, in
April of 2021, State, local, and Tribal
government employment remained
nearly 1.3 million jobs below pre-
pandemic levels.8 These cuts to State,
local, and Tribal government workforces
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
542
26787 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
9 Tracy Gordon, State and Local Budgets and the
Great Recession, Brookings Institution (Dec. 31,
2012), http://www.brookings.edu/articles/state-and-
local-budgets-and-the-great-recession.
10 Sebastian D. Romano et al., Trends in Racial
and Ethnic Disparities in COVID–19
Hospitalizations, by Region—United States, March–
December 2020, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2021, 70:560–565 (Apr. 16, 2021), https://
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/
mm7015e2.htm?s_cid=mm7015e2_w.
11 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
Tracking the COVID–19 Recession’s Effects on
Food, Housing, and Employment Hardships,
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-
inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-recessions-effects-
on-housing-and (last visited May 4, 2021).
12 Lisa R. Fortuna et al., Inequity and the
Disproportionate Impact of COVID–19 on
Communities of Color in the United States: The
Need for Trauma-Informed Social Justice Response,
Psychological Trauma Vol. 12(5):443–45 (2020),
available at https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2020-
37320-001.pdf.
13 Emily Vogles et al., 53% of Americans Say the
internet Has Been Essential During the COVID–19
Outbreak (Apr. 30, 2020), https://
www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/04/30/53-of-
americans-say-the-internet-has-been-essential-
during-the-covid-19-outbreak/.
14 Emma Dorn et al., COVID–19 and student
learning in the United States: The hurt could last
a lifetime (June 2020), https://
webtest.childrensinstitute.net/sites/default/files/
documents/COVID-19-and-student-learning-in-the-
United-States_FINAL.pdf; Andrew Bacher-Hicks et
al., Inequality in Household Adaptation to
Schooling Shocks: Covid-Induced Online
Engagement in Real Time, J. of Public Econ. Vol.
193(C) (July 2020), available at https://
www.nber.org/papers/w27555.
15 See, e.g., Tyler Atkinson & Alex Richter,
Pandemic Disproportionately Affects Women,
Minority Labor Force Participation, https://
www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2020/1110
(last visited May 9, 2021); Jared Bernstein & Janelle
Jones, The Impact of the COVID19 Recession on the
Jobs and Incomes of Persons of Color, https://
www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/6-2-
20bud_0.pdf (last visited May 9, 2021).
16 American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), sec.
9901, Public Law 117–2, codified at 42 U.S.C. 802
et seq. The term ‘‘state’’ as used in this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and defined in section
602 of the Act means each of the 50 States and the
District of Columbia. The term ‘‘territory’’ as used
in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and defined in
section 602 of the Act means the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands,
Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands, and American Samoa. Tribal government is
defined in the Act and the interim final rule to
mean ‘‘the recognized governing body of any Indian
or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village,
community, component band, or component
reservation, individually identified (including
parenthetically) in the list published most recently
as of the date of enactment of the [American Rescue
Plan Act] pursuant to section 104 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C.
5131).’’ See section 602(g)(7) of the Social Security
Act, as added by the American Rescue Plan Act. On
January 29, 2021, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
published a current list of 574 Tribal entities. See
86 FR 7554, January 29, 2021. The term ‘‘local
governments’’ as used in this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION includes metropolitan cities, counties,
and nonentitlement units of local government.
17 42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
18 Sections 602, 603 of the Act.
19 The CRF was established by the section 601 of
the Act as added by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Public
Law 116–136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020).
come at a time when demand for
government services is high, with State,
local, and Tribal governments on the
frontlines of fighting the pandemic.
Furthermore, State, local, and Tribal
government austerity measures can
hamper overall economic growth, as
occurred in the recovery from the Great
Recession.9
Finally, although the pandemic’s
impacts have been widespread, both the
public health and economic impacts of
the pandemic have fallen most severely
on communities and populations
disadvantaged before it began. Low-
income communities, people of color,
and Tribal communities have faced
higher rates of infection, hospitalization,
and death,10 as well as higher rates of
unemployment and lack of basic
necessities like food and housing.11 Pre-
existing social vulnerabilities magnified
the pandemic in these communities,
where a reduced ability to work from
home and, frequently, denser housing
amplified the risk of infection. Higher
rates of pre-existing health conditions
also may have contributed to more
severe COVID–19 health outcomes.12
Similarly, communities or households
facing economic insecurity before the
pandemic were less able to weather
business closures, job losses, or declines
in earnings and were less able to
participate in remote work or education
due to the inequities in access to
reliable and affordable broadband
infrastructure.13 Finally, though schools
in all areas faced challenges, those in
high poverty areas had fewer resources
to adapt to remote and hybrid learning
models.14 Unfortunately, the pandemic
also has reversed many gains made by
communities of color in the prior
economic expansion.15
B. The Statute and Interim Final Rule
On March 11, 2021, the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was signed into
law by the President.16 Section 9901 of
ARPA amended Title VI of the Social
Security Act 17 (the Act) to add section
602, which establishes the Coronavirus
State Fiscal Recovery Fund, and section
603, which establishes the Coronavirus
Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (together,
the Fiscal Recovery Funds).18 The Fiscal
Recovery Funds are intended to provide
support to State, local, and Tribal
governments (together, recipients) in
responding to the impact of COVID–19
and in their efforts to contain COVID–
19 on their communities, residents, and
businesses. The Fiscal Recovery Funds
build on and expand the support
provided to these governments over the
last year, including through the
Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF).19
Through the Fiscal Recovery Funds,
Congress provided State, local, and
Tribal governments with significant
resources to respond to the COVID–19
public health emergency and its
economic impacts through four
categories of eligible uses. Section 602
and section 603 contain the same
eligible uses; the primary difference
between the two sections is that section
602 establishes a fund for States,
territories, and Tribal governments and
section 603 establishes a fund for
metropolitan cities, nonentitlement
units of local government, and counties.
Sections 602(c)(1) and 603(c)(1) provide
that funds may be used:
(a) To respond to the public health
emergency or its negative economic
impacts, including assistance to
households, small businesses, and
nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries
such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;
(b) To respond to workers performing
essential work during the COVID–19
public health emergency by providing
premium pay to eligible workers;
(c) For the provision of government
services to the extent of the reduction in
revenue due to the COVID–19 public
health emergency relative to revenues
collected in the most recent full fiscal
year prior to the emergency; and
(d) To make necessary investments in
water, sewer, or broadband
infrastructure.
In addition, Congress clarified two
types of uses which do not fall within
these four categories. Sections
602(c)(2)(B) and 603(c)(2) provide that
these eligible uses do not include, and
thus funds may not be used for,
depositing funds into any pension fund.
Section 602(c)(2)(A) also provides, for
States and territories, that the eligible
uses do not include ‘‘directly or
indirectly offset[ting] a reduction in the
net tax revenue of [the] State or territory
resulting from a change in law,
regulation, or administrative
interpretation.’’
The ARPA provides a substantial
infusion of resources to meet pandemic
response needs and rebuild a stronger,
more equitable economy as the country
recovers. First, payments from the Fiscal
Recovery Funds help to ensure that
State, local, and Tribal governments
have the resources needed to continue
to take actions to decrease the spread of
COVID–19 and bring the pandemic
under control. Payments from the Fiscal
Recovery Funds may also be used by
recipients to provide support for costs
incurred in addressing public health
and economic challenges resulting from
the pandemic, including resources to
offer premium pay to essential workers,
in recognition of their sacrifices over the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
543
26788 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
20 Sections 602(c)(1)(A), 603(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
21 Press Release, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, First Travel-related Case of 2019 Novel
Coronavirus Detected in United States (Jan. 21,
2020), https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/
p0121-novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html.
22 Anne Schuchat et al., Public Health Response
to the Initiation and Spread of Pandemic COVID–
19 in the United States, February 24–April 21, 2021,
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021, 69(18):551–
56 (May 8, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
volumes/69/wr/mm6918e2.htm.
last year. Recipients may also use
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds to replace State, local, and Tribal
government revenue lost due to COVID–
19, helping to ensure that governments
can continue to provide needed services
and avoid cuts or layoffs. Finally, these
resources lay the foundation for a
strong, equitable economic recovery, not
only by providing immediate economic
stabilization for households and
businesses, but also by addressing the
systemic public health and economic
challenges that may have contributed to
more severe impacts of the pandemic
among low-income communities and
people of color.
Within the eligible use categories
outlined in the Fiscal Recovery Funds
provisions of ARPA, State, local, and
Tribal governments have flexibility to
determine how best to use payments
from the Fiscal Recovery Funds to meet
the needs of their communities and
populations. The interim final rule
facilitates swift and effective
implementation by establishing a
framework for determining the types of
programs and services that are eligible
under the ARPA along with examples of
uses that State, local, and Tribal
governments may consider. These uses
build on eligible expenditures under the
CRF, including some expansions in
eligible uses to respond to the public
health emergency, such as vaccination
campaigns. They also reflect changes in
the needs of communities, as evidenced
by, for example, nationwide data
demonstrating disproportionate impacts
of the COVID–19 public health
emergency on certain populations,
geographies, and economic sectors. The
interim final rule takes into
consideration these disproportionate
impacts by recognizing a broad range of
eligible uses to help States, local, and
Tribal governments support the
families, businesses, and communities
hardest hit by the COVID–19 public
health emergency.
Implementation of the Fiscal
Recovery Funds also reflect the
importance of public input,
transparency, and accountability.
Treasury seeks comment on all aspects
of the interim final rule and, to better
facilitate public comment, has included
specific questions throughout this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Treasury
encourages State, local, and Tribal
governments in particular to provide
feedback and to engage with Treasury
regarding issues that may arise
regarding all aspects of this interim final
rule and Treasury’s work in
administering the Fiscal Recovery
Funds. In addition, the interim final
rule establishes certain regular reporting
requirements, including by requiring
State, local, and Tribal governments to
publish information regarding uses of
Fiscal Recovery Funds payments in
their local jurisdiction. These reporting
requirements reflect the need for
transparency and accountability, while
recognizing and minimizing the burden,
particularly for smaller local
governments. Treasury urges State,
territorial, Tribal, and local governments
to engage their constituents and
communities in developing plans to use
these payments, given the scale of
funding and its potential to catalyze
broader economic recovery and
rebuilding.
II. Eligible Uses
A. Public Health and Economic Impacts
Sections 602(c)(1)(A) and 603(c)(1)(A)
provide significant resources for State,
territorial, Tribal governments, and
counties, metropolitan cities, and
nonentitlement units of local
governments (each referred to as a
recipient) to meet the wide range of
public health and economic impacts of
the COVID–19 public health emergency.
These provisions authorize the use of
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds to respond to the public health
emergency with respect to COVID–19 or
its negative economic impacts. Section
602 and section 603 also describe
several types of uses that would be
responsive to the impacts of the COVID–
19 public health emergency, including
assistance to households, small
businesses, and nonprofits and aid to
impacted industries, such as tourism,
travel, and hospitality.20
Accordingly, to assess whether a
program or service is included in this
category of eligible uses, a recipient
should consider whether and how the
use would respond to the COVID–19
public health emergency. Assessing
whether a program or service ‘‘responds
to’’ the COVID–19 public health
emergency requires the recipient to,
first, identify a need or negative impact
of the COVID–19 public health
emergency and, second, identify how
the program, service, or other
intervention addresses the identified
need or impact. While the COVID–19
public health emergency affected many
aspects of American life, eligible uses
under this category must be in response
to the disease itself or the harmful
consequences of the economic
disruptions resulting from or
exacerbated by the COVID–19 public
health emergency.
The interim final rule implements
these provisions by identifying a non-
exclusive list of programs or services
that may be funded as responding to
COVID–19 or the negative economic
impacts of the COVID–19 public health
emergency, along with considerations
for evaluating other potential uses of the
Fiscal Recovery Funds not explicitly
listed. The interim final rule also
provides flexibility for recipients to use
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds for programs or services that are
not identified on these non-exclusive
lists but that fall under the terms of
section 602(c)(1)(A) or 603(c)(1)(A) by
responding to the COVID–19 public
health emergency or its negative
economic impacts. As an example, in
determining whether a program or
service responds to the negative
economic impacts of the COVID–19
public health emergency, the interim
final rule provides that payments from
the Fiscal Recovery Funds should be
designed to address an economic harm
resulting from or exacerbated by the
public health emergency. Recipients
should assess the connection between
the negative economic harm and the
COVID–19 public health emergency, the
nature and extent of that harm, and how
the use of this funding would address
such harm.
As discussed, the pandemic and the
necessary actions taken to control the
spread had a severe impact on
households and small businesses,
including in particular low-income
workers and communities and people of
color. While eligible uses under sections
602(c)(1)(A) and 603(c)(1)(A) provide
flexibility to recipients to identify the
most pressing local needs, Treasury
encourages recipients to provide
assistance to those households,
businesses, and non-profits in
communities most disproportionately
impacted by the pandemic.
1. Responding to COVID–19
On January 21, 2020, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
identified the first case of novel
coronavirus in the United States.21 By
late March, the virus had spread to
many States and the first wave was
growing rapidly, centered in the
northeast.22 This wave brought acute
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
544
26789 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
COVID Data Tracker: Trends in Number of
COVID–19 Cases and Deaths in the US Reported to
CDC, by State/Territory, https://covid.cdc.gov/
covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailytrendscases (last
visited May 8, 2021).
24 Id.
25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
COVID Data Tracker: COVID–19 Vaccinations in the
United States, https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-
tracker/#vaccinations (last visited May 8, 2021).
26 Panchal, supra note 4; Mark E´. Czeisler et al.,
Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Suicidal
Ideation During COVID–19 Pandemic– United
States, June 24–30 2020, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.
69(32):1049–57 (Aug. 14, 2020), https://
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/
mm6932a1.htm.
27 Leeb, supra note 4.
28 Centers for Disease Prevention and Control,
National Center for Health Statistics, Provisional
Drug Overdose Death Counts, https://www.cdc.gov/
nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm (last visited
May 8, 2021).
29 Megan L. Evans, et al., A Pandemic within a
Pandemic—Intimate Partner Violence during
Covid–19, N. Engl. J. Med. 383:2302–04 (Dec. 10,
2020), available at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/
10.1056/NEJMp2024046.
30 Jeanne M. Santoli et al., Effects of the
COVID–19 Pandemic on Routine Pediatric Vaccine
Ordering and Administration—United States, Morb.
Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 69(19):591–93 (May 8, 2020),
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/
mm6919e2.htm; Marisa Langdon-Embry et al.,
Notes from the Field: Rebound in Routine
Childhood Vaccine Administration Following
Decline During the COVID–19 Pandemic—New
York City, March 1–June 27, 2020, Morb. Mortal.
Wkly. Rep. 69(30):999–1001 (Jul. 31 2020), https://
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/
mm6930a3.htm.
31 Office of the White House, National Strategy for
the COVID–19 Response and Pandemic
Preparedness (Jan. 21, 2021), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/
National-Strategy-for-the-COVID-19-Response-and-
Pandemic-Preparedness.pdf.
32 In a study of 13 states from October to
December 2020, the CDC found that Hispanic or
Latino and Native American or Alaska Native
individuals were 1.7 times more likely to visit an
emergency room for COVID–19 than White
individuals, and Black individuals were 1.4 times
more likely to do so than White individuals. See
Romano, supra note 10.
33 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
COVID Data Tracker: Trends in COVID–19 Cases
and Deaths in the United States, by County-level
Population Factors, https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-
data-tracker/#pop-factors_totaldeaths (last visited
May 8, 2021).
34 The CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index includes
fifteen variables measuring social vulnerability,
including unemployment, poverty, education
levels, single-parent households, disability status,
non-English speaking households, crowded
housing, and transportation access.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
COVID Data Tracker: Trends in COVID–19 Cases
Continued
strain on health care and public health
systems: Hospitals and emergency
medical services struggled to manage a
major influx of patients; response
personnel faced shortages of personal
protective equipment; testing for the
virus was scarce; and congregate living
facilities like nursing homes and prisons
saw rapid spread. State, local, and
Tribal governments mobilized to
support the health care system, issue
public health orders to mitigate virus
spread, and communicate safety
measures to the public. The United
States has since faced at least two
additional COVID–19 waves that
brought many similar challenges: The
second in the summer, centered in the
south and southwest, and a wave
throughout the fall and winter, in which
the virus reached a point of
uncontrolled spread across the country
and over 3,000 people died per day.23
By early May 2021, the United States
has experienced over 32 million
confirmed COVID–19 cases and over
575,000 deaths.24
Mitigating the impact of COVID–19,
including taking actions to control its
spread and support hospitals and health
care workers caring for the sick,
continues to require a major public
health response from State, local and
Tribal governments. New or heightened
public health needs include COVID–19
testing, major expansions in contact
tracing, support for individuals in
isolation or quarantine, enforcement of
public health orders, new public
communication efforts, public health
surveillance (e.g., monitoring case
trends and genomic sequencing for
variants), enhancement to health care
capacity through alternative care
facilities, and enhancement of public
health data systems to meet new
demands or scaling needs. State, local,
and Tribal governments have also
supported major efforts to prevent
COVID–19 spread through safety
measures at key settings like nursing
homes, schools, congregate living
settings, dense worksites, incarceration
settings, and in other public facilities.
This has included implementing
infection prevention measures or
making ventilation improvements in
congregate settings, health care settings,
or other key locations.
Other response and adaptation costs
include capital investments in public
facilities to meet pandemic operational
needs, such as physical plant
improvements to public hospitals and
health clinics or adaptations to public
buildings to implement COVID–19
mitigation tactics. In recent months,
State, local, and Tribal governments
across the country have mobilized to
support the national vaccination
campaign, resulting in over 250 million
doses administered to date.25
The need for public health measures
to respond to COVID–19 will continue
in the months and potentially years to
come. This includes the continuation of
the vaccination campaign for the general
public and, if vaccinations are approved
for children in the future, eventually for
youths. This also includes monitoring
the spread of COVID–19 variants,
understanding the impact of these
variants (especially on vaccination
efforts), developing approaches to
respond to those variants, and
monitoring global COVID–19 trends to
understand continued risks to the
United States. Finally, the long-term
health impacts of COVID–19 will
continue to require a public health
response, including medical services for
individuals with ‘‘long COVID,’’ and
research to understand how COVID–19
impacts future health needs and raises
risks for the millions of Americans who
have been infected.
Other areas of public health have also
been negatively impacted by the
COVID–19 pandemic. For example, in
one survey in January 2021, over 40
percent of American adults reported
symptoms of depression or anxiety, up
from 11 percent in the first half of
2019.26,The proportion of children’s
emergency department visits related to
mental health has also risen
noticeably.27 Similarly, rates of
substance misuse and overdose deaths
have spiked: Preliminary data from the
CDC show a nearly 30 percent increase
in drug overdose mortality from
September 2019 to September 2020.28
Stay-at-home orders and other
pandemic responses may have also
reduced the ability of individuals
affected by domestic violence to access
services.29 Finally, some preventative
public health measures like childhood
vaccinations have been deferred and
potentially forgone.30
While the pandemic affected
communities across the country, it
disproportionately impacted some
demographic groups and exacerbated
health inequities along racial, ethnic,
and socioeconomic lines.31 The CDC
has found that racial and ethnic
minorities are at increased risk for
infection, hospitalization, and death
from COVID–19, with Hispanic or
Latino and Native American or Alaska
Native patients at highest risk.32
Similarly, low-income and socially
vulnerable communities have seen the
most severe health impacts. For
example, counties with high poverty
rates also have the highest rates of
infections and deaths, with 223 deaths
per 100,000 compared to the U.S.
average of 175 deaths per 100,000, as of
May 2021.33 Counties with high social
vulnerability, as measured by factors
such as poverty and educational
attainment, have also fared more poorly
than the national average, with 211
deaths per 100,000 as of May 2021.34
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
545
26790 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
and Deaths in the United States, by Social
Vulnerability Index, https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-
data-tracker/#pop-factors_totaldeaths (last visited
May 8, 2021).
35 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Risk for COVID–19 Infection, Hospitalization, and
Death By Race/Ethnicity, https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-
discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-
ethnicity.html (last visited Apr. 26, 2021).
36 See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Risk of Severe Illness or Death from
COVID–19 (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/
racial-ethnic-disparities/disparities-illness.html
(last visited Apr. 26, 2021).
37 Milena Almagro et al., Racial Disparities in
Frontline Workers and Housing Crowding During
COVID–19: Evidence from Geolocation Data (Sept.
22, 2020), NYU Stern School of Business
(forthcoming), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3695249; Grace
McCormack et al., Economic Vulnerability of
Households with Essential Workers, JAMA
324(4):388–90 (2020), available at https://
jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/
2767630.
38 See, e.g., Joseph G. Courtney et al., Decreases
in Young Children Who Received Blood Lead Level
Testing During COVID–19—34 Jurisdictions,
January–May 2020, Morb. Mort. Wkly. Rep.
70(5):155–61 (Feb. 5, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7005a2.htm; Emily A.
Benfer & Lindsay F. Wiley, Health Justice Strategies
to Combat COVID–19: Protecting Vulnerable
Communities During a Pandemic, Health Affairs
Blog (Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.healthaffairs.org/
do/10.1377/hblog20200319.757883/full/.
39 See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, supra note 34; Benfer & Wiley, supra
note 38; Nathaniel M. Lewis et al., Disparities in
COVID–19 Incidence, Hospitalizations, and Testing,
by Area-Level Deprivation—Utah, March 3–July 9,
2020, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 69(38):1369–73
(Sept. 25, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
volumes/69/wr/mm6938a4.htm.
40 This includes implementing mitigation
strategies consistent with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Operational
Strategy for K–12 Schools through Phased
Prevention, available at https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-
childcare/operation-strategy.html.
41 Many of these expenses were also eligible in
the CRF. Generally, funding uses eligible under CRF
as a response to the direct public health impacts of
COVID–19 will continue to be eligible under the
ARPA, including those not explicitly listed here
(e.g., telemedicine costs, costs to facilitate
compliance with public health orders, disinfection
of public areas, facilitating distance learning,
increased solid waste disposal needs related to PPE,
paid sick and paid family and medical leave to
public employees to enable compliance with
COVID–19 public health precautions), with the
following two exceptions: (1) The standard for
eligibility of public health and safety payrolls has
been updated (see section II.A of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) and (2) expenses
related to the issuance of tax-anticipation notes are
no longer an eligible funding use (see discussion of
debt service in section II.B of this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
42 Coronavirus Relief Fund for States, Tribal
Governments, and Certain Eligible Local
Governments, 86 FR 4182 (Jan. 15, 2021), available
at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/CRF-
Guidance-Federal-Register_2021-00827.pdf.
43 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
supra note 24.
44 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Long-Term Effects (Apr. 8, 2021), https://
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-
effects.html (last visited Apr. 26, 2021).
45 Pursuant to 42 CFR 433.51 and 45 CFR 75.306,
Fiscal Recovery Funds may not serve as a State or
locality’s contribution of certain Federal funds.
Over the last year, Native Americans
have experienced more than one and a
half times the rate of COVID–19
infections, more than triple the rate of
hospitalizations, and more than double
the death rate compared to White
Americans.35 Low-income and minority
communities also exhibit higher rates of
pre-existing conditions that may
contribute to an increased risk of
COVID–19 mortality.36
In addition, individuals living in low-
income communities may have had
more limited ability to socially distance
or to self-isolate when ill, resulting in
faster spread of the virus, and were
over-represented among essential
workers, who faced greater risk of
exposure.37 Social distancing measures
in response to the pandemic may have
also exacerbated pre-existing public
health challenges. For example, for
children living in homes with lead
paint, spending substantially more time
at home raises the risk of developing
elevated blood lead levels, while
screenings for elevated blood lead levels
declined during the pandemic.38 The
combination of these underlying social
and health vulnerabilities may have
contributed to more severe public health
outcomes of the pandemic within these
communities, resulting in an
exacerbation of pre-existing disparities
in health outcomes.39
Eligible Public Health Uses. The
Fiscal Recovery Funds provide
resources to meet and address these
emergent public health needs, including
through measures to counter the spread
of COVID–19, through the provision of
care for those impacted by the virus,
and through programs or services that
address disparities in public health that
have been exacerbated by the pandemic.
To facilitate implementation and use of
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds, the interim final rule identifies
a non-exclusive list of eligible uses of
funding to respond to the COVID–19
public health emergency. Eligible uses
listed under this section build and
expand upon permissible expenditures
under the CRF, while recognizing the
differences between the ARPA and
CARES Act, and recognizing that the
response to the COVID–19 public health
emergency has changed and will
continue to change over time. To assess
whether additional uses would be
eligible under this category, recipients
should identify an effect of COVID–19
on public health, including either or
both of immediate effects or effects that
may manifest over months or years, and
assess how the use would respond to or
address the identified need.
The interim final rule identifies a
non-exclusive list of uses that address
the effects of the COVID–19 public
health emergency, including:
•COVID–19 Mitigation and
Prevention. A broad range of services
and programming are needed to contain
COVID–19. Mitigation and prevention
efforts for COVID–19 include
vaccination programs; medical care;
testing; contact tracing; support for
isolation or quarantine; supports for
vulnerable populations to access
medical or public health services;
public health surveillance (e.g.,
monitoring case trends, genomic
sequencing for variants); enforcement of
public health orders; public
communication efforts; enhancement to
health care capacity, including through
alternative care facilities; purchases of
personal protective equipment; support
for prevention, mitigation, or other
services in congregate living facilities
(e.g., nursing homes, incarceration
settings, homeless shelters, group living
facilities) and other key settings like
schools;40 ventilation improvements in
congregate settings, health care settings,
or other key locations; enhancement of
public health data systems; and other
public health responses.41 They also
include capital investments in public
facilities to meet pandemic operational
needs, such as physical plant
improvements to public hospitals and
health clinics or adaptations to public
buildings to implement COVID–19
mitigation tactics. These COVID–19
prevention and mitigation programs and
services, among others, were eligible
expenditures under the CRF and are
eligible uses under this category of
eligible uses for the Fiscal Recovery
Funds.42
•Medical Expenses. The COVID–19
public health emergency continues to
have devastating effects on public
health; the United States continues to
average hundreds of deaths per day and
the spread of new COVID–19 variants
has raised new risks and genomic
surveillance needs.43 Moreover, our
understanding of the potentially serious
and long-term effects of the virus is
growing, including the potential for
symptoms like shortness of breath to
continue for weeks or months, for multi-
organ impacts from COVID–19, or for
post-intensive care syndrome.44 State
and local governments may need to
continue to provide care and services to
address these near- and longer-term
needs.45
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
546
26791 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
46 In general, if an employee’s wages and salaries
are an eligible use of Fiscal Recovery Funds,
recipients may treat the employee’s covered
benefits as an eligible use of Fiscal Recovery Funds.
For purposes of the Fiscal Recovery Funds, covered
benefits include costs of all types of leave (vacation,
family-related, sick, military, bereavement,
sabbatical, jury duty), employee insurance (health,
life, dental, vision), retirement (pensions, 401(k)),
unemployment benefit plans (Federal and state),
workers compensation insurance, and Federal
Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes (which
includes Social Security and Medicare taxes).
47 Qualified Census Tracts are a common, readily-
accessible, and geographically granular method of
identifying communities with a large proportion of
low-income residents. Using an existing measure
may speed implementation and decrease
administrative burden, while identifying areas of
need at a highly-localized level.
While QCTs are an effective tool generally, many
tribal communities have households with a wide
range of income levels due in part to non-tribal
member, high income residents living in the
community. Mixed income communities, with a
significant share of tribal members at the lowest
levels of income, are often not included as eligible
QCTs yet tribal residents are experiencing
disproportionate impacts due to the pandemic.
Therefore, including all services provided by Tribal
governments is a more effective means of ensuring
that disproportionately impacted Tribal members
can receive services.
48 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), Qualified Census Tracts and
Difficult Development Areas, https://
www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/qct.html (last
visited Apr. 26, 2021); U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Lands of
Federally Recognized Tribes of the United States
(June 2016), https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/
assets/bia/ots/webteam/pdf/idc1-028635.pdf (last
visited Apr. 26, 2021).
49 The social determinants of health are the social
and environmental conditions that affect health
outcomes, specifically economic stability, health
care access, social context, neighborhoods and built
environment, and education access. See, e.g., U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Healthy People 2030: Social Determinants of
Health, https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-
and-data/social-determinants-health (last visited
Apr. 26, 2021).
50 National Commission on COVID–19 and
Criminal Justice, Impact Report: COVID–19 and
Crime (Jan. 31, 2021), https://
covid19.counciloncj.org/2021/01/31/impact-report-
covid-19-and-crime-3/ (showing a spike in
homicide and assaults); Brad Boesrup et al.,
Alarming Trends in US domestic violence during
the COVID–19 pandemic, Am. J. of Emerg. Med.
38(12): 2753–55 (Dec. 1, 2020), available at https://
www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-
6757(20)30307-7/fulltext (showing a spike in
domestic violence).
•Behavioral Health Care. In addition,
new or enhanced State, local, and Tribal
government services may be needed to
meet behavioral health needs
exacerbated by the pandemic and
respond to other public health impacts.
These services include mental health
treatment, substance misuse treatment,
other behavioral health services,
hotlines or warmlines, crisis
intervention, overdose prevention,
infectious disease prevention, and
services or outreach to promote access
to physical or behavioral health primary
care and preventative medicine.
•Public Health and Safety Staff.
Treasury recognizes that responding to
the public health and negative economic
impacts of the pandemic, including
administering the services described
above, requires a substantial
commitment of State, local, and Tribal
government human resources. As a
result, the Fiscal Recovery Funds may
be used for payroll and covered benefits
expenses for public safety, public
health, health care, human services, and
similar employees, to the extent that
their services are devoted to mitigating
or responding to the COVID–19 public
health emergency.46 Accordingly, the
Fiscal Recovery Funds may be used to
support the payroll and covered benefits
for the portion of the employee’s time
that is dedicated to responding to the
COVID–19 public health emergency. For
administrative convenience, the
recipient may consider public health
and safety employees to be entirely
devoted to mitigating or responding to
the COVID–19 public health emergency,
and therefore fully covered, if the
employee, or his or her operating unit
or division, is primarily dedicated to
responding to the COVID–19 public
health emergency. Recipients may
consider other presumptions for
assessing the extent to which an
employee, division, or operating unit is
engaged in activities that respond to the
COVID–19 public health emergency,
provided that the recipient reassesses
periodically and maintains records to
support its assessment, such as payroll
records, attestations from supervisors or
staff, or regular work product or
correspondence demonstrating work on
the COVID–19 response. Recipients
need not routinely track staff hours.
•Expenses to Improve the Design and
Execution of Health and Public Health
Programs. State, local, and Tribal
governments may use payments from
the Fiscal Recovery Funds to engage in
planning and analysis in order to
improve programs addressing the
COVID–19 pandemic, including through
use of targeted consumer outreach,
improvements to data or technology
infrastructure, impact evaluations, and
data analysis.
Eligible Uses to Address Disparities in
Public Health Outcomes. In addition, in
recognition of the disproportionate
impacts of the COVID–19 pandemic on
health outcomes in low-income and
Native American communities and the
importance of mitigating these effects,
the interim final rule identifies a
broader range of services and programs
that will be presumed to be responding
to the public health emergency when
provided in these communities.
Specifically, Treasury will presume that
certain types of services, outlined
below, are eligible uses when provided
in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT),47 to
families living in QCTs, or when these
services are provided by Tribal
governments.48 Recipients may also
provide these services to other
populations, households, or geographic
areas that are disproportionately
impacted by the pandemic. In
identifying these disproportionately-
impacted communities, recipients
should be able to support their
determination that the pandemic
resulted in disproportionate public
health or economic outcomes to the
specific populations, households, or
geographic areas to be served.
Given the exacerbation of health
disparities during the pandemic and the
role of pre-existing social vulnerabilities
in driving these disparate outcomes,
services to address health disparities are
presumed to be responsive to the public
health impacts of the pandemic.
Specifically, recipients may use
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds to facilitate access to resources
that improve health outcomes,
including services that connect
residents with health care resources and
public assistance programs and build
healthier environments, such as:
•Funding community health workers
to help community members access
health services and services to address
the social determinants of health;49
•Funding public benefits navigators
to assist community members with
navigating and applying for available
Federal, State, and local public benefits
or services;
•Housing services to support healthy
living environments and neighborhoods
conducive to mental and physical
wellness;
•Remediation of lead paint or other
lead hazards to reduce risk of elevated
blood lead levels among children; and
•Evidence-based community
violence intervention programs to
prevent violence and mitigate the
increase in violence during the
pandemic.50
2. Responding to Negative Economic
Impacts
Impacts on Households and
Individuals. The public health
emergency, including the necessary
measures taken to protect public health,
resulted in significant economic and
financial hardship for many Americans.
As businesses closed, consumers stayed
home, schools shifted to remote
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
547
26792 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
51 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, All Employees,
Total Nonfarm (PAYEMS), retrieved from FRED,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS (last visited May
8, 2021).
52 Id.
53 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Civilian Labor
Force Level [CLF16OV], retrieved from FRED,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV (last visited May
8, 2021).
54 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force
Statistics from the Current Population Survey:
Employment status of the civilian population by sex
and age (May 8 2021), https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/empsit.t01.htm (last visited May 8,
2021); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force
Statistics from the Current Population Survey:
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional
population by race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity,
sex, and age (May 8, 2021), https://www.bls.gov/
web/empsit/cpseea04.htm (last visited May 8,
2021); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force
Statistics from the Current Population Survey:
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional
population 25 years and over by educational
attainment (May 8, 2021), https://www.bls.gov/web/
empsit/cpseea05.htm (last visited May 8, 2021).
55 Elise Gould & Jori Kandra, Wages grew in 2020
because the bottom fell out of the low-wage labor
market, Economic Policy Institute (Feb. 24, 2021),
https://files.epi.org/pdf/219418.pdf. See also,
Michael Dalton et al., The K-Shaped Recovery:
Examining the Diverging Fortunes of Workers in the
Recovery from the COVID–19 Pandemic using
Business and Household Survey Microdata, U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper Series
(Feb. 2021), https://www.bls.gov/osmr/research-
papers/2021/pdf/ec210020.pdf.
56 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
Tracking the COVID–19 Recession’s Effects on
Food, Housing, and Employment Hardships,
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-
inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-recessions-effects-
on-food-housing-and (last visited May 8, 2021).
57 Women have carried a larger share of childcare
responsibilities than men during the COVID–19
crisis. See, e.g., Gema Zamarro & Marı´a J. Prados,
Gender differences in couples’ division of
childcare, work and mental health during COVID–
19, Rev. Econ. Household 19:11–40 (2021),
available at https://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007/s11150-020-09534-7; Titan Alon et al., The
Impact of COVID–19 on Gender Equality, National
Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 26947
(April 2020), available at https://www.nber.org/
papers/w26947.
58 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force
Participation Rate—20 Yrs. & Over, Black or African
American Women [LNS11300032], retrieved from
FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300032 (last visited
May 8, 2021).
59 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force
Participation Rate—20 Yrs. & Over, Black or African
American Men [LNS11300031], retrieved from
FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300031 (last visited
May 8, 2021).
60 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force
Participation Rate—20 Yrs. & Over, White Women
[LNS11300029], retrieved from FRED, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300029 (last visited
May 8, 2021).
61 See, e.g., Michael Greenstone & Adam Looney,
Unemployment and Earnings Losses: A Look at
Long-Term Impacts of the Great Recession on
American Workers, Brookings Institution (Nov. 4,
2021), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2011/
11/04/unemployment-and-earnings-losses-a-look-
at-long-term-impacts-of-the-great-recession-on-
american-workers/.
62 Chi Chi Wu, Solving the Credit Conundrum:
Helping Consumers’ Credit Records Impaired by the
Foreclosure Crisis and Great Recession (Dec. 2013),
https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/credit_reports/
report-credit-conundrum-2013.pdf.
63 Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLanahan, Christopher
Wimer, eds., Children of the Great Recession,
Russell Sage Foundation (Aug. 2016), available at
https://www.russellsage.org/publications/children-
great-recession.
64 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, supra note 5.
65 U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of
Advocacy, Small Businesses Generate 44 Percent of
U.S. Economic Activity (Jan. 30, 2019), https://
advocacy.sba.gov/2019/01/30/small-businesses-
generate-44-percent-of-u-s-economic-activity/.
66 Biden, supra note 6.
67 Daniel Wilmoth, U.S. Small Business
Administration Office of Advocacy, The Effects of
the COVID–19 Pandemic on Small Businesses, Issue
Brief No. 16 (Mar. 2021), available at https://
cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/
03/02112318/COVID-19-Impact-On-Small-
Business.pdf.
68 U.S. Census Bureau, Small Business Pulse
Survey, https://portal.census.gov/pulse/data/ (last
visited May 8, 2021).
69 Olivia S. Kim et al., Revenue Collapses and the
Consumption of Small Business Owners in the
Early Stages of the COVID–19 Pandemic (Nov.
2020), https://www.nber.org/papers/w28151.
70 See e.g., Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, Report to Congress on the
Availability of Credit to Small Businesses (Sept.
2017), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/
publications/2017-september-availability-of-credit-
to-small-businesses.htm.
71 Alexander W. Bartik et al., The Impact of
COVID–19 on small business outcomes and
expectations, PNAS 117(30): 17656–66 (July 28,
2020), available at https://www.pnas.org/content/
117/30/17656.
education, and travel declined
precipitously, over 20 million jobs were
lost in March and April 2020.51
Although many have returned to work,
as of April 2021, the economy remains
8.2 million jobs below its pre-pandemic
peak,52 and more than 3 million workers
have dropped out of the labor market
altogether relative to February 2020.53
Rates of unemployment are
particularly severe among workers of
color and workers with lower levels of
educational attainment; for example, the
overall unemployment rate in the
United States was 6.1 percent in April
2021, but certain groups saw much
higher rates: 9.7 percent for Black
workers, 7.9 percent for Hispanic or
Latino workers, and 9.3 percent for
workers without a high school
diploma.54 Job losses have also been
particularly steep among low wage
workers, with these workers remaining
furthest from recovery as of the end of
2020.55 A severe recession—and its
concentrated impact among low-income
workers—has amplified food and
housing insecurity, with an estimated
nearly 17 million adults living in
households where there is sometimes or
often not enough food to eat and an
estimated 10.7 million adults living in
households that were not current on
rent.56 Over the course of the pandemic,
inequities also manifested along gender
lines, as schools closed to in-person
activities, leaving many working
families without child care during the
day.57 Women of color have been hit
especially hard: The labor force
participation rate for Black women has
fallen by 3.2 percentage points 58 during
the pandemic as compared to 1.0
percentage points for Black men 59 and
2.0 percentage points for White
women.60
As the economy recovers, the effects
of the pandemic-related recession may
continue to impact households,
including a risk of longer-term effects on
earnings and economic potential. For
example, unemployed workers,
especially those who have experienced
longer periods of unemployment, earn
lower wages over the long term once
rehired.61 In addition to the labor
market consequences for unemployed
workers, recessions can also cause
longer-term economic challenges
through, among other factors, damaged
consumer credit scores 62 and reduced
familial and childhood wellbeing.63
These potential long-term economic
consequences underscore the continued
need for robust policy support.
Impacts on Businesses. The pandemic
has also severely impacted many
businesses, with small businesses hit
especially hard. Small businesses make
up nearly half of U.S. private-sector
employment 64 and play a key role in
supporting the overall economic
recovery as they are responsible for two-
thirds of net new jobs.65 Since the
beginning of the pandemic, however,
400,000 small businesses have closed,
with many more at risk.66 Sectors with
a large share of small business
employment have been among those
with the most drastic drops in
employment.67 The negative outlook for
small businesses has continued: As of
April 2021, approximately 70 percent of
small businesses reported that the
pandemic has had a moderate or large
negative effect on their business, and
over a third expect that it will take over
6 months for their business to return to
their normal level of operations.68
This negative outlook is likely the
result of many small businesses having
faced periods of closure and having seen
declining revenues as customers stayed
home.69 In general, small businesses can
face greater hurdles in accessing
credit,70 and many small businesses
were already financially fragile at the
outset of the pandemic.71 Non-profits,
which provide vital services to
communities, have similarly faced
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
548
26793 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
72 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Impacts
of COVID–19 on Nonprofits in the Western United
States (May 2020), https://www.frbsf.org/
community-development/files/impact-of-covid-
nonprofits-serving-western-united-states.pdf.
73 Bureau of Labor Statistics, supra note 8; Elijah
Moreno & Heather Sobrepena, Tribal entities remain
resilient as COVID–19 batters their finances,
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Nov. 10,
2021), https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/
2020/tribal-entities-remain-resilient-as-covid-19-
batters-their-finances.
74 Kim Parker et al., Economic Fallout from
COVID–19 Continues to Hit Lower-Income
Americans the Hardest, Pew Research Center (Sept.
24, 2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/social-
trends/2020/09/24/economic-fallout-from-covid-19-
continues-to-hit-lower-income-americans-the-
hardest/; Gould, supra note 55.
75 See infra Section II.B of this Supplementary
Information.
76 Elizabeth Kneebone, The Changing geography
of US poverty, Brookings Institution (Feb. 15, 2017),
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-
changing-geography-of-us-poverty/.
77 Elizabeth Kneebone & Natalie Holmes, U.S.
concentrated poverty in the wake of the Great
Recession, Brookings Institution (Mar. 31, 2016),
https://www.brookings.edu/research/u-s-
concentrated-poverty-in-the-wake-of-the-great-
recession/.
78 David Erickson et al., The Enduring Challenge
of Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies
from Communities Across the U.S. (2008), available
at https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/
files/cp_fullreport.pdf.
79 Educational quality, as early as Kindergarten,
has a long-term impact on children’s public health
and economic outcomes. See, e.g., Tyler W. Watts
et al., The Chicago School Readiness Project:
Examining the long-term impacts of an early
childhood intervention, PLoS ONE 13(7) (2018),
available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200144;
Opportunity Insights, How Can We Amplify
Education as an Engine of Mobility? Using big data
to help children get the most from school, https://
opportunityinsights.org/education/ (last visited
Apr. 26, 2021); U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Office of Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, Early Childhood
Development and Education, https://
www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/
topic/social-determinants-health/interventions-
resources/early-childhood-development-and-
education (last visited Apr. 26, 2021).
80 See, e.g., Bacher-Hicks, supra note 14.
81 A Department of Education survey found that,
as of February 2021, 42 percent of fourth grade
students nationwide were offered only remote
education, compared to 48 percent of economically
disadvantaged students, 54 percent of Black
students and 57 percent of Hispanic students. Large
districts often disproportionately serve low-income
students. See Institute of Education Sciences,
Monthly School Survey Dashboard, https://
ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/ (last visited Apr. 26, 2021).
In summer 2020, a review found that 74 percent of
the largest 100 districts chose remote learning only.
See Education Week, School Districts’ Reopening
Plans: A Snapshot (Jul. 15, 2020), https://
www.edweek.org/leadership/school-districts-
reopening-plans-a-snapshot/2020/07 (last visited
May 4, 2021).
82 HHS, supra note 79.
83 Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Effects of the Global
Coronavirus Disease—2019 Pandemic on Early
Childhood Development: Short- and Long-Term
Risks and Mitigating Program and Policy Actions,
J. of Pediatrics Vol. 223:188–93 (Aug. 1, 2020),
available at https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-
3476(20)30606-5/abstract.
84 Based on calculations conducted by the
Minneapolis Fed’s Center for Indian Country
Development using Flood et al. (2020)’s Current
Population Survey.’’ Sarah Flood, Miriam King,
Renae Rodgers, Steven Ruggles and J. Robert
Warren. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series,
Current Population Survey: Version 8.0 [dataset].
Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2020. https://doi.org/
10.18128/D030.V8.0; see also Donna Feir & Charles
Golding, Native Employment During COVID–19:
Hard hit in April but Starting to Rebount? (Aug. 5,
2020), https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/
2020/native-employment-during-covid-19-hit-hard-
in-april-but-starting-to-rebound.
85 Moreno & Sobrepena, supra note 73.
economic and financial challenges due
to the pandemic.72
Impacts to State, Local, and Tribal
Governments. State, local, and Tribal
governments have felt substantial fiscal
pressures. As noted above, State, local,
and Tribal governments have faced
significant revenue shortfalls and
remain over 1 million jobs below their
pre-pandemic staffing levels.73 These
reductions in staffing may undermine
the ability to deliver services effectively,
as well as add to the number of
unemployed individuals in their
jurisdictions.
Exacerbation of Pre-existing
Disparities. The COVID–19 public
health emergency may have lasting
negative effects on economic outcomes,
particularly in exacerbating disparities
that existed prior to the pandemic.
The negative economic impacts of the
COVID–19 pandemic are particularly
pronounced in certain communities and
families. Low- and moderate-income
jobs make up a substantial portion of
both total pandemic job losses,74 and
jobs that require in-person frontline
work, which are exposed to greater risk
of contracting COVID–19.75 Both factors
compound pre-existing vulnerabilities
and the likelihood of food, housing, or
other financial insecurity in low- and
moderate-income families and, given
the concentration of low- and moderate-
income families within certain
communities,76 raise a substantial risk
that the effects of the COVID–19 public
health emergency will be amplified
within these communities.
These compounding effect of
recessions on concentrated poverty and
the long-lasting nature of this effect
were observed after the 2007–2009
recession, including a large increase in
concentrated poverty with the number
of people living in extremely poor
neighborhoods more than doubling by
2010–2014 relative to 2000.77
Concentrated poverty has a range of
deleterious impacts, including
additional burdens on families and
reduced economic potential and social
cohesion.78 Given the disproportionate
impact of COVID–19 on low-income
households discussed above, there is a
risk that the current pandemic-induced
recession could further increase
concentrated poverty and cause long-
term damage to economic prospects in
neighborhoods of concentrated poverty.
The negative economic impacts of
COVID–19 also include significant
impacts to children in
disproportionately affected families and
include impacts to education, health,
and welfare, all of which contribute to
long-term economic outcomes.79 Many
low-income and minority students, who
were disproportionately served by
remote or hybrid education during the
pandemic, lacked the resources to
participate fully in remote schooling or
live in households without adults
available throughout the day to assist
with online coursework.80 Given these
trends, the pandemic may widen
educational disparities and worsen
outcomes for low-income students,81 an
effect that would substantially impact
their long-term economic outcomes.
Increased economic strain or material
hardship due to the pandemic could
also have a long-term impact on health,
educational, and economic outcomes of
young children.82 Evidence suggests
that adverse conditions in early
childhood, including exposure to
poverty, food insecurity, housing
insecurity, or other economic hardships,
are particularly impactful.83
The pandemic’s disproportionate
economic impacts are also seen in
Tribal communities across the
country—for Tribal governments as well
as families and businesses on and off
Tribal lands. In the early months of the
pandemic, Native American
unemployment spiked to 26 percent
and, while partially recovered, remains
at nearly 11 percent.84 Tribal enterprises
are a significant source of revenue for
Tribal governments to support the
provision of government services. These
enterprises, notably concentrated in
gaming, tourism, and hospitality,
frequently closed, significantly reducing
both revenues to Tribal governments
and employment. As a result, Tribal
governments have reduced essential
services to their citizens and
communities.85
Eligible Uses. Sections 602(c)(1)(A)
and 603(c)(1)(A) permit use of payments
from the Fiscal Recovery Funds to
respond to the negative economic
impacts of the COVID–19 public health
emergency. Eligible uses that respond to
the negative economic impacts of the
public health emergency must be
designed to address an economic harm
resulting from or exacerbated by the
public health emergency. In considering
whether a program or service would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
549
26794 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
86 In some cases, a use may be permissible under
another eligible use category even if it falls outside
the scope of section (c)(1)(A) of the Act.
eligible under this category, the
recipient should assess whether, and the
extent to which, there has been an
economic harm, such as loss of earnings
or revenue, that resulted from the
COVID–19 public health emergency and
whether, and the extent to which, the
use would respond or address this
harm.86 A recipient should first
consider whether an economic harm
exists and whether this harm was
caused or made worse by the COVID–19
public health emergency. While
economic impacts may either be
immediate or delayed, assistance or aid
to individuals or businesses that did not
experience a negative economic impact
from the public health emergency
would not be an eligible use under this
category.
In addition, the eligible use must
‘‘respond to’’ the identified negative
economic impact. Responses must be
related and reasonably proportional to
the extent and type of harm
experienced; uses that bear no relation
or are grossly disproportionate to the
type or extent of harm experienced
would not be eligible uses. Where there
has been a negative economic impact
resulting from the public health
emergency, States, local, and Tribal
governments have broad latitude to
choose whether and how to use the
Fiscal Recovery Funds to respond to
and address the negative economic
impact. Sections 602(c)(1)(A) and
603(c)(1)(A) describe several types of
uses that would be eligible under this
category, including assistance to
households, small businesses, and
nonprofits and aid to impacted
industries such as tourism, travel, and
hospitality.
To facilitate implementation and use
of payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds, the interim final rule identifies
a non-exclusive list of eligible uses of
funding that respond to the negative
economic impacts of the public health
emergency. Consistent with the
discussion above, the eligible uses listed
below would respond directly to the
economic or financial harms resulting
from and or exacerbated by the public
health emergency.
•Assistance to Unemployed Workers.
This includes assistance to unemployed
workers, including services like job
training to accelerate rehiring of
unemployed workers; these services
may extend to workers unemployed due
to the pandemic or the resulting
recession, or who were already
unemployed when the pandemic began
and remain so due to the negative
economic impacts of the pandemic.
•State Unemployment Insurance
Trust Funds. Consistent with the
approach taken in the CRF, recipients
may make deposits into the state
account of the Unemployment Trust
Fund established under section 904 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1104)
up to the level needed to restore the pre-
pandemic balances of such account as of
January 27, 2020 or to pay back
advances received under Title XII of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1321) for
the payment of benefits between January
27, 2020 and May 17, 2021, given the
close nexus between Unemployment
Trust Fund costs, solvency of
Unemployment Trust Fund systems,
and pandemic economic impacts.
Further, Unemployment Trust Fund
deposits can decrease fiscal strain on
Unemployment Insurance systems
impacted by the pandemic. States facing
a sharp increase in Unemployment
Insurance claims during the pandemic
may have drawn down positive
Unemployment Trust Fund balances
and, after exhausting the balance,
required advances to fund continuing
obligations to claimants. Because both
of these impacts were driven directly by
the need for assistance to unemployed
workers during the pandemic,
replenishing Unemployment Trust
Funds up to the pre-pandemic level
responds to the pandemic’s negative
economic impacts on unemployed
workers.
•Assistance to Households.
Assistance to households or populations
facing negative economic impacts due to
COVID–19 is also an eligible use. This
includes: Food assistance; rent,
mortgage, or utility assistance;
counseling and legal aid to prevent
eviction or homelessness; cash
assistance (discussed below); emergency
assistance for burials, home repairs,
weatherization, or other needs; internet
access or digital literacy assistance; or
job training to address negative
economic or public health impacts
experienced due to a worker’s
occupation or level of training. As
discussed above, in considering whether
a potential use is eligible under this
category, a recipient must consider
whether, and the extent to which, the
household has experienced a negative
economic impact from the pandemic. In
assessing whether a household or
population experienced economic harm
as a result of the pandemic, a recipient
may presume that a household or
population that experienced
unemployment or increased food or
housing insecurity or is low- or
moderate-income experienced negative
economic impacts resulting from the
pandemic. For example, a cash transfer
program may focus on unemployed
workers or low- and moderate-income
families, which have faced
disproportionate economic harms due to
the pandemic. Cash transfers must be
reasonably proportional to the negative
economic impact they are intended to
address. Cash transfers grossly in excess
of the amount needed to address the
negative economic impact identified by
the recipient would not be considered to
be a response to the COVID–19 public
health emergency or its negative
impacts. In particular, when considering
the appropriate size of permissible cash
transfers made in response to the
COVID–19 public health emergency,
State, local and Tribal governments may
consider and take guidance from the per
person amounts previously provided by
the Federal Government in response to
the COVID–19 crisis. Cash transfers that
are grossly in excess of such amounts
would be outside the scope of eligible
uses under sections 602(c)(1)(A) and
603(c)(1)(A) and could be subject to
recoupment. In addition, a recipient
could provide survivor’s benefits to
surviving family members of COVID–19
victims, or cash assistance to widows,
widowers, and dependents of eligible
COVID–19 victims.
•Expenses to Improve Efficacy of
Economic Relief Programs. State, local,
and Tribal governments may use
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds to improve efficacy of programs
addressing negative economic impacts,
including through use of data analysis,
targeted consumer outreach,
improvements to data or technology
infrastructure, and impact evaluations.
•Small Businesses and Non-profits.
As discussed above, small businesses
and non-profits faced significant
challenges in covering payroll,
mortgages or rent, and other operating
costs as a result of the public health
emergency and measures taken to
contain the spread of the virus. State,
local, and Tribal governments may
provide assistance to small businesses
to adopt safer operating procedures,
weather periods of closure, or mitigate
financial hardship resulting from the
COVID–19 public health emergency,
including:
Æ Loans or grants to mitigate financial
hardship such as declines in revenues
or impacts of periods of business
closure, for example by supporting
payroll and benefits costs, costs to retain
employees, mortgage, rent, or utilities
costs, and other operating costs;
Æ Loans, grants, or in-kind assistance
to implement COVID–19 prevention or
mitigation tactics, such as physical
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
550
26795 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
87 See Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, An
Uphill Battle: COVID–19’s Outsized Toll on
Minority-Owned Firms (Oct. 8, 2020), https://
www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/
publications/community-development-briefs/db-
20201008-misera-report.aspx (discussing the
impact of COVID–19 on minority owned
businesses).
88 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, All Employees,
State Government [CES9092000001] and All
Employees, Local Government [CES9093000001],
retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/
CES9092000001 and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
series/CES9093000001 (last visited May 8, 2021).
89 From February 2020 to April 2021,
employment in ‘‘Leisure and hospitality’’ has fallen
by approximately 17 percent. See U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, All Employees, Leisure and
Hospitality, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/
USLAH (last visited May 8, 2021). From 2019Q4 to
2020Q4, gross output (e.g. revenue) in arts,
entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and
food services has fallen by approximately 24
percent. See Bureau of Economic Analysis, News
Release: Gross Domestic Product (Third Estimate),
Corporate Profits, and GDP by Industry, Fourth
Quarter and Year 2020 (Mar. 25, 2021), Table 17,
https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/
gdp4q20_3rd.pdf.
90 HUD, supra note 48.
91 Stuart M. Butler & Jonathan Grabinsky,
Tackling the legacy of persistent urban inequality
and concentrated poverty, Brookings Institution
(Nov. 16, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/
up-front/2020/11/16/tackling-the-legacy-of-
Continued
plant changes to enable social
distancing, enhanced cleaning efforts,
barriers or partitions, or COVID–19
vaccination, testing, or contact tracing
programs; and
Æ Technical assistance, counseling, or
other services to assist with business
planning needs.
As discussed above, these services
should respond to the negative
economic impacts of COVID–19.
Recipients may consider additional
criteria to target assistance to businesses
in need, including small businesses.
Such criteria may include businesses
facing financial insecurity, substantial
declines in gross receipts (e.g.,
comparable to measures used to assess
eligibility for the Paycheck Protection
Program), or other economic harm due
to the pandemic, as well as businesses
with less capacity to weather financial
hardship, such as the smallest
businesses, those with less access to
credit, or those serving disadvantaged
communities. Recipients should
consider local economic conditions and
business data when establishing such
criteria.87
•Rehiring State, Local, and Tribal
Government Staff. State, local, and
Tribal governments continue to see
pandemic impacts in overall staffing
levels: State, local, and Tribal
government employment remains more
than 1 million jobs lower in April 2021
than prior to the pandemic.88
Employment losses decrease a state or
local government’s ability to effectively
administer services. Thus, the interim
final rule includes as an eligible use
payroll, covered benefits, and other
costs associated with rehiring public
sector staff, up to the pre-pandemic
staffing level of the government.
•Aid to Impacted Industries.
Sections 602(c)(1)(A) and 603(c)(1)(A)
recognize that certain industries, such
as tourism, travel, and hospitality, were
disproportionately and negatively
impacted by the COVID–19 public
health emergency. Aid provided to
tourism, travel, and hospitality
industries should respond to the
negative economic impacts of the
pandemic on those and similarly
impacted industries. For example, aid
may include assistance to implement
COVID–19 mitigation and infection
prevention measures to enable safe
resumption of tourism, travel, and
hospitality services, for example,
improvements to ventilation, physical
barriers or partitions, signage to
facilitate social distancing, provision of
masks or personal protective equipment,
or consultation with infection
prevention professionals to develop safe
reopening plans.
Aid may be considered responsive to
the negative economic impacts of the
pandemic if it supports businesses,
attractions, business districts, and Tribal
development districts operating prior to
the pandemic and affected by required
closures and other efforts to contain the
pandemic. For example, a recipient may
provide aid to support safe reopening of
businesses in the tourism, travel, and
hospitality industries and to business
districts that were closed during the
COVID–19 public health emergency, as
well as aid for a planned expansion or
upgrade of tourism, travel, and
hospitality facilities delayed due to the
pandemic.
When considering providing aid to
industries other than tourism, travel,
and hospitality, recipients should
consider the extent of the economic
impact as compared to tourism, travel,
and hospitality, the industries
enumerated in the statute. For example,
on net, the leisure and hospitality
industry has experienced an
approximately 24 percent decline in
revenue and approximately 17 percent
decline in employment nationwide due
to the COVID–19 public health
emergency.89 Recipients should also
consider whether impacts were due to
the COVID–19 pandemic, as opposed to
longer-term economic or industrial
trends unrelated to the pandemic.
To facilitate transparency and
accountability, the interim final rule
requires that State, local, and Tribal
governments publicly report assistance
provided to private-sector businesses
under this eligible use, including
tourism, travel, hospitality, and other
impacted industries, and its connection
to negative economic impacts of the
pandemic. Recipients also should
maintain records to support their
assessment of how businesses or
business districts receiving assistance
were affected by the negative economic
impacts of the pandemic and how the
aid provided responds to these impacts.
As discussed above, economic
disparities that existed prior to the
COVID–19 public health emergency
amplified the impact of the pandemic
among low-income and minority
groups. These families were more likely
to face housing, food, and financial
insecurity; are over-represented among
low-wage workers; and many have seen
their livelihoods deteriorate further
during the pandemic and economic
contraction. In recognition of the
disproportionate negative economic
impacts on certain communities and
populations, the interim final rule
identifies services and programs that
will be presumed to be responding to
the negative economic impacts of the
COVID–19 public health emergency
when provided in these communities.
Specifically, Treasury will presume
that certain types of services, outlined
below, are eligible uses when provided
in a QCT, to families and individuals
living in QCTs, or when these services
are provided by Tribal governments.90
Recipients may also provide these
services to other populations,
households, or geographic areas
disproportionately impacted by the
pandemic. In identifying these
disproportionately impacted
communities, recipients should be able
to support their determination that the
pandemic resulted in disproportionate
public health or economic outcomes to
the specific populations, households, or
geographic areas to be served. The
interim final rule identifies a non-
exclusive list of uses that address the
disproportionate negative economic
effects of the COVID–19 public health
emergency, including:
Æ Building Stronger Communities
through Investments in Housing and
Neighborhoods. The economic impacts
of COVID–19 have likely been most
acute in lower-income neighborhoods,
including concentrated areas of high
unemployment, limited economic
opportunity, and housing insecurity.91
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
551
26796 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
persistent-urban-inequality-and-concentrated-
poverty/.
92 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), Office of Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, Quality of Housing, https://
www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/
topic/social-determinants-health/interventions-
resources/quality-of-housing#11 (last visited Apr.
26, 2021).
93 The Opportunity Atlas, https://
www.opportunityatlas.org/ (last visited Apr. 26,
2021); Raj Chetty & Nathaniel Hendren, The
Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational
Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects, Quarterly J.
of Econ. 133(3):1107–162 (2018), available at
https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/
neighborhoodsi/. 94 See supra notes 52 and 84.
Services in this category alleviate the
immediate economic impacts of the
COVID–19 pandemic on housing
insecurity, while addressing conditions
that contributed to poor public health
and economic outcomes during the
pandemic, namely concentrated areas
with limited economic opportunity and
inadequate or poor-quality housing.92
Eligible services include:
D Services to address homelessness
such as supportive housing, and to
improve access to stable, affordable
housing among unhoused individuals;
D Affordable housing development to
increase supply of affordable and high-
quality living units; and
D Housing vouchers, residential
counseling, or housing navigation
assistance to facilitate household moves
to neighborhoods with high levels of
economic opportunity and mobility for
low-income residents, to help residents
increase their economic opportunity
and reduce concentrated areas of low
economic opportunity.93
Æ Addressing Educational Disparities.
As outlined above, school closures and
the transition to remote education raised
particular challenges for lower-income
students, potentially exacerbating
educational disparities, while increases
in economic hardship among families
could have long-lasting impacts on
children’s educational and economic
prospects. Services under this prong
would enhance educational supports to
help mitigate impacts of the pandemic.
Eligible services include:
D New, expanded, or enhanced early
learning services, including pre-
kindergarten, Head Start, or
partnerships between pre-kindergarten
programs and local education
authorities, or administration of those
services;
D Providing assistance to high-poverty
school districts to advance equitable
funding across districts and
geographies;
D Evidence-based educational
services and practices to address the
academic needs of students, including
tutoring, summer, afterschool, and other
extended learning and enrichment
programs; and
D Evidence-based practices to address
the social, emotional, and mental health
needs of students;
Æ Promoting Healthy Childhood
Environments. Children’s economic and
family circumstances have a long-term
impact on their future economic
outcomes.94 Increases in economic
hardship, material insecurity, and
parental stress and behavioral health
challenges all raise the risk of long-term
harms to today’s children due to the
pandemic. Eligible services to address
this challenge include:
D New or expanded high-quality
childcare to provide safe and supportive
care for children;
D Home visiting programs to provide
structured visits from health, parent
educators, and social service
professionals to pregnant women or
families with young children to offer
education and assistance navigating
resources for economic support, health
needs, or child development; and
D Enhanced services for child welfare-
involved families and foster youth to
provide support and training on child
development, positive parenting, coping
skills, or recovery for mental health and
substance use challenges.
State, local, and Tribal governments
are encouraged to use payments from
the Fiscal Recovery Funds to respond to
the direct and immediate needs of the
pandemic and its negative economic
impacts and, in particular, the needs of
households and businesses that were
disproportionately and negatively
impacted by the public health
emergency. As highlighted above, low-
income communities and workers and
people of color have faced more severe
health and economic outcomes during
the pandemic, with pre-existing social
vulnerabilities like low-wage or
insecure employment, concentrated
neighborhoods with less economic
opportunity, and pre-existing health
disparities likely contributing to the
magnified impact of the pandemic. The
Fiscal Recovery Funds provide
resources to not only respond to the
immediate harms of the pandemic but
also to mitigate its longer-term impact in
compounding the systemic public
health and economic challenges of
disproportionately impacted
populations. Treasury encourages
recipients to consider funding uses that
foster a strong, inclusive, and equitable
recovery, especially uses with long-term
benefits for health and economic
outcomes.
Uses Outside the Scope of this
Category. Certain uses would not be
within the scope of this eligible use
category, although may be eligible under
other eligible use categories. A general
infrastructure project, for example,
typically would not be included unless
the project responded to a specific
pandemic public health need (e.g.,
investments in facilities for the delivery
of vaccines) or a specific negative
economic impact like those described
above (e.g., affordable housing in a
QCT). The ARPA explicitly includes
infrastructure if it is ‘‘necessary’’ and in
water, sewer, or broadband. See Section
II.D of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
State, local, and Tribal governments also
may use the Fiscal Recovery Funds
under sections 602(c)(1)(C) or
603(c)(1)(C) to provide ‘‘government
services’’ broadly to the extent of their
reduction in revenue. See Section II.C of
this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
This category of eligible uses also
would not include contributions to
rainy day funds, financial reserves, or
similar funds. Resources made available
under this eligible use category are
intended to help meet pandemic
response needs and provide relief for
households and businesses facing near-
and long-term negative economic
impacts. Contributions to rainy day
funds and similar financial reserves
would not address these needs or
respond to the COVID–19 public health
emergency but would rather constitute
savings for future spending needs.
Similarly, this eligible use category
would not include payment of interest
or principal on outstanding debt
instruments, including, for example,
short-term revenue or tax anticipation
notes, or other debt service costs. As
discussed below, payments from the
Fiscal Recovery Funds are intended to
be used prospectively and the interim
final rule precludes use of these funds
to cover the costs of debt incurred prior
to March 3, 2021. Fees or issuance costs
associated with the issuance of new
debt would also not be covered using
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds because such costs would not
themselves have been incurred to
address the needs of pandemic response
or its negative economic impacts. The
purpose of the Fiscal Recovery Funds is
to provide fiscal relief that will permit
State, local, and Tribal governments to
continue to respond to the COVID–19
public health emergency.
For the same reasons, this category of
eligible uses would not include
satisfaction of any obligation arising
under or pursuant to a settlement
agreement, judgment, consent decree, or
judicially confirmed debt restructuring
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
552
26797 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
95 Sections 602(c)(1)(B), 603(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
96 See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, COVID Data Tracker: Cases & Death
among Healthcare Personnel, https://covid.cdc.gov/
covid-data-tracker/#health-care-personnel (last
visited May 4, 2021); Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, COVID Data Tracker: Confirmed
COVID–19 Cases and Deaths among Staff and Rate
per 1,000 Resident-Weeks in Nursing Homes, by
Week—United States, https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-
data-tracker/#nursing-home-staff (last visited May
4, 2021).
97 See, e.g., The Lancet, The plight of essential
workers during the COVID–19 pandemic, Vol. 395,
Issue 10237:1587 (May 23, 2020), available at
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/
PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931200-9/fulltext.
98 Id.
99 Joanna Gaitens et al., Covid–19 and essential
workers: A narrative review of health outcomes and
moral injury, Int’l J. of Envtl. Research and Pub.
Health 18(4):1446 (Feb. 4, 2021), available at
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33557075/; Tiana
N. Rogers et al., Racial Disparities in COVID–19
Mortality Among Essential Workers in the United
States, World Med. & Health policy 12(3):311–27
(Aug. 5, 2020), available at https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wmh3.358
(finding that vulnerability to coronavirus exposure
was increased among non-Hispanic blacks, who
disproportionately occupied the top nine essential
occupations).
100 Economic Policy Institute, Only 30% of those
working outside their home are receiving hazard
pay (June 16, 2020), https://www.epi.org/press/only-
30-of-those-working-outside-their-home-are-
receiving-hazard-pay-black-and-hispanic-workers-
are-most-concerned-about-bringing-the-
coronavirus-home/.
plan in a judicial, administrative, or
regulatory proceeding, except to the
extent the judgment or settlement
requires the provision of services that
would respond to the COVID–19 public
health emergency. That is, satisfaction
of a settlement or judgment would not
itself respond to COVID–19 with respect
to the public health emergency or its
negative economic impacts, unless the
settlement requires the provision of
services or aid that did directly respond
to these needs, as described above.
In addition, as described in Section
V.III of this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, Treasury will establish
reporting and record keeping
requirements for uses within this
category, including enhanced reporting
requirements for certain types of uses.
Question 1: Are there other types of
services or costs that Treasury should
consider as eligible uses to respond to
the public health impacts of COVID–19?
Describe how these respond to the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
Question 2: The interim final rule
permits coverage of payroll and benefits
costs of public health and safety staff
primarily dedicated to COVID–19
response, as well as rehiring of public
sector staff up to pre-pandemic levels.
For how long should these measures
remain in place? What other measures
or presumptions might Treasury
consider to assess the extent to which
public sector staff are engaged in
COVID–19 response, and therefore
reimbursable, in an easily-administrable
manner?
Question 3: The interim final rule
permits rehiring of public sector staff up
to the government’s pre-pandemic
staffing level, which is measured based
on employment as of January 27, 2020.
Does this approach adequately measure
the pre-pandemic staffing level in a
manner that is both accurate and easily
administrable? Why or why not?
Question 4: The interim final rule
permits deposits to Unemployment
Insurance Trust Funds, or using funds
to pay back advances, up to the pre-
pandemic balance. What, if any,
conditions should be considered to
ensure that funds repair economic
impacts of the pandemic and strengthen
unemployment insurance systems?
Question 5: Are there other types of
services or costs that Treasury should
consider as eligible uses to respond to
the negative economic impacts of
COVID–19? Describe how these respond
to the COVID–19 public health
emergency.
Question 6: What other measures,
presumptions, or considerations could
be used to assess ‘‘impacted industries’’
affected by the COVID–19 public health
emergency?
Question 7: What are the advantages
and disadvantages of using Qualified
Census Tracts and services provided by
Tribal governments to delineate where a
broader range of eligible uses are
presumed to be responsive to the public
health and economic impacts of
COVID–19? What other measures might
Treasury consider? Are there other
populations or geographic areas that
were disproportionately impacted by the
pandemic that should be explicitly
included?
Question 8: Are there other services or
costs that Treasury should consider as
eligible uses to respond to the
disproportionate impacts of COVID–19
on low-income populations and
communities? Describe how these
respond to the COVID–19 public health
emergency or its negative economic
impacts, including its exacerbation of
pre-existing challenges in these areas.
Question 9: The interim final rule
includes eligible uses to support
affordable housing and stronger
neighborhoods in disproportionately-
impacted communities. Discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of
explicitly including other uses to
support affordable housing and stronger
neighborhoods, including rehabilitation
of blighted properties or demolition of
abandoned or vacant properties. In
what ways does, or does not, this
potential use address public health or
economic impacts of the pandemic?
What considerations, if any, could
support use of Fiscal Recovery Funds in
ways that do not result in resident
displacement or loss of affordable
housing units?
B. Premium Pay
Fiscal Recovery Funds payments may
be used by recipients to provide
premium pay to eligible workers
performing essential work during the
COVID–19 public health emergency or
to provide grants to third-party
employers with eligible workers
performing essential work.95 These are
workers who have been and continue to
be relied on to maintain continuity of
operations of essential critical
infrastructure sectors, including those
who are critical to protecting the health
and wellbeing of their communities.
Since the start of the COVID–19
public health emergency in January
2020, essential workers have put their
physical wellbeing at risk to meet the
daily needs of their communities and to
provide care for others. In the course of
this work, many essential workers have
contracted or died of COVID–19.96
Several examples reflect the severity of
the health impacts for essential workers.
Meat processing plants became
‘‘hotspots’’ for transmission, with 700
new cases reported at a single plant on
a single day in May 2020.97 In New York
City, 120 employees of the Metropolitan
Transit Authority were estimated to
have died due to COVID–19 by mid-May
2020, with nearly 4,000 testing positive
for the virus.98 Furthermore, many
essential workers are people of color or
low-wage workers.99 These workers, in
particular, have borne a
disproportionate share of the health and
economic impacts of the pandemic.
Such workers include:
•Staff at nursing homes, hospitals,
and home care settings;
•Workers at farms, food production
facilities, grocery stores, and
restaurants;
•Janitors and sanitation workers;
•Truck drivers, transit staff, and
warehouse workers;
•Public health and safety staff;
•Childcare workers, educators, and
other school staff; and
•Social service and human services
staff.
During the public health emergency,
employers’ policies on COVID–19-
related hazard pay have varied widely,
with many essential workers not yet
compensated for the heightened risks
they have faced and continue to face.100
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
553
26798 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
101 McCormack, supra note 37.
102 Id.
103 Sections 602(g)(2), 603(g)(2) of the Act.
104 The list of critical infrastructure sectors
provided in the interim final rule is based on the
list of essential workers under The Heroes Act, H.R.
6800, 116th Cong. (2020).
105 County median annual wage is taken to be that
of the metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area that
includes the county. See U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, State Occupational Employment and
Wage Estimates, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oessrcst.htm (last visited May 1, 2021); U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, May 2020 Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Area Estimates listed by county or
town, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/county_
links.htm (last visited May 1, 2021).
106 Treasury performed this analysis with data
from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 Annual Social
and Economic Supplement. In determining which
occupations to include in this analysis, Treasury
excluded management and supervisory positions, as
such positions may not necessarily involve regular
in-person interactions or physical handling of items
to the same extent as non-managerial positions.
107 However, such compensation must be ‘‘in
addition to’’ remuneration or wages already
received. That is, employers may not reduce such
workers’ current pay and use Fiscal Recovery Funds
to compensate themselves for premium pay
previously provided to the worker.
Many of these workers earn lower wages
on average and live in
socioeconomically vulnerable
communities as compared to the general
population.101 A recent study found that
25 percent of essential workers were
estimated to have low household
income, with 13 percent in high-risk
households.102 The low pay of many
essential workers makes them less able
to cope with the financial consequences
of the pandemic or their work-related
health risks, including working hours
lost due to sickness or disruptions to
childcare and other daily routines, or
the likelihood of COVID–19 spread in
their households or communities. Thus,
the threats and costs involved with
maintaining the ongoing operation of
vital facilities and services have been,
and continue to be, borne by those that
are often the most vulnerable to the
pandemic. The added health risk to
essential workers is one prominent way
in which the pandemic has amplified
pre-existing socioeconomic inequities.
The Fiscal Recovery Funds will help
respond to the needs of essential
workers by allowing recipients to
remunerate essential workers for the
elevated health risks they have faced
and continue to face during the public
health emergency. To ensure that
premium pay is targeted to workers that
faced or face heightened risks due to the
character of their work, the interim final
rule defines essential work as work
involving regular in-person interactions
or regular physical handling of items
that were also handled by others. A
worker would not be engaged in
essential work and, accordingly may not
receive premium pay, for telework
performed from a residence.
Sections 602(g)(2) and 603(g)(2)
define eligible worker to mean ‘‘those
workers needed to maintain continuity
of operations of essential critical
infrastructure sectors and additional
sectors as each Governor of a State or
territory, or each Tribal government,
may designate as critical to protect the
health and well-being of the residents of
their State, territory, or Tribal
government.’’103 The rule incorporates
this definition and provides a list of
industries recognized as essential
critical infrastructure sectors.104 These
sectors include healthcare, public health
and safety, childcare, education,
sanitation, transportation, and food
production and services, among others
as noted above. As provided under
sections 602(g)(2) and 603(g)(2), the
chief executive of each recipient has
discretion to add additional sectors to
this list, so long as additional sectors are
deemed critical to protect the health and
well-being of residents.
In providing premium pay to essential
workers or grants to eligible employers,
a recipient must consider whether the
pay or grant would ‘‘respond to’’ to the
worker or workers performing essential
work. Premium pay or grants provided
under this section respond to workers
performing essential work if it addresses
the heightened risk to workers who
must be physically present at a jobsite
and, for many of whom, the costs
associated with illness were hardest to
bear financially. Many of the workers
performing critical essential services are
low- or moderate-income workers, such
as those described above. The ARPA
recognizes this by defining premium
pay to mean an amount up to $13 per
hour in addition to wages or
remuneration the worker otherwise
receives and in an aggregate amount not
to exceed $25,000 per eligible worker.
To ensure the provision is implemented
in a manner that compensates these
workers, the interim final rule provides
that any premium pay or grants
provided using the Fiscal Recovery
Funds should prioritize compensation
of those lower income eligible workers
that perform essential work.
As such, providing premium pay to
eligible workers responds to such
workers by helping address the
disparity between the critical services
and risks taken by essential workers and
the relatively low compensation they
tend to receive in exchange. If premium
pay would increase a worker’s total pay
above 150 percent of their residing
state’s average annual wage for all
occupations, as defined by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics, or
their residing county’s average annual
wage, as defined by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics, whichever is
higher, on an annual basis, the State,
local, or Tribal government must
provide Treasury and make publicly
available, whether for themselves or on
behalf of a grantee, a written
justification of how the premium pay or
grant is responsive to workers
performing essential worker during the
public health emergency.105
The threshold of 150 percent for
requiring additional written justification
is based on an analysis of the
distribution of labor income for a
sample of 20 occupations that generally
correspond to the essential workers as
defined in the interim final rule.106 For
these occupations, labor income for the
vast majority of workers was under 150
percent of average annual labor income
across all occupations. Treasury
anticipates that the threshold of 150
percent of the annual average wage will
be greater than the annual average wage
of the vast majority of eligible workers
performing essential work. These
enhanced reporting requirements help
to ensure grants are directed to essential
workers in critical infrastructure sectors
and responsive to the impacts of the
pandemic observed among essential
workers, namely the mis-alignment
between health risks and compensation.
Enhanced reporting also provides
transparency to the public. Finally,
using a localized measure reflects
differences in wages and cost of living
across the country, making this standard
administrable and reflective of essential
worker incomes across a diverse range
of geographic areas.
Furthermore, because premium pay is
intended to compensate essential
workers for heightened risk due to
COVID–19, it must be entirely additive
to a worker’s regular rate of wages and
other remuneration and may not be used
to reduce or substitute for a worker’s
normal earnings. The definition of
premium pay also clarifies that
premium pay may be provided
retrospectively for work performed at
any time since the start of the COVID–
19 public health emergency, where
those workers have yet to be
compensated adequately for work
previously performed.107 Treasury
encourages recipients to prioritize
providing retrospective premium pay
where possible, recognizing that many
essential workers have not yet received
additional compensation for work
conducted over the course of many
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
554
26799 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
108 ARPA, supra note 16.
109 Major sources include personal income tax,
corporate income tax, sales tax, and property tax.
See Lucy Dadayan., States Reported Revenue
Growth in July–September Quarter, Reflecting
Revenue Shifts from the Prior Quarter, State Tax
and Econ. Rev. (Q. 3, 2020), available at https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
103938/state-tax-and-economic-review-2020-q3_
0.pdf.
110 National League of Cities, City Fiscal
Conditions (2020), available at https://www.nlc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2020/08/City_Fiscal_
Conditions_2020_FINAL.pdf.
111 Surveys conducted by the Center for Indian
Country Development at the Federal Reserve Bank
of Minneapolis in March, April, and September
2020. See Moreno & Sobrepena, supra note 73.
112 See, e.g., Fitzpatrick, Haughwout & Setren,
Fiscal Drag from the State and Local Sector?,
Liberty Street Economics Blog, Federal Reserve
Bank of New York (June 27, 2012), https://
www.libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/
06/fiscal-drag-from-the-state-and-local-sector.html;
Jiri Jonas, Great Recession and Fiscal Squeeze at
U.S. Subnational Government Level, IMF Working
Paper 12/184, (July 2012), available at https://
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/
wp12184.pdf; Gordon, supra note 9.
113 State and local government general revenue
from own sources, adjusted for inflation using the
GDP price index. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual
Survey of State Government Finances and U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and
Product Accounts.
114 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, All Employees,
State Government [CES9092000001] and All
Employees, Local Government [CES9093000001],
retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/
CES9092000001 and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
series/CES9093000001 (last visited Apr. 27, 2021).
115 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State
and Local Government Finances, https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/gov-
finances.html (last visited Apr. 30, 2021).
116 The interim final rule would define tax
revenue in a manner consistent with the Census
Bureau’s definition of tax revenue, with certain
changes (i.e., inclusion of revenue from liquor
stores and certain intergovernmental transfers).
Current charges are defined as ‘‘charges imposed for
providing current services or for the sale of
products in connection with general government
activities.’’ It includes revenues such as public
education institution, public hospital, and toll
revenues. Miscellaneous general revenue comprises
of all other general revenue of governments from
their own sources (i.e., other than liquor store,
utility, and insurance trust revenue), including
rents, royalties, lottery proceeds, and fines.
months. Essential workers who have
already earned premium pay for
essential work performed during the
COVID–19 public health emergency
remain eligible for additional payments,
and an essential worker may receive
both retrospective premium pay for
prior work as well as prospective
premium pay for current or ongoing
work.
To ensure any grants respond to the
needs of essential workers and are made
in a fair and transparent manner, the
rule imposes some additional reporting
requirements for grants to third-party
employers, including the public
disclosure of grants provided. See
Section VIII of this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, discussing reporting
requirements. In responding to the
needs of essential workers, a grant to an
employer may provide premium pay to
eligible workers performing essential
work, as these terms are defined in the
interim final rule and discussed above.
A grant provided to an employer may
also be for essential work performed by
eligible workers pursuant to a contract.
For example, if a municipality contracts
with a third party to perform sanitation
work, the third-party contractor could
be eligible to receive a grant to provide
premium pay for these eligible workers.
Question 10: Are there additional
sectors beyond those listed in the
interim final rule that should be
considered essential critical
infrastructure sectors?
Question 11: What, if any, additional
criteria should Treasury consider to
ensure that premium pay responds to
essential workers?
Question 12: What consideration, if
any, should be given to the criteria on
salary threshold, including measure and
level, for requiring written justification?
C. Revenue Loss
Recipients may use payments from
the Fiscal Recovery Funds for the
provision of government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue
experienced due to the COVID–19
public health emergency.108 Pursuant to
sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C) of
the Act, a recipient’s reduction in
revenue is measured relative to the
revenue collected in the most recent full
fiscal year prior to the emergency.
Many State, local, and Tribal
governments are experiencing
significant budget shortfalls, which can
have a devastating impact on
communities. State government tax
revenue from major sources were down
4.3 percent in the six months ended
September 2020, relative to the same
period 2019.109 At the local level, nearly
90 percent of cities have reported being
less able to meet the fiscal needs of their
communities and, on average, cities
expect a double-digit decline in general
fund revenues in their fiscal year
2021.110 Similarly, surveys of Tribal
governments and Tribal enterprises
found majorities of respondents
reporting substantial cost increases and
revenue decreases, with Tribal
governments reporting reductions in
healthcare, housing, social services, and
economic development activities as a
result of reduced revenues.111 These
budget shortfalls are particularly
problematic in the current environment,
as State, local, and Tribal governments
work to mitigate and contain the
COVID–19 pandemic and help citizens
weather the economic downturn.
Further, State, local, and Tribal
government budgets affect the broader
economic recovery. During the period
following the 2007–2009 recession,
State and local government budget
pressures led to fiscal austerity that was
a significant drag on the overall
economic recovery.112 Inflation-
adjusted State and local government
revenue did not return to the previous
peak until 2013,113 while State, local,
and Tribal government employment did
not recover to its prior peak for over a
decade, until August 2019—just a few
months before the COVID–19 public
health emergency began.114
Sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C)
of the Act allow recipients facing budget
shortfalls to use payments from the
Fiscal Recovery Funds to avoid cuts to
government services and, thus, enable
State, local, and Tribal governments to
continue to provide valuable services
and ensure that fiscal austerity measures
do not hamper the broader economic
recovery. The interim final rule
implements these provisions by
establishing a definition of ‘‘general
revenue’’ for purposes of calculating a
loss in revenue and by providing a
methodology for calculating revenue
lost due to the COVID–19 public health
emergency.
General Revenue. The interim final
rule adopts a definition of ‘‘general
revenue’’ based largely on the
components reported under ‘‘General
Revenue from Own Sources’’ in the
Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State
and Local Government Finances, and for
purposes of this interim final rule, helps
to ensure that the components of general
revenue would be calculated in a
consistent manner.115 By relying on a
methodology that is both familiar and
comprehensive, this approach
minimizes burden to recipients and
provides consistency in the
measurement of general revenue across
a diverse set of recipients.
The interim final rule defines the term
‘‘general revenue’’ to include revenues
collected by a recipient and generated
from its underlying economy and would
capture a range of different types of tax
revenues, as well as other types of
revenue that are available to support
government services.116 In calculating
revenue, recipients should sum across
all revenue streams covered as general
revenue. This approach minimizes the
administrative burden for recipients,
provides for greater consistency across
recipients, and presents a more accurate
representation of the overall impact of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
555
26800 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
117 Fund-oriented reporting, such as what is used
under the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB), focuses on the types of uses and
activities funded by the revenue, as opposed to the
economic activity from which the revenue is
sourced. See Governmental Accounting Standards
Series, Statement No. 54 of the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board: Fund Balance
Reporting and Governmental Fund Type
Definitions, No. 287–B (Feb. 2009).
118 Supra note 116.
119 U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance and
Employment Classification Manual (Dec. 2000),
https://www2.census.gov/govs/class/classfull.pdf.
120 For example, in 2018, state transfers to
localities accounted for approximately 27 percent of
local revenues. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey
of State and Local Government Finances, Table 1
(2018), https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2018/
econ/local/public-use-datasets.html.
121 For example, following the 2007–09 recession,
local government property tax collections did not
begin to decline until 2011, suggesting that property
tax collection declines can lag downturns. See U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal current
taxes: State and local: Property taxes
[S210401A027NBEA], retrieved from Federal
Reserve Economic Data, Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=r3YI (last
visited Apr. 22, 2021). Estimating the reduction in
revenue at points throughout the covered period
will allow for this type of lagged effect to be taken
into account during the covered period.
122 Together with revenue from liquor stores from
2015 to 2018. This estimate does not include any
intergovernmental transfers. A recipient using the
three-year average to calculate their growth
adjustment must be based on the definition of
general revenue, including treatment of
intergovernmental transfers. 2015–2018 represents
the most recent available data. See U.S. Census
Bureau, State & Local Government Finance
Historical Datasets and Tables (2018), https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/gov-finances/
data/datasets.html.
the COVID–19 public health emergency
on a recipient’s revenue, rather than
relying on financial reporting prepared
by each recipient, which vary in
methodology used and which generally
aggregates revenue by purpose rather
than by source.117
Consistent with the Census Bureau’s
definition of ‘‘general revenue from own
sources,’’ the definition of general
revenue in the interim final rule would
exclude refunds and other correcting
transactions, proceeds from issuance of
debt or the sale of investments, and
agency or private trust transactions. The
definition of general revenue also would
exclude revenue generated by utilities
and insurance trusts. In this way, the
definition of general revenue focuses on
sources that are generated from
economic activity and are available to
fund government services, rather than a
fund or administrative unit established
to account for and control a particular
activity.118 For example, public utilities
typically require financial support from
the State, local, or Tribal government,
rather than providing revenue to such
government, and any revenue that is
generated by public utilities typically is
used to support the public utility’s
continued operation, rather than being
used as a source of revenue to support
government services generally.
The definition of general revenue
would include all revenue from Tribal
enterprises, as this revenue is generated
from economic activity and is available
to fund government services. Tribes are
not able to generate revenue through
taxes in the same manner as State and
local governments and, as a result,
Tribal enterprises are critical sources of
revenue for Tribal governments that
enable Tribal governments to provide a
range of services, including elder care,
health clinics, wastewater management,
and forestry.
Finally, the term ‘‘general revenue’’
includes intergovernmental transfers
between State and local governments,
but excludes intergovernmental
transfers from the Federal Government,
including Federal transfers made via a
State to a local government pursuant to
the CRF or as part of the Fiscal Recovery
Funds. States and local governments
often share or collect revenue on behalf
of one another, which results in
intergovernmental transfers. When
attributing revenue to a unit of
government, the Census Bureau’s
methodology considers which unit of
government imposes, collects, and
retains the revenue and assigns the
revenue to the unit of government that
meets at least two of those three
factors.119 For purposes of measuring
loss in general revenue due to the
COVID–19 public health emergency and
to better allow continued provision of
government services, the retention and
ability to use the revenue is a more
critical factor. Accordingly, and to better
measure the funds available for the
provision of government services, the
definition of general revenue would
include intergovernmental transfers
from States or local governments other
than funds transferred pursuant to
ARPA, CRF, or another Federal
program. This formulation recognizes
the importance of State transfers for
local government revenue.120
Calculation of Loss. In general,
recipients will compute the extent of the
reduction in revenue by comparing
actual revenue to a counterfactual trend
representing what could have been
expected to occur in the absence of the
pandemic. This approach measures
losses in revenue relative to the most
recent fiscal year prior to the COVID–19
public health emergency by using the
most recent pre-pandemic fiscal year as
the starting point for estimates of
revenue growth absent the pandemic. In
other words, the counterfactual trend
starts with the last full fiscal year prior
to the COVID–19 public health
emergency and then assumes growth at
a constant rate in the subsequent years.
Because recipients can estimate the
revenue shortfall at multiple points in
time throughout the covered period as
revenue is collected, this approach
accounts for variation across recipients
in the timing of pandemic impacts.121
Although revenue may decline for
reasons unrelated to the COVID–19
public health emergency, to minimize
the administrative burden on recipients
and taking into consideration the
devastating effects of the COVID–19
public health emergency, any
diminution in actual revenues relative
to the counterfactual pre-pandemic
trend would be presumed to have been
due to the COVID–19 public health
emergency.
For purposes of measuring revenue
growth in the counterfactual trend,
recipients may use a growth adjustment
of either 4.1 percent per year or the
recipient’s average annual revenue
growth over the three full fiscal years
prior to the COVID–19 public health
emergency, whichever is higher. The
option of 4.1 percent represents the
average annual growth across all State
and local government ‘‘General Revenue
from Own Sources’’ in the most recent
three years of available data.122 This
approach provides recipients with a
standardized growth adjustment when
calculating the counterfactual revenue
trend and thus minimizes
administrative burden, while not
disadvantaging recipients with revenue
growth that exceeded the national
average prior to the COVID–19 public
health emergency by permitting these
recipients to use their own revenue
growth rate over the preceding three
years.
Recipients should calculate the extent
of the reduction in revenue as of four
points in time: December 31, 2020;
December 31, 2021; December 31, 2022;
and December 31, 2023. To calculate the
extent of the reduction in revenue at
each of these dates, recipients should
follow a four-step process:
•Step 1: Identify revenues collected
in the most recent full fiscal year prior
to the public health emergency (i.e., last
full fiscal year before January 27, 2020),
called the base year revenue.
•Step 2: Estimate counterfactual
revenue, which is equal to base year
revenue * [(1 + growth adjustment) ∧(n/
12)], where n is the number of months
elapsed since the end of the base year
to the calculation date, and growth
adjustment is the greater of 4.1 percent
and the recipient’s average annual
revenue growth in the three full fiscal
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
556
26801 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
123 Pay-go infrastructure funding refers to the
practice of funding capital projects with cash-on-
hand from taxes, fees, grants, and other sources,
rather than with borrowed sums.
years prior to the COVID–19 public
health emergency.
•Step 3: Identify actual revenue,
which equals revenues collected over
the past twelve months as of the
calculation date.
•Step 4: The extent of the reduction
in revenue is equal to counterfactual
revenue less actual revenue. If actual
revenue exceeds counterfactual revenue,
the extent of the reduction in revenue is
set to zero for that calculation date.
For illustration, consider a
hypothetical recipient with base year
revenue equal to 100. In Step 2, the
hypothetical recipient finds that 4.1
percent is greater than the recipient’s
average annual revenue growth in the
three full fiscal years prior to the public
health emergency. Furthermore, this
recipient’s base year ends June 30. In
this illustration, n (months elapsed) and
counterfactual revenue would be equal
to:
As of: 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 12/31/2022 12/31/2023
n (months elapsed) .......................................................................................... 18 30 42 54
Counterfactual revenue:.................................................................................. 106.2 110.6 115.1 119.8
The overall methodology for
calculating the reduction in revenue is
illustrated in the figure below:
Upon receiving Fiscal Recovery Fund
payments, recipients may immediately
calculate revenue loss for the period
ending December 31, 2020.
Sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C)
of the Act provide recipients with broad
latitude to use the Fiscal Recovery
Funds for the provision of government
services. Government services can
include, but are not limited to,
maintenance or pay-go funded
building 123 of infrastructure, including
roads; modernization of cybersecurity,
including hardware, software, and
protection of critical infrastructure;
health services; environmental
remediation; school or educational
services; and the provision of police,
fire, and other public safety services.
However, expenses associated with
obligations under instruments
evidencing financial indebtedness for
borrowed money would not be
considered the provision of government
services, as these financing expenses do
not directly provide services or aid to
citizens. Specifically, government
services would not include interest or
principal on any outstanding debt
instrument, including, for example,
short-term revenue or tax anticipation
notes, or fees or issuance costs
associated with the issuance of new
debt. For the same reasons, government
services would not include satisfaction
of any obligation arising under or
pursuant to a settlement agreement,
judgment, consent decree, or judicially
confirmed debt restructuring in a
judicial, administrative, or regulatory
proceeding, except if the judgment or
settlement required the provision of
government services. That is,
satisfaction of a settlement or judgment
itself is not a government service, unless
the settlement required the provision of
government services. In addition,
replenishing financial reserves (e.g.,
rainy day or other reserve funds) would
not be considered provision of a
government service, since such
expenses do not directly relate to the
provision of government services.
Question 13: Are there sources of
revenue that either should or should not
be included in the interim final rule’s
measure of ‘‘general revenue’’ for
recipients? If so, discuss why these
sources either should or should not be
included.
Question 14: In the interim final rule,
recipients are expected to calculate the
reduction in revenue on an aggregate
basis. Discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of, and any potential
concerns with, this approach, including
circumstances in which it could be
necessary or appropriate to calculate
the reduction in revenue by source.
Question 15: Treasury is considering
whether to take into account other
factors, including actions taken by the
recipient as well as the expiration of the
COVID–19 public health emergency, in
determining whether to presume that
revenue losses are ‘‘due to’’ the COVID–
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2 ER17MY21.002</GPH>140 c::::::::J Base year revenue
-Extent of reduction in revenue
130 -Actual revenue (last twelve months)
-+--Counterfactual revenue
120 ------------110 -------------
100 ---
90
80
"Q) ~ ~" ~'1, ~ ,:,-::f l1 rlf1 ,l1 0cJ Q Q Q Q
557
26802 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
124 Treasury notes that using funds to support or
oppose collective bargaining would not be included
as part of ‘‘necessary investments in water, sewer,
or broadband infrastructure.’’
125 Sections 602(c)(1)(D), 603(c)(1)(D) of the Act.
126 Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking
Water State Revolving fund, https://www.epa.gov/
dwsrf (last visited Apr. 30, 2021); Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf (last visited Apr.
30, 2021).
127 Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100–
4.
128 Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.,
common name (Clean Water Act). In 2009, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created
the Green Project Reserve, which increased the
focus on green infrastructure, water and energy
efficient, and environmentally innovative projects.
Public Law 111–5. The CWA was amended by the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014 to further expand the CWSRF’s eligibilities.
Public Law 113–121. The CWSRF’s eligibilities were
further expanded in 2018 by the America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270.
129 See Environmental Protection Agency, The
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds: Financing
America’s Drinking Water, EPA–816–R–00–023
(Nov. 2000), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/
200024WB.PDF?Dockey=200024WB.PDF; See also
Environmental Protection Agency, Learn About the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, https://
www.epa.gov/cwsrf/learn-about-clean-water-state-
revolving-fund-cwsrf (last visited Apr. 30, 2021).
130 33 U.S.C. 1383(c). See also Environmental
Protection Agency, Overview of Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Eligibilities (May 2016), https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/
documents/overview_of_cwsrf_eligibilities_may_
2016.pdf; Claudia Copeland, Clean Water Act: A
Summary of the Law, Congressional Research
Service (Oct. 18, 2016), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
RL30030.pdf; Jonathan L Ramseur, Wastewater
Infrastructure: Overview, Funding, and Legislative
Developments, Congressional Research Service
(May 22, 2018), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
R44963.pdf.
131 42 U.S.C. 300j–12.
132 Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund Eligibility Handbook,
(June 2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2017-06/documents/dwsrf_eligibility_
handbook_june_13_2017_updated_508_version.pdf;
Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water
19 public health emergency. Discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of this
presumption, including when, if ever,
during the covered period it would be
appropriate to reevaluate the
presumption that all losses are
attributable to the COVID–19 public
health emergency.
Question 16: Do recipients anticipate
lagged revenue effects of the public
health emergency? If so, when would
these lagged effects be expected to
occur, and what can Treasury to do
support these recipients through its
implementation of the program?
Question 17: In the interim final rule,
paying interest or principal on
government debt is not considered
provision of a government service.
Discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of this approach,
including circumstances in which
paying interest or principal on
government debt could be considered
provision of a government service.
D. Investments in Infrastructure
To assist in meeting the critical need
for investments and improvements to
existing infrastructure in water, sewer,
and broadband, the Fiscal Recovery
Funds provide funds to State, local, and
Tribal governments to make necessary
investments in these sectors. The
interim final rule outlines eligible uses
within each category, allowing for a
broad range of necessary investments in
projects that improve access to clean
drinking water, improve wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure systems, and
provide access to high-quality
broadband service. Necessary
investments are designed to provide an
adequate minimum level of service and
are unlikely to be made using private
sources of funds. Necessary investments
include projects that are required to
maintain a level of service that, at least,
meets applicable health-based
standards, taking into account resilience
to climate change, or establishes or
improves broadband service to unserved
or underserved populations to reach an
adequate level to permit a household to
work or attend school, and that are
unlikely to be met with private sources
of funds.124
It is important that necessary
investments in water, sewer, or
broadband infrastructure be carried out
in ways that produce high-quality
infrastructure, avert disruptive and
costly delays, and promote efficiency.
Treasury encourages recipients to
ensure that water, sewer, and broadband
projects use strong labor standards,
including project labor agreements and
community benefits agreements that
offer wages at or above the prevailing
rate and include local hire provisions,
not only to promote effective and
efficient delivery of high-quality
infrastructure projects but also to
support the economic recovery through
strong employment opportunities for
workers. Using these practices in
construction projects may help to
ensure a reliable supply of skilled labor
that would minimize disruptions, such
as those associated with labor disputes
or workplace injuries.
To provide public transparency on
whether projects are using practices that
promote on-time and on-budget
delivery, Treasury will seek information
from recipients on their workforce plans
and practices related to water, sewer,
and broadband projects undertaken with
Fiscal Recovery Funds. Treasury will
provide additional guidance and
instructions on the reporting
requirements at a later date.
1. Water and Sewer Infrastructure
The ARPA provides funds to State,
local, and Tribal governments to make
necessary investments in water and
sewer infrastructure.125 By permitting
funds to be used for water and sewer
infrastructure needs, Congress
recognized the critical role that clean
drinking water and services for the
collection and treatment of wastewater
and stormwater play in protecting
public health. Understanding that State,
local, and Tribal governments have a
broad range of water and sewer
infrastructure needs, the interim final
rule provides these governments with
wide latitude to identify investments in
water and sewer infrastructure that are
of the highest priority for their own
communities, which may include
projects on privately-owned
infrastructure. The interim final rule
does this by aligning eligible uses of the
Fiscal Recovery Funds with the wide
range of types or categories of projects
that would be eligible to receive
financial assistance through the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) or Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF).126
Established by the 1987
amendments 127 to the Clean Water Act
(CWA),128 the CWSRF provides
financial assistance for a wide range of
water infrastructure projects to improve
water quality and address water
pollution in a way that enables each
State to address and prioritize the needs
of their populations. The types of
projects eligible for CWSRF assistance
include projects to construct, improve,
and repair wastewater treatment plants,
control non-point sources of pollution,
improve resilience of infrastructure to
severe weather events, create green
infrastructure, and protect waterbodies
from pollution.129 Each of the 51 State
programs established under the CWSRF
have the flexibility to direct funding to
their particular environmental needs,
and each State may also have its own
statutes, rules, and regulations that
guide project eligibility.130
The DWSRF was modeled on the
CWSRF and created as part of the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA),131 with the principal
objective of helping public water
systems obtain financing for
improvements necessary to protect
public health and comply with drinking
water regulations.132 Like the CWSRF,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
558
26803 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Sixth
Report to Congress (March 2018), https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-10/
documents/corrected_sixth_drinking_water_
infrastructure_needs_survey_and_assessment.pdf.
133 Id.
134 Id.
135 42 U.S.C. 300j–12(b)(3)(A).
136 Environmental Protection Agency, Learn
About the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/learn-about-clean-water-
state-revolving-fund-cwsrf (last visited Apr. 30,
2021); 42 U.S.C. 300j–12.
137 House Committee on the Budget, State and
Local Governments are in Dire Need of Federal
Relief (Aug. 19, 2020), https://budget.house.gov/
publications/report/state-and-local-governments-
are-dire-need-federal-relief.
138 Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (Nov. 2019), https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/
documents/fact_sheet_-_dwsrf_overview_final_
0.pdf; Environmental Protection Agency, National
Benefits Analysis for Drinking Water Regulations,
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/national-benefits-
analysis-drinking-water-regulations (last visited
Apr. 30, 2020).
the DWSRF provides States with the
flexibility to meet the needs of their
populations.133 The primary use of
DWSRF funds is to assist communities
in making water infrastructure capital
improvements, including the
installation and replacement of failing
treatment and distribution systems.134
In administering these programs, States
must give priority to projects that ensure
compliance with applicable health and
environmental safety requirements;
address the most serious risks to human
health; and assist systems most in need
on a per household basis according to
State affordability criteria.135
By aligning use of Fiscal Recovery
Funds with the categories or types of
eligible projects under the existing EPA
state revolving fund programs, the
interim final rule provides recipients
with the flexibility to respond to the
needs of their communities while
ensuring that investments in water and
sewer infrastructure made using Fiscal
Recovery Funds are necessary. As
discussed above, the CWSRF and
DWSRF were designed to provide
funding for projects that protect public
health and safety by ensuring
compliance with wastewater and
drinking water health standards.136 The
need to provide funding through the
state revolving funds suggests that these
projects are less likely to be addressed
with private sources of funding; for
example, by remediating failing or
inadequate infrastructure, much of
which is publicly owned, and by
addressing non-point sources of
pollution. This approach of aligning
with the EPA state revolving fund
programs also supports expedited
project identification and investment so
that needed relief for the people and
communities most affected by the
pandemic can deployed expeditiously
and have a positive impact on their
health and wellbeing as soon as
possible. Further, the interim final rule
is intended to preserve flexibility for
award recipients to direct funding to
their own particular needs and priorities
and would not preclude recipients from
applying their own additional project
eligibility criteria.
In addition, responding to the
immediate needs of the COVID–19
public health emergency may have
diverted both personnel and financial
resources from other State, local, and
Tribal priorities, including projects to
ensure compliance with applicable
water health and quality standards and
provide safe drinking and usable
water.137 Through sections 602(c)(1)(D)
and 603(c)(1)(D), the ARPA provides
resources to address these needs.
Moreover, using Fiscal Recovery Funds
in accordance with the priorities of the
CWA and SWDA to ‘‘assist systems
most in need on a per household basis
according to state affordability criteria’’
would also have the benefit of providing
vulnerable populations with safe
drinking water that is critical to their
health and, thus, their ability to work
and learn.138
Recipients may use Fiscal Recovery
Funds to invest in a broad range of
projects that improve drinking water
infrastructure, such as building or
upgrading facilities and transmission,
distribution, and storage systems,
including replacement of lead service
lines. Given the lifelong impacts of lead
exposure for children, and the
widespread nature of lead service lines,
Treasury encourages recipients to
consider projects to replace lead service
lines.
Fiscal Recovery Funds may also be
used to support the consolidation or
establishment of drinking water
systems. With respect to wastewater
infrastructure, recipients may use Fiscal
Recovery Funds to construct publicly
owned treatment infrastructure, manage
and treat stormwater or subsurface
drainage water, facilitate water reuse,
and secure publicly owned treatment
works, among other uses. Finally,
consistent with the CWSRF and
DWSRF, Fiscal Recovery Funds may be
used for cybersecurity needs to protect
water or sewer infrastructure, such as
developing effective cybersecurity
practices and measures at drinking
water systems and publicly owned
treatment works.
Many of the types of projects eligible
under either the CWSRF or DWSRF also
support efforts to address climate
change. For example, by taking steps to
manage potential sources of pollution
and preventing these sources from
reaching sources of drinking water,
projects eligible under the DWSRF and
the ARPA may reduce energy required
to treat drinking water. Similarly,
projects eligible under the CWSRF
include measures to conserve and reuse
water or reduce the energy consumption
of public water treatment facilities.
Treasury encourages recipients to
consider green infrastructure
investments and projects to improve
resilience to the effects of climate
change. For example, more frequent and
extreme precipitation events combined
with construction and development
trends have led to increased instances of
stormwater runoff, water pollution, and
flooding. Green infrastructure projects
that support stormwater system
resiliency could include rain gardens
that provide water storage and filtration
benefits, and green streets, where
vegetation, soil, and engineered systems
are combined to direct and filter
rainwater from impervious surfaces. In
cases of a natural disaster, recipients
may also use Fiscal Recovery Funds to
provide relief, such as interconnecting
water systems or rehabilitating existing
wells during an extended drought.
Question 18: What are the advantages
and disadvantages of aligning eligible
uses with the eligible project type
requirements of the DWSRF and
CWSRF? What other water or sewer
project categories, if any, should
Treasury consider in addition to DWSRF
and CWSRF eligible projects? Should
Treasury consider a broader general
category of water and sewer projects?
Question 19: What additional water
and sewer infrastructure categories, if
any, should Treasury consider to
address and respond to the needs of
unserved, undeserved, or rural
communities? How do these projects
differ from DWSFR and CWSRF eligible
projects?
Question 20: What new categories of
water and sewer infrastructure, if any,
should Treasury consider to support
State, local, and Tribal governments in
mitigating the negative impacts of
climate change? Discuss emerging
technologies and processes that support
resiliency of water and sewer
infrastructure. Discuss any challenges
faced by States and local governments
when pursuing or implementing climate
resilient infrastructure projects.
Question 21: Infrastructure projects
related to dams and reservoirs are
generally not eligible under the CWSRF
and DWSRF categories. Should Treasury
consider expanding eligible
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
559
26804 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
139 See, e.g., https://www.ntia.gov/blog/2020/
more-half-american-households-used-internet-
health-related-activities-2019-ntia-data-show;
https://www.ntia.gov/blog/2020/nearly-third-
american-employees-worked-remotely-2019-ntia-
data-show; and generally, https://www.ntia.gov/
data/digital-nation-data-explorer.
140 As an example, data from the Federal
Communications Commission shows that as of June
2020, 9.07 percent of the U.S. population had no
available cable or fiber broadband providers
providing greater than 25 Mbps download speeds
and 3 Mbps upload speeds. Availability was
significantly less for rural versus urban populations,
with 35.57 percent of the rural population lacking
such access, compared with 2.57 percent of the
urban population. Availability was also
significantly less for tribal versus non-tribal
populations, with 35.93 percent of the tribal
population lacking such access, compared with 8.74
of the non-tribal population. Federal
Communications Commission, Fixed Broadband
Deployment, https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/ (last
visited May 9, 2021).
141 How Do U.S. Internet Costs Compare To The
Rest Of The World?, BroadbandSearch Blog Post,
available at https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/
internet-costs-compared-worldwide.
142 See, e.g., Federal Communications
Commission, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment
Report, available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-21-18A1.pdf.
143 See, e.g., Illinois Department of Commerce &
Economic Opportunity, Broadband Grants, h (last
visited May 9, 2021), https://www2.illinois.gov/
dceo/ConnectIllinois/Pages/BroadbandGrants.aspx;
Kansas Office of Broadband Development,
Broadband Acceleration Grant, https://
www.kansascommerce.gov/wp-content/uploads/
2020/11/Broadband-Acceleration-Grant.pdf (last
visited May 9, 2021); New York State Association
of Counties, Universal Broadband: Deploying High
Speed Internet Access in NYS (Jul. 2017), https://
www.nysac.org/files/BroadbandUpdate
Report2017(1).pdf.
144 This scalability threshold is consistent with
scalability requirements used in other jurisdictions.
Id.
145 Federal Communications Commission,
Broadband Speed Guide, https://www.fcc.gov/
consumers/guides/broadband-speed-guide (last
visited Apr. 30, 2021).
146 Letter from Lisa R. Youngers, President and
CEO of Fiber Broadband Association to FCC, WC
Docket No. 19–126 (filed Jan. 3, 2020), including an
Appendix with research from RVA LLC, Data
Review Of The Importance of Upload Speeds (Jan.
2020), and Ookla speed test data, available at
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/101030085118517/
FCC%20RDOF%20Jan%203%20
Ex%20Parte.pdf.Additional information on historic
growth in data usage is provided in Schools, Health
& Libraries Broadband Coalition, Common Sense
Solutions for Closing the Digital Divide, Apr. 29,
2021.
147 Id. See also United States’s Mobile and
Broadband internet Speeds—Speedtest Global
Index, available at https://www.speedtest.net/
global-index/united-states#fixed.
infrastructure under the interim final
rule to include dam and reservoir
projects? Discuss public health,
environmental, climate, or equity
benefits and costs in expanding the
eligibility to include these types of
projects.
2. Broadband Infrastructure
The COVID–19 public health
emergency has underscored the
importance of universally available,
high-speed, reliable, and affordable
broadband coverage as millions of
Americans rely on the internet to
participate in, among critical activities,
remote school, healthcare, and work.
Recognizing the need for such
connectivity, the ARPA provides funds
to State, territorial, local, and Tribal
governments to make necessary
investments in broadband
infrastructure.
The National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA)
highlighted the growing necessity of
broadband in daily lives through its
analysis of NTIA Internet Use Survey
data, noting that Americans turn to
broadband internet access service for
every facet of daily life including work,
study, and healthcare.139 With increased
use of technology for daily activities and
the movement by many businesses and
schools to operating remotely during the
pandemic, broadband has become even
more critical for people across the
country to carry out their daily lives.
By at least one measure, however,
tens of millions of Americans live in
areas where there is no broadband
infrastructure that provides download
speeds greater than 25 Mbps and upload
speeds of 3 Mbps.140 By contrast, as
noted below, many households use
upload and download speeds of 100
Mbps to meet their daily needs. Even in
areas where broadband infrastructure
exists, broadband access may be out of
reach for millions of Americans because
it is unaffordable, as the United States
has some of the highest broadband
prices in the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development
(OECD).141 There are disparities in
availability as well; historically,
Americans living in territories and
Tribal lands as well as rural areas have
disproportionately lacked sufficient
broadband infrastructure.142 Moreover,
rapidly growing demand has, and will
likely continue to, quickly outpace
infrastructure capacity, a phenomenon
acknowledged by various states around
the country that have set scalability
requirements to account for this
anticipated growth in demand.143
The interim final rule provides that
eligible investments in broadband are
those that are designed to provide
services meeting adequate speeds and
are provided to unserved and
underserved households and
businesses. Understanding that States,
territories, localities, and Tribal
governments have a wide range of
varied broadband infrastructure needs,
the interim final rule provides award
recipients with flexibility to identify the
specific locations within their
communities to be served and to
otherwise design the project.
Under the interim final rule, eligible
projects are expected to be designed to
deliver, upon project completion,
service that reliably meets or exceeds
symmetrical upload and download
speeds of 100 Mbps. There may be
instances in which it would not be
practicable for a project to deliver such
service speeds because of the geography,
topography, or excessive costs
associated with such a project. In these
instances, the affected project would be
expected to be designed to deliver, upon
project completion, service that reliably
meets or exceeds 100 Mbps download
and between at least 20 Mbps and 100
Mbps upload speeds and be scalable to
a minimum of 100 Mbps symmetrical
for download and upload speeds.144 In
setting these standards, Treasury
identified speeds necessary to ensure
that broadband infrastructure is
sufficient to enable users to generally
meet household needs, including the
ability to support the simultaneous use
of work, education, and health
applications, and also sufficiently
robust to meet increasing household
demands for bandwidth. Treasury also
recognizes that different communities
and their members may have a broad
range of internet needs and that those
needs may change over time.
In considering the appropriate speed
requirements for eligible projects,
Treasury considered estimates of typical
households demands during the
pandemic. Using the Federal
Communication Commission’s (FCC)
Broadband Speed Guide, for example, a
household with two telecommuters and
two to three remote learners today are
estimated to need 100 Mbps download
to work simultaneously.145 In
households with more members, the
demands may be greater, and in
households with fewer members, the
demands may be less.
In considering the appropriate speed
requirements for eligible projects,
Treasury also considered data usage
patterns and how bandwidth needs have
changed over time for U.S. households
and businesses as people’s use of
technology in their daily lives has
evolved. In the few years preceding the
pandemic, market research data showed
that average upload speeds in the
United States surpassed over 10 Mbps
in 2017 146 and continued to increase
significantly, with the average upload
speed as of November, 2019 increasing
to 48.41 Mbps,147 attributable, in part to
a shift to using broadband and the
internet by individuals and businesses
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
560
26805 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
148 Id.
149 One high definition Zoom meeting or class
requires approximately 3.8 Mbps/3.0 Mbps (up/
down).
150 See, e.g., Zoom, System Requirements for
Windows, macOS, and Linux, https://
support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362023-
System-requirements-for-Windows-macOS-and-
Linux#h_d278c327-e03d-4896-b19a-96a8f3c0c69c
(last visited May 8, 2021).
151 By one estimate, to upload a one gigabit video
file to YouTube would take 15 minutes at an upload
speed of 10 Mbps compared with 1 minute, 30
seconds at an upload speed of 100 Mbps, and 30
seconds at an upload speed of 300 Mbps.
Reviews.org: What is Symmetrical internet? (March
2020).
152 OVBI: Covid-19 Drove 15 percent Increase in
Broadband Traffic in 2020, OpenVault, Quarterly
Advisory, (Feb. 10, 2021), available at https://
openvault.com/ovbi-covid-19-drove-51-increase-in-
broadband-traffic-in-2020; See OpenVault’s data set
incorporates information on usage by subscribers
across multiple continents, including North
America and Europe. Additional data and detail on
increases in the amount of data users consume and
the broadband speeds they are using is provided in
OpenVault Broadband Insights Report Q4,
Quarterly Advisory (Feb. 10, 2021), available at
https://openvault.com/complimentary-report-4q20/.
153 OVBI Special Report: 202 Upstream Growth
Nearly 4X of Pre-Pandemic Years, OpenVault,
Quarterly Advisory, (April 1, 20201), available at
https://openvault.com/ovbi-special-report-2020-
upstream-growth-rate-nearly-4x-of-pre-pandemic-
years/; Additional data is provided in OpenVault
Broadband Insights Pandemic Impact on Upstream
Broadband Usage and Network Capacity, available
at https://openvault.com/upstream-whitepaper/.
154 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Fixed broadband subscriptions per
100 inhabitants, per speed tiers (June 2020), https://
www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/5.1-FixedBB-
SpeedTiers-2020-06.xls www.oecd.org/sti/
broadband/broadband-statistics.
155 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, Report and
Order, 35 FCC Rcd 686, 690, para. 9 (2020),
available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-
launches-20-billion-rural-digital-opportunity-fund-
0.
156 The BIPP was authorized by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, Section 905, Public Law
116–260, 134 Stat. 1182 (Dec. 27, 2020).
157 Section 905(d)(4) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021.
158 Deployment Report, supra note 142.
159 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, supra note
156.
to create and share content using video
sharing, video conferencing, and other
applications.148
The increasing use of data accelerated
markedly during the pandemic as
households across the country became
increasingly reliant on tools and
applications that require greater internet
capacity, both to download data but also
to upload data. Sending information
became as important as receiving it. A
video consultation with a healthcare
provider or participation by a child in
a live classroom with a teacher and
fellow students requires video to be sent
and received simultaneously.149 As an
example, some video conferencing
technology platforms indicate that
download and upload speeds should be
roughly equal to support two-way,
interactive video meetings.150 For both
work and school, client materials or
completed school assignments, which
may be in the form of PDF files, videos,
or graphic files, also need to be shared
with others. This is often done by
uploading materials to a collaboration
site, and the upload speed available to
a user can have a significant impact on
the time it takes for the content to be
shared with others. 151 These activities
require significant capacity from home
internet connections to both download
and upload data, especially when there
are multiple individuals in one
household engaging in these activities
simultaneously.
This need for increased broadband
capacity during the pandemic was
reflected in increased usage patterns
seen over the last year. As OpenVault
noted in recent advisories, the
pandemic significantly increased the
amount of data users consume. Among
data users observed by OpenVault, per-
subscriber average data usage for the
fourth quarter of 2020 was 482.6
gigabytes per month, representing a 40
percent increase over the 344 gigabytes
consumed in the fourth quarter of 2019
and a 26 percent increase over the third
quarter 2020 average of 383.8
gigabytes.152 OpenVault also noted
significant increases in upstream usage
among the data users it observed, with
upstream data usage growing 63
percent—from 19 gigabytes to 31
gigabytes—between December, 2019 and
December, 2020.153 According to an
OECD Broadband statistic from June
2020, the largest percentage of U.S.
broadband subscribers have services
providing speeds between 100 Mbps
and 1 Gbps.154
Jurisdictions and Federal programs
are increasingly responding to the
growing demands of their communities
for both heightened download and
upload speeds. For example, Illinois
now requires 100 Mbps symmetrical
service as the construction standard for
its state broadband grant programs. This
standard is also consistent with speed
levels, particularly download speed
levels, prioritized by other Federal
programs supporting broadband
projects. Bids submitted as part of the
FCC in its Rural Digital Opportunity
Fund (RDOF), established to support the
construction of broadband networks in
rural communities across the country,
are given priority if they offer faster
service, with the service offerings of 100
Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload
being included in the ‘‘above baseline’’
performance tier set by the FCC.155 The
Broadband Infrastructure Program
(BBIP)156 of the Department of
Commerce, which provides Federal
funding to deploy broadband
infrastructure to eligible service areas of
the country also prioritizes projects
designed to provide broadband service
with a download speed of not less than
100 Mbps and an upload speed of not
less than 20 Mbps.157
The 100 Mbps upload and download
speeds will support the increased and
growing needs of households and
businesses. Recognizing that, in some
instances, 100 Mbps upload speed may
be impracticable due to geographical,
topographical, or financial constraints,
the interim final rule permits upload
speeds of between at least 20 Mbps and
100 Mbps in such instances. To provide
for investments that will accommodate
technologies requiring symmetry in
download and upload speeds, as noted
above, eligible projects that are not
designed to deliver, upon project
completion, service that reliably meets
or exceeds symmetrical speeds of 100
Mbps because it would be impracticable
to do so should be designed so that they
can be scalable to such speeds.
Recipients are also encouraged to
prioritize investments in fiber optic
infrastructure where feasible, as such
advanced technology enables the next
generation of application solutions for
all communities.
Under the interim final rule, eligible
projects are expected to focus on
locations that are unserved or
underserved. The interim final rule
treats users as being unserved or
underserved if they lack access to a
wireline connection capable of reliably
delivering at least minimum speeds of
25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload
as households and businesses lacking
this level of access are generally not
viewed as being able to originate and
receive high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video
telecommunications. This threshold is
consistent with the FCC’s benchmark for
an ‘‘advanced telecommunications
capability.’’158 This threshold is also
consistent with thresholds used in other
Federal programs to identify eligible
areas to be served by programs to
improve broadband services. For
example, in the FCC’s RDOF program,
eligible areas include those without
current (or already funded) access to
terrestrial broadband service providing
25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload
speeds.159 The Department of
Commerce’s BBIP also considers
households to be ‘‘unserved’’ generally
if they lack access to broadband service
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
561
26806 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
with a download speed of not less than
25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload,
among other conditions. In selecting an
area to be served by a project, recipients
are encouraged to avoid investing in
locations that have existing agreements
to build reliable wireline service with
minimum speeds of 100 Mbps
download and 20 Mbps upload by
December 31, 2024, in order to avoid
duplication of efforts and resources.
Recipients are also encouraged to
consider ways to integrate affordability
options into their program design. To
meet the immediate needs of unserved
and underserved households and
businesses, recipients are encouraged to
focus on projects that deliver a physical
broadband connection by prioritizing
projects that achieve last mile-
connections. Treasury also encourages
recipients to prioritize support for
broadband networks owned, operated
by, or affiliated with local governments,
non-profits, and co-operatives—
providers with less pressure to turn
profits and with a commitment to
serving entire communities.
Under sections 602(c)(1)(A) and
603(c)(1)(A), assistance to households
facing negative economic impacts due to
COVID–19 is also an eligible use,
including internet access or digital
literacy assistance. As discussed above,
in considering whether a potential use
is eligible under this category, a
recipient must consider whether, and
the extent to which, the household has
experienced a negative economic impact
from the pandemic.
Question 22: What are the advantages
and disadvantages of setting minimum
symmetrical download and upload
speeds of 100 Mbps? What other
minimum standards would be
appropriate and why?
Question 23: Would setting such a
minimum be impractical for particular
types of projects? If so, where and on
what basis should those projects be
identified? How could such a standard
be set while also taking into account the
practicality of using this standard in
particular types of projects? In addition
to topography, geography, and financial
factors, what other constraints, if any,
are relevant to considering whether an
investment is impracticable?
Question 24: What are the advantages
and disadvantages of setting a
minimum level of service at 100 Mbps
download and 20 Mbps upload in
projects where it is impracticable to set
minimum symmetrical download and
upload speeds of 100 Mbps? What are
the advantages and disadvantages of
setting a scalability requirement in these
cases? What other minimum standards
would be appropriate and why?
Question 25: What are the advantages
and disadvantages of focusing these
investments on those without access to
a wireline connection that reliably
delivers 25 Mbps download by 3 Mbps
upload? Would another threshold be
appropriate and why?
Question 26: What are the advantages
and disadvantages of setting any
particular threshold for identifying
unserved or underserved areas,
minimum speed standards or scalability
minimum? Are there other standards
that should be set (e.g., latency)? If so,
why and how? How can such threshold,
standards, or minimum be set in a way
that balances the public’s interest in
making sure that reliable broadband
services meeting the daily needs of all
Americans are available throughout the
country with the providing recipients
flexibility to meet the varied needs of
their communities?
III. Restrictions on Use
As discussed above, recipients have
considerable flexibility to use Fiscal
Recovery Funds to address the diverse
needs of their communities. To ensure
that payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds are used for these congressionally
permitted purposes, the ARPA includes
two provisions that further define the
boundaries of the statute’s eligible uses.
Section 602(c)(2)(A) of the Act provides
that States and territories may not ‘‘use
the funds . . . to either directly or
indirectly offset a reduction in . . . net
tax revenue . . . resulting from a change
in law, regulation, or administrative
interpretation during the covered period
that reduces any tax . . . or delays the
imposition of any tax or tax increase.’’
In addition, sections 602(c)(2)(B) and
603(c)(2) prohibit any recipient,
including cities, nonentitlement units of
government, and counties, from using
Fiscal Recovery Funds for deposit into
any pension fund. These restrictions
support the use of funds for the
congressionally permitted purposes
described in Section II of this
Supplementary Information by
providing a backstop against the use of
funds for purposes outside of the
eligible use categories.
These provisions give force to
Congress’s clear intent that Fiscal
Recovery Funds be spent within the
four eligible uses identified in the
statute—(1) to respond to the public
health emergency and its negative
economic impacts, (2) to provide
premium pay to essential workers, (3) to
provide government services to the
extent of eligible governments’ revenue
losses, and (4) to make necessary water,
sewer, and broadband infrastructure
investments—and not otherwise. These
four eligible uses reflect Congress’s
judgment that the Fiscal Recovery
Funds should be expended in particular
ways that support recovery from the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
The further restrictions reflect
Congress’s judgment that tax cuts and
pension deposits do not fall within
these eligible uses. The interim final
rule describes how Treasury will
identify when such uses have occurred
and how it will recoup funds put
toward these impermissible uses and, as
discussed in Section VIII of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, establishes
a reporting framework for monitoring
the use of Fiscal Recovery Funds for
eligible uses.
A. Deposit Into Pension Funds
The statute provides that recipients
may not use Fiscal Recovery Funds for
‘‘deposit into any pension fund.’’ For
the reasons discussed below, Treasury
interprets ‘‘deposit’’ in this context to
refer to an extraordinary payment into a
pension fund for the purpose of
reducing an accrued, unfunded liability.
More specifically, the interim final rule
does not permit this assistance to be
used to make a payment into a pension
fund if both:
1. The payment reduces a liability
incurred prior to the start of the COVID–
19 public health emergency, and
2. the payment occurs outside the
recipient’s regular timing for making
such payments.
Under this interpretation, a ‘‘deposit’’
is distinct from a ‘‘payroll
contribution,’’ which occurs when
employers make payments into pension
funds on regular intervals, with
contribution amounts based on a pre-
determined percentage of employees’
wages and salaries.
As discussed above, eligible uses for
premium pay and responding to the
negative economic impacts of the
COVID–19 public health emergency
include hiring and compensating public
sector employees. Interpreting the scope
of ‘‘deposit’’ to exclude contributions
that are part of payroll contributions is
more consistent with these eligible uses
and would reduce administrative
burden for recipients. Accordingly, if an
employee’s wages and salaries are an
eligible use of Fiscal Recovery Funds,
recipients may treat the employee’s
covered benefits as an eligible use of
Fiscal Recovery Funds. For purposes of
the Fiscal Recovery Funds, covered
benefits include costs of all types of
leave (vacation, family-related, sick,
military, bereavement, sabbatical, jury
duty), employee insurance (health, life,
dental, vision), retirement (pensions,
401(k)), unemployment benefit plans
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
562
26807 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
160 In this sub-section, ‘‘recipient governments’’
refers only to States and territories. In other
sections, ‘‘recipient governments’’ refers more
broadly to eligible governments receiving funding
from the Fiscal Recovery Funds.
161 For brevity, referred to as ‘‘changes in law,
regulation, or interpretation’’ for the remainder of
this preamble.
(Federal and State), workers’
compensation insurance, and Federal
Insurance Contributions Act taxes
(which includes Social Security and
Medicare taxes).
Treasury anticipates that this
approach to employees’ covered benefits
will be comprehensive and, for
employees whose wage and salary costs
are eligible expenses, will allow all
covered benefits listed in the previous
paragraph to be eligible under the Fiscal
Recovery Funds. Treasury expects that
this will minimize the administrative
burden on recipients by treating all the
specified covered benefit types as
eligible expenses, for employees whose
wage and salary costs are eligible
expenses.
Question 27: Beyond a ‘‘deposit’’ and
a ‘‘payroll contribution,’’ are there other
types of payments into a pension fund
that Treasury should consider?
B. Offset a Reduction in Net Tax
Revenue
For States and territories (recipient
governments 160), section 602(c)(2)(A)—
the offset provision—prohibits the use
of Fiscal Recovery Funds to directly or
indirectly offset a reduction in net tax
revenue resulting from a change in law,
regulation, or administrative
interpretation 161 during the covered
period. If a State or territory uses Fiscal
Recovery Funds to offset a reduction in
net tax revenue, the ARPA provides that
the State or territory must repay to the
Treasury an amount equal to the lesser
of (i) the amount of the applicable
reduction attributable to the
impermissible offset and (ii) the amount
received by the State or territory under
the ARPA. See Section IV of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. As
discussed below Section IV of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, a State or
territory that chooses to use Fiscal
Recovery Funds to offset a reduction in
net tax revenue does not forfeit its entire
allocation of Fiscal Recovery Funds
(unless it misused the full allocation to
offset a reduction in net tax revenue) or
any non-ARPA funding received.
The interim final rule implements
these conditions by establishing a
framework for States and territories to
determine the cost of changes in law,
regulation, or interpretation that reduce
tax revenue and to identify and value
the sources of funds that will offset—
i.e., cover the cost of—any reduction in
net tax revenue resulting from such
changes. A recipient government would
only be considered to have used Fiscal
Recovery Funds to offset a reduction in
net tax revenue resulting from changes
in law, regulation, or interpretation if,
and to the extent that, the recipient
government could not identify sufficient
funds from sources other than the Fiscal
Recovery Funds to offset the reduction
in net tax revenue. If sufficient funds
from other sources cannot be identified
to cover the full cost of the reduction in
net tax revenue resulting from changes
in law, regulation, or interpretation, the
remaining amount not covered by these
sources will be considered to have been
offset by Fiscal Recovery Funds, in
contravention of the offset provision.
The interim final rule recognizes three
sources of funds that may offset a
reduction in net tax revenue other than
Fiscal Recovery Funds—organic growth,
increases in revenue (e.g., an increase in
a tax rate), and certain cuts in spending.
In order to reduce burden, the interim
final rule’s approach also incorporates
the types of information and modeling
already used by States and territories in
their own fiscal and budgeting
processes. By incorporating existing
budgeting processes and capabilities,
States and territories will be able to
assess and evaluate the relationship of
tax and budget decisions to uses of the
Fiscal Recovery Funds based on
information they likely have or can
obtain. This approach ensures that
recipient governments have the
information they need to understand the
implications of their decisions regarding
the use of the Fiscal Recovery Funds—
and, in particular, whether they are
using the funds to directly or indirectly
offset a reduction in net tax revenue,
making them potentially subject to
recoupment.
Reporting on both the eligible uses
and on a State’s or territory’s covered
tax changes that would reduce tax
revenue will enable identification of,
and recoupment for, use of Fiscal
Recovery Funds to directly offset
reductions in tax revenue resulting from
tax relief. Moreover, this approach
recognizes that, because money is
fungible, even if Fiscal Recovery Funds
are not explicitly or directly used to
cover the costs of changes that reduce
net tax revenue, those funds may be
used in a manner inconsistent with the
statute by indirectly being used to
substitute for the State’s or territory’s
funds that would otherwise have been
needed to cover the costs of the
reduction. By focusing on the cost of
changes that reduce net tax revenue—
and how a recipient government is
offsetting those reductions in
constructing its budget over the covered
period—the framework prevents efforts
to use Fiscal Recovery Funds to
indirectly offset reductions in net tax
revenue for which the recipient
government has not identified other
offsetting sources of funding.
As discussed in greater detail below
in this preamble, the framework set
forth in the interim final rule establishes
a step-by-step process for determining
whether, and the extent to which, Fiscal
Recovery Funds have been used to offset
a reduction in net tax revenue. Based on
information reported annually by the
recipient government:
•First, each year, each recipient
government will identify and value the
changes in law, regulation, or
interpretation that would result in a
reduction in net tax revenue, as it would
in the ordinary course of its budgeting
process. The sum of these values in the
year for which the government is
reporting is the amount it needs to ‘‘pay
for’’ with sources other than Fiscal
Recovery Funds (total value of revenue
reducing changes).
•Second, the interim final rule
recognizes that it may be difficult to
predict how a change would affect net
tax revenue in future years and,
accordingly, provides that if the total
value of the changes in the year for
which the recipient government is
reporting is below a de minimis level,
as discussed below, the recipient
government need not identify any
sources of funding to pay for revenue
reducing changes and will not be
subject to recoupment.
•Third, a recipient government will
consider the amount of actual tax
revenue recorded in the year for which
they are reporting. If the recipient
government’s actual tax revenue is
greater than the amount of tax revenue
received by the recipient for the fiscal
year ending 2019, adjusted annually for
inflation, the recipient government will
not be considered to have violated the
offset provision because there will not
have been a reduction in net tax
revenue.
•Fourth, if the recipient
government’s actual tax revenue is less
than the amount of tax revenue received
by the recipient government for the
fiscal year ending 2019, adjusted
annually for inflation, in the reporting
year the recipient government will
identify any sources of funds that have
been used to permissibly offset the total
value of covered tax changes other than
Fiscal Recovery Funds. These are:
Æ State or territory tax changes that
would increase any source of general
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
563
26808 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
162 See, e.g., Tax Policy Center, How do state
earned income tax credits work?, https://
www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-
state-earned-income-tax-credits-work/ (last visited
May 9, 2021).
163 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, GDP Price Deflator, https://
www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/gdp-price-
deflator (last visited May 9, 2021).
164 Using Fiscal Year 2019 is consistent with
section 602 as Congress provided for using that
baseline for determining the impact of revenue loss
affecting the provision of government services. See
section 602(c)(1)(C).
165 Congressional Budget Office, An Overview of
the Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031 (February 1,
2021), available at https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/56965.
166 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State
and Local Government Finances Glossary, https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/state/about/
glossary.html (last visited Apr. 30, 2021).
fund revenue, such as a change that
would increase a tax rate; and
Æ Spending cuts in areas not being
replaced by Fiscal Recovery Funds.
The recipient government will
calculate the value of revenue reduction
remaining after applying these sources
of offsetting funding to the total value of
revenue reducing changes—that, is, how
much of the tax change has not been
paid for. The recipient government will
then compare that value to the
difference between the baseline and
actual tax revenue. A recipient
government will not be required to
repay to the Treasury an amount that is
greater than the recipient government’s
actual tax revenue shortfall relative to
the baseline (i.e., fiscal year 2019 tax
revenue adjusted for inflation). This
‘‘revenue reduction cap,’’ together with
Step 3, ensures that recipient
governments can use organic revenue
growth to offset the cost of revenue
reductions.
•Finally, if there are any amounts
that could be subject to recoupment,
Treasury will provide notice to the
recipient government of such amounts.
This process is discussed in greater
detail in Section IV of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Together, these steps allow Treasury
to identify the amount of reduction in
net tax revenue that both is attributable
to covered changes and has been
directly or indirectly offset with Fiscal
Recovery Funds. This process ensures
Fiscal Recovery Funds are used in a
manner consistent with the statute’s
defined eligible uses and the offset
provision’s limitation on these eligible
uses, while avoiding undue interference
with State and territory decisions
regarding tax and spending policies.
The interim final rule also
implements a process for recouping
Fiscal Recovery Funds that were used to
offset reductions in net tax revenue,
including the calculation of any
amounts that may be subject to
recoupment, a process for a recipient
government to respond to a notice of
recoupment, and clarification regarding
amounts excluded from recoupment.
See Section IV of this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
The interim final rule includes several
definitions that are applicable to the
implementation of the offset provision.
Covered change. The offset provision
is triggered by a reduction in net tax
revenue resulting from ‘‘a change in
law, regulation, or administrative
interpretation.’’ A covered change
includes any final legislative or
regulatory action, a new or changed
administrative interpretation, and the
phase-in or taking effect of any statute
or rule where the phase-in or taking
effect was not prescribed prior to the
start of the covered period. Changed
administrative interpretations would
not include corrections to replace prior
inaccurate interpretations; such
corrections would instead be treated as
changes implementing legislation
enacted or regulations issued prior to
the covered period; the operative change
in those circumstances is the underlying
legislation or regulation that occurred
prior to the covered period. Moreover,
only the changes within the control of
the State or territory are considered
covered changes. Covered changes do
not include a change in rate that is
triggered automatically and based on
statutory or regulatory criteria in effect
prior to the covered period. For
example, a state law that sets its earned
income tax credit (EITC) at a fixed
percentage of the Federal EITC will see
its EITC payments automatically
increase—and thus its tax revenue
reduced—because of the Federal
Government’s expansion of the EITC in
the ARPA.162 This would not be
considered a covered change. In
addition, the offset provision applies
only to actions for which the change in
policy occurs during the covered period;
it excludes regulations or other actions
that implement a change or law
substantively enacted prior to March 3,
2021. Finally, Treasury has determined
and previously announced that income
tax changes—even those made during
the covered period—that simply
conform with recent changes in Federal
law (including those to conform to
recent changes in Federal taxation of
unemployment insurance benefits and
taxation of loan forgiveness under the
Paycheck Protection Program) are
permissible under the offset provision.
Baseline. For purposes of measuring a
reduction in net tax revenue, the interim
final rule measures actual changes in tax
revenue relative to a revenue baseline
(baseline). The baseline will be
calculated as fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019)
tax revenue indexed for inflation in
each year of the covered period, with
inflation calculated using the Bureau of
Economic Analysis’s Implicit Price
Deflator.163
FY 2019 was chosen as the starting
year for the baseline because it is the
last full fiscal year prior to the COVID–
19 public health emergency.164 This
baseline year is consistent with the
approach directed by the ARPA in
sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C),
which identify the ‘‘most recent full
fiscal year of the [State, territory, or
Tribal government] prior to the
emergency’’ as the comparator for
measuring revenue loss. U.S. gross
domestic product is projected to
rebound to pre-pandemic levels in
2021,165 suggesting that an FY 2019 pre-
pandemic baseline is a reasonable
comparator for future revenue levels.
The FY 2019 baseline revenue will be
adjusted annually for inflation to allow
for direct comparison of actual tax
revenue in each year (reported in
nominal terms) to baseline revenue in
common units of measurement; without
inflation adjustment, each dollar of
reported actual tax revenue would be
worth less than each dollar of baseline
revenue expressed in 2019 terms.
Reporting year. The interim final rule
defines ‘‘reporting year’’ as a single year
within the covered period, aligned to
the current fiscal year of the recipient
government during the covered period,
for which a recipient government
reports the value of covered changes
and any sources of offsetting revenue
increases (‘‘in-year’’ value), regardless of
when those changes were enacted. For
the fiscal years ending in 2021 or 2025
(partial years), the term ‘‘reporting year’’
refers to the portion of the year falling
within the covered period. For example,
the reporting year for a fiscal year
beginning July 2020 and ending June
2021 would be from March 3, 2021 to
July 2021.
Tax revenue. The interim final rule’s
definition of ‘‘tax revenue’’ is based on
the Census Bureau’s definition of taxes,
used for its Annual Survey of State
Government Finances.166 It provides a
consistent, well-established definition
with which States and territories will be
familiar and is consistent with the
approach taken in Section II.C of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION describing
the implementation of sections
602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C) of the Act,
regarding revenue loss. Consistent with
the approach described in Section II.C
of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, tax
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
564
26809 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
167 See, e.g., Megan Randall & Kim Rueben, Tax
Policy Center, Sustainable Budgeting in the States:
Evidence on State Budget Institutions and Practices
(Nov. 2017), available at https://
www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/
publication/149186/sustainable-budgeting-in-the-
states_1.pdf.
168 Data provided by the Urban-Brookings Tax
Policy Center for state-level EITC changes for 2004–
2017.
revenue does not include revenue taxed
and collected by a different unit of
government (e.g., revenue from taxes
levied by a local government and
transferred to a recipient government).
Framework. The interim final rule
provides a step-by-step framework, to be
used in each reporting year, to calculate
whether the offset provision applies to
a State’s or territory’s use of Fiscal
Recovery Funds:
(1) Covered changes that reduce tax
revenue. For each reporting year, a
recipient government will identify and
value covered changes that the recipient
government predicts will have the effect
of reducing tax revenue in a given
reporting year, similar to the way it
would in the ordinary course of its
budgeting process. The value of these
covered changes may be reported based
on estimated values produced by a
budget model, incorporating reasonable
assumptions, that aligns with the
recipient government’s existing
approach for measuring the effects of
fiscal policies, and that measures
relative to a current law baseline. The
covered changes may also be reported
based on actual values using a statistical
methodology to isolate the change in
year-over-year revenue attributable to
the covered change(s), relative to the
current law baseline prior to the
change(s). Further, estimation
approaches should not use dynamic
methodologies that incorporate the
projected effects of macroeconomic
growth because macroeconomic growth
is accounted for separately in the
framework. Relative to these dynamic
scoring methodologies, scoring
methodologies that do not incorporate
projected effects of macroeconomic
growth rely on fewer assumptions and
thus provide greater consistency among
States and territories. Dynamic scoring
that incorporates macroeconomic
growth may also increase the likelihood
of underestimation of the cost of a
reduction in tax revenue.
In general and where possible,
reporting should be produced by the
agency of the recipient government
responsible for estimating the costs and
effects of fiscal policy changes. This
approach offers recipient governments
the flexibility to determine their
reporting methodology based on their
existing budget scoring practices and
capabilities. In addition, the approach of
using the projected value of changes in
law that enact fiscal policies to estimate
the net effect of such policies is
consistent with the way many States
and territories already consider tax
changes.167
(2) In excess of the de minimis. The
recipient government will next calculate
the total value of all covered changes in
the reporting year resulting in revenue
reductions, identified in Step 1. If the
total value of the revenue reductions
resulting from these changes is below
the de minimis level, the recipient
government will be deemed not to have
any revenue-reducing changes for the
purpose of determining the recognized
net reduction. If the total is above the de
minimis level, the recipient government
must identify sources of in-year revenue
to cover the full costs of changes that
reduce tax revenue.
The de minimis level is calculated as
1 percent of the reporting year’s
baseline. Treasury recognizes that,
pursuant to their taxing authority, States
and territories may make many small
changes to alter the composition of their
tax revenues or implement other
policies with marginal effects on tax
revenues. They may also make changes
based on projected revenue effects that
turn out to differ from actual effects,
unintentionally resulting in minor
revenue changes that are not fairly
described as ‘‘resulting from’’ tax law
changes. The de minimis level
recognizes the inherent challenges and
uncertainties that recipient governments
face, and thus allows relatively small
reductions in tax revenue without
consequence. Treasury determined the 1
percent level by assessing the historical
effects of state-level tax policy changes
in state EITCs implemented to effect
policy goals other than reducing net tax
revenues.168 The 1 percent de minimis
level reflects the historical reductions in
revenue due to minor changes in state
fiscal policies.
(3) Safe harbor. The recipient
government will then compare the
reporting year’s actual tax revenue to
the baseline. If actual tax revenue is
greater than the baseline, Treasury will
deem the recipient government not to
have any recognized net reduction for
the reporting year, and therefore to be in
a safe harbor and outside the ambit of
the offset provision. This approach is
consistent with the ARPA, which
contemplates recoupment of Fiscal
Recovery Funds only in the event that
such funds are used to offset a reduction
in net tax revenue. If net tax revenue has
not been reduced, this provision does
not apply. In the event that actual tax
revenue is above the baseline, the
organic revenue growth that has
occurred, plus any other revenue-raising
changes, by definition must have been
enough to offset the in-year costs of the
covered changes.
(4) Consideration of other sources of
funding. Next, the recipient government
will identify and calculate the total
value of changes that could pay for
revenue reduction due to covered
changes and sum these items. This
amount can be used to pay for up to the
total value of revenue-reducing changes
in the reporting year. These changes
consist of two categories:
(a) Tax and other increases in
revenue. The recipient government must
identify and consider covered changes
in policy that the recipient government
predicts will have the effect of
increasing general revenue in a given
reporting year. As when identifying and
valuing covered changes that reduce tax
revenue, the value of revenue-raising
changes may be reported based on
estimated values produced by a budget
model, incorporating reasonable
assumptions, aligned with the recipient
government’s existing approach for
measuring the effects of fiscal policies,
and measured relative to a current law
baseline, or based on actual values using
a statistical methodology to isolate the
change in year-over-year revenue
attributable to the covered change(s).
Further, and as discussed above,
estimation approaches should not use
dynamic scoring methodologies that
incorporate the effects of
macroeconomic growth because growth
is accounted for separately under the
interim final rule. In general and where
possible, reporting should be produced
by the agency of the recipient
government responsible for estimating
the costs and effects of fiscal policy
changes. This approach offers recipient
governments the flexibility to determine
their reporting methodology based on
their existing budget scoring practices
and capabilities.
(b) Covered spending cuts. A recipient
government also may cut spending in
certain areas to pay for covered changes
that reduce tax revenue, up to the
amount of the recipient government’s
net reduction in total spending as
described below. These changes must be
reductions in government outlays not in
an area where the recipient government
has spent Fiscal Recovery Funds. To
better align with existing reporting and
accounting, the interim final rule
considers the department, agency, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
565
26810 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
169 This cap is applied in §35.8(c) of the interim
final rule, calculating the amount of funds used in
violation of the tax offset provision.
authority from which spending has been
cut and whether the recipient
government has spent Fiscal Recovery
Funds on that same department, agency,
or authority. This approach was selected
to allow recipient governments to report
how Fiscal Recovery Funds have been
spent using reporting units already
incorporated into their budgeting
process. If they have not spent Fiscal
Recovery Funds in a department,
agency, or authority, the full amount of
the reduction in spending counts as a
covered spending cut, up to the
recipient government’s net reduction in
total spending. If they have, the Fiscal
Recovery Funds generally would be
deemed to have replaced the amount of
spending cut and only reductions in
spending above the amount of Fiscal
Recovery Funds spent on the
department, agency, or authority would
count.
To calculate the amount of spending
cuts that are available to offset a
reduction in tax revenue, the recipient
government must first consider whether
there has been a reduction in total net
spending, excluding Fiscal Recovery
Funds (net reduction in total spending).
This approach ensures that reported
spending cuts actually create fiscal
space, rather than simply offsetting
other spending increases. A net
reduction in total spending is measured
as the difference between total spending
in each reporting year, excluding Fiscal
Recovery Funds spent, relative to total
spending for the recipient’s fiscal year
ending in 2019, adjusted for inflation.
Measuring reductions in spending
relative to 2019 reflects the fact that the
fiscal space created by a spending cut
persists so long as spending remains
below its original level, even if it does
not decline further, relative to the same
amount of revenue. Measuring spending
cuts from year to year would, by
contrast, not recognize any available
funds to offset revenue reductions
unless spending continued to decline,
failing to reflect the actual availability of
funds created by a persistent change and
limiting the discretion of States and
territories. In general and where
possible, reporting should be produced
by the agency of the recipient
government responsible for estimating
the costs and effects of fiscal policy
changes. Treasury chose this approach
because while many recipient
governments may score budget
legislation using projections, spending
cuts are readily observable using actual
values.
This approach—allowing only
spending reductions in areas where the
recipient government has not spent
Fiscal Recovery Funds to be used as an
offset for a reduction in net tax
revenue—aims to prevent recipient
governments from using Fiscal Recovery
Funds to supplant State or territory
funding in the eligible use areas, and
then use those State or territory funds to
offset tax cuts. Such an approach helps
ensure that Fiscal Recovery Funds are
not used to ‘‘indirectly’’ offset revenue
reductions due to covered changes.
In order to help ensure recipient
governments use Fiscal Recovery Funds
in a manner consistent with the
prescribed eligible uses and do not use
Fiscal Recovery Funds to indirectly
offset a reduction in net tax revenue
resulting from a covered change,
Treasury will monitor changes in
spending throughout the covered
period. If, over the course of the covered
period, a spending cut is subsequently
replaced with Fiscal Recovery Funds
and used to indirectly offset a reduction
in net tax revenue resulting from a
covered change, Treasury may consider
such change to be an evasion of the
restrictions of the offset provision and
seek recoupment of such amounts.
(5) Identification of amounts subject
to recoupment. If a recipient
government (i) reports covered changes
that reduce tax revenue (Step 1); (ii) to
a degree greater than the de minimis
(Step 2); (iii) has experienced a
reduction in net tax revenue (Step 3);
and (iv) lacks sufficient revenue from
other, permissible sources to pay for the
entirety of the reduction (Step 4), then
the recipient government will be
considered to have used Fiscal Recovery
Funds to offset a reduction in net tax
revenue, up to the amount that revenue
has actually declined. That is, the
maximum value of reduction in revenue
due to covered changes which a
recipient government must cover is
capped at the difference between the
baseline and actual tax revenue.169 In
the event that the baseline is above
actual tax revenue and the difference
between them is less than the sum of
revenue reducing changes that are not
paid for with other, permissible sources,
organic revenue growth has implicitly
offset a portion of the reduction. For
example, if a recipient government
reduces tax revenue by $1 billion,
makes no other changes, and
experiences revenue growth driven by
organic economic growth worth $500
million, it need only pay for the
remaining $500 million with sources
other than Fiscal Recovery Funds. The
revenue reduction cap implements this
approach for permitting organic revenue
growth to cover the cost of tax cuts.
Finally, as discussed further in
Section IV of this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, a recipient government
may request reconsideration of any
amounts identified as subject to
recoupment under this framework. This
process ensures that all relevant facts
and circumstances, including
information regarding planned spending
cuts and budgeting assumptions, are
considered prior to a determination that
an amount must be repaid. Amounts
subject to recoupment are calculated on
an annual basis; amounts recouped in
one year cannot be returned if the State
or territory subsequently reports an
increase in net tax revenue.
To facilitate the implementation of
the framework above, and in addition to
reporting required on eligible uses, in
each year of the reporting period, each
State and territory will report to
Treasury the following items:
•Actual net tax revenue for the
reporting year;
•Each revenue-reducing change
made to date during the covered period
and the in-year value of each change;
•Each revenue-raising change made
to date during the covered period and
the in-year value of each change;
•Each covered spending cut made to
date during the covered period, the in-
year value of each cut, and
documentation demonstrating that each
spending cut is covered as prescribed
under the interim final rule;
Treasury will provide additional
guidance and instructions the reporting
requirements at a later date.
Question 28: Does the interim final
rule’s definition of tax revenue accord
with existing State and territorial
practice and, if not, are there other
definitions or elements Treasury should
consider? Discuss why or why not.
Question 29: The interim final rule
permits certain spending cuts to cover
the costs of reductions in tax revenue,
including cuts in a department, agency,
or authority in which the recipient
government is not using Fiscal Recovery
Funds. How should Treasury and
recipient governments consider the
scope of a department, agency, or
authority for the use of funds to ensure
spending cuts are not being substituted
with Fiscal Recovery Funds while also
avoiding an overbroad definition of that
captures spending that is, in fact,
distinct?
Question 30: Discuss the budget
scoring methodologies currently used by
States and territories. How should the
interim final rule take into
consideration differences in
approaches? Please discuss the use of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
566
26811 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
170 See 42 CFR 433.51 and 45 CFR 75.306.
171 Section 1001 of Division N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 amended section
601(d)(3) of the Act by extending the end of the
covered period for CRF expenditures from
December 30, 2020 to December 31, 2021.
172 Sections 602(a), 603(a), 602(c)(1) and 603(c)(1)
of the Act.
173 Given the nature of this program, recipients
will not be permitted to use funds to cover pre-
award costs, i.e., those incurred prior to March 3,
2021.
174 Sections 602(e) and 603(e) of the Act.
practices including but not limited to
macrodynamic scoring, microdynamic
scoring, and length of budget windows.
Question 31: If a recipient government
has a balanced budget requirement, how
will that requirement impact its use of
Fiscal Recovery Funds and ability to
implement this framework?
Question 32: To implement the
framework described above, the interim
final rule establishes certain reporting
requirements. To what extent do
recipient governments already produce
this information and on what timeline?
Discuss ways that Treasury and
recipient governments may better rely
on information already produced, while
ensuring a consistent application of the
framework.
Question 33: Discuss States’ and
territories’ ability to produce the figures
and numbers required for reporting
under the interim final rule. What
additional reporting tools, such as a
standardized template, would facilitate
States’ and territories’ ability to
complete the reporting required under
the interim final rule?
C. Other Restrictions on Use
Payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds are also subject to pre-existing
limitations provided in other Federal
statutes and regulations and may not be
used as non-Federal match for other
Federal programs whose statute or
regulations bar the use of Federal funds
to meet matching requirements. For
example, payments from the Fiscal
Recovery Funds may not be used to
satisfy the State share of Medicaid.170
As provided for in the award terms,
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds as a general matter will be subject
to the provisions of the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) (the
Uniform Guidance), including the cost
principles and restrictions on general
provisions for selected items of cost.
D. Timeline for Use of Fiscal Recovery
Funds
Section 602(c)(1) and section 603(c)(1)
require that payments from the Fiscal
Recovery Funds be used only to cover
costs incurred by the State, territory,
Tribal government, or local government
by December 31, 2024. Similarly, the
CARES Act provided that payments
from the CRF be used to cover costs
incurred by December 31, 2021.171 The
definition of ‘‘incurred’’ does not have
a clear meaning. With respect to the
CARES Act, on the understanding that
the CRF was intended to be used to
meet relatively short-term needs,
Treasury interpreted this requirement to
mean that, for a cost to be considered to
have been incurred, performance of the
service or delivery of the goods acquired
must occur by December 31, 2021. In
contrast, the ARPA, passed at a different
stage of the COVID–19 public health
emergency, was intended to provide
more general fiscal relief over a broader
timeline. In addition, the ARPA
expressly permits the use of Fiscal
Recovery Funds for improvements to
water, sewer, and broadband
infrastructure, which entail a longer
timeframe. In recognition of this,
Treasury is interpreting the requirement
in section 602 and section 603 that costs
be incurred by December 31, 2024, to
require only that recipients have
obligated the Fiscal Recovery Funds by
such date. The interim final rule adopts
a definition of ‘‘obligation’’ that is based
on the definition used for purposes of
the Uniform Guidance, which will allow
for uniform administration of this
requirement and is a definition with
which most recipients will be familiar.
Payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds are grants provided to recipients
to mitigate the fiscal effects of the
COVID–19 public health emergency and
to respond to the public health
emergency, consistent with the eligible
uses enumerated in sections 602(c)(1)
and 603(c)(1).172 As such, these funds
are intended to provide economic
stimulus in areas still recovering from
the economic effects of the pandemic. In
implementing and interpreting these
provisions, including what it means to
‘‘respond to’’ the COVID–19 public
health emergency, Treasury takes into
consideration pre-pandemic facts and
circumstances (e.g., average revenue
growth prior to the pandemic) as well as
impact of the pandemic that predate the
enactment of the ARPA (e.g.,
replenishing Unemployment Trust
balances drawn during the pandemic).
While assessing the effects of the
COVID–19 public health emergency
necessarily takes into consideration the
facts and circumstances that predate the
ARPA, use of Fiscal Recovery Funds is
forward looking.
As discussed above, recipients are
permitted to use payments from the
Fiscal Recovery Funds to respond to the
public health emergency, to respond to
workers performing essential work by
providing premium pay or providing
grants to eligible employers, and to
make necessary investments in water,
sewer, or broadband infrastructure,
which all relate to prospective uses. In
addition, sections 602(c)(1)(C) and
603(c)(1)(C) permit recipients to use
Fiscal Recovery Funds for the provision
of government services. This clause
provides that the amount of funds that
may be used for this purpose is
measured by reference to the reduction
in revenue due to the public health
emergency relative to revenues collected
in the most recent full fiscal year, but
this reference does not relate to the
period during which recipients may use
the funds, which instead refers to
prospective uses, consistent with the
other eligible uses.
Although as discussed above the
eligible uses of payments from the
Fiscal Recovery Funds are all
prospective in nature, Treasury
considers the beginning of the covered
period for purposes of determining
compliance with section 602(c)(2)(A) to
be the relevant reference point for this
purpose. The interim final rule thus
permits funds to be used to cover costs
incurred beginning on March 3, 2021.
This aligns the period for use of Fiscal
Recovery Funds with the period during
which these funds may not be used to
offset reductions in net tax revenue.
Permitting Fiscal Recovery Funds to be
used to cover costs incurred beginning
on this date will also mean that
recipients that began incurring costs in
the anticipation of enactment of the
ARPA and in advance of the issuance of
this rule and receipt of payment from
the Fiscal Recovery Funds would be
able to cover them using these
payments.173
As set forth in the award terms, the
period of performance will run until
December 31, 2026, which will provide
recipients a reasonable amount of time
to complete projects funded with
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds.
IV. Recoupment Process
Under the ARPA, failure to comply
with the restrictions on use contained in
sections 602(c) and 603(c) of the Act
may result in recoupment of funds.174
The interim final rule implements these
provisions by establishing a process for
recoupment.
Identification and Notice of
Violations. Failure to comply with the
restrictions on use will be identified
based on reporting provided by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
567
26812 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
175 The interim final rule also provides that
Treasury may extend any deadlines.
176 With respect to Federal financial assistance
more generally, States are subject to the
requirements of the Cash Management
Improvement Act (CMIA), under which Federal
funds are drawn upon only on an as needed basis
and States are required to remit interest on unused
balances to Treasury. Given the statutory
requirement for Treasury to make payments to
States within a certain period, these requirements
of the CMIA and Treasury’s implementing
regulations at 31 CFR part 205 will not apply to
payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds.
Providing funding in two tranches to the majority
of States reflects, to the maximum extent permitted
by section 602 of the Act, the general principles of
Federal cash management and stewardship of
Federal funding, yet will be much less restrictive
than the usual requirements to which States are
subject.
177 The potential course of the virus, and its
impact on the economy, has contributed to a
heightened degree of uncertainty relative to prior
periods. See, e.g., Dave Altig et al., Economic
uncertainty before and during the COVID–19
pandemic, J. of Public Econ. (Nov. 2020), available
at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
abs/pii/S0047272720301389.
recipient. As discussed further in
Sections III.B and VIII of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Treasury
will collect information regarding
eligible uses on a quarterly basis and on
the tax offset provision on an annual
basis. Treasury also may consider other
information in identifying a violation,
such as information provided by
members of the public. If Treasury
identifies a violation, it will provide
written notice to the recipient along
with an explanation of such amounts.
Request for Reconsideration. Under
the interim final rule, a recipient may
submit a request for reconsideration of
any amounts identified in the notice
provided by Treasury. This
reconsideration process provides a
recipient the opportunity to submit
additional information it believes
supports its request in light of the notice
of recoupment, including, for example,
additional information regarding the
recipient’s use of Fiscal Recovery Funds
or its tax revenues. The process also
provides the Secretary with an
opportunity to consider all information
relevant to whether a violation has
occurred, and if so, the appropriate
amount for recoupment.
The interim final rule also establishes
requirements for the timing of a request
for reconsideration. Specifically, if a
recipient wishes to request
reconsideration of any amounts
identified in the notice, the recipient
must submit a written request for
reconsideration to the Secretary within
60 calendar days of receipt of such
notice. The request must include an
explanation of why the recipient
believes that the finding of a violation
or recoupable amount identified in the
notice of recoupment should be
reconsidered. To facilitate the
Secretary’s review of a recipient’s
request for reconsideration, the request
should identify all supporting reasons
for the request. Within 60 calendar days
of receipt of the recipient’s request for
reconsideration, the recipient will be
notified of the Secretary’s decision to
affirm, withdraw, or modify the notice
of recoupment. Such notification will
include an explanation of the decision,
including responses to the recipient’s
supporting reasons and consideration of
additional information provided.
The process and timeline established
by the interim final rule are intended to
provide the recipient with an adequate
opportunity to fully present any issues
or arguments in response to the notice
of recoupment.175 This process will
allow the Secretary to respond to the
issues and considerations raised in the
request for reconsideration taking into
account the information and arguments
presented by the recipient along with
any other relevant information.
Repayment. Finally, the interim final
rule provides that any amounts subject
to recoupment must be repaid within
120 calendar days of receipt of any final
notice of recoupment or, if the recipient
has not requested reconsideration,
within 120 calendar days of the initial
notice provided by the Secretary.
Question 34: Discuss the timeline for
requesting reconsideration under the
interim final rule. What, if any,
challenges does this timeline present?
V. Payments in Tranches to Local
Governments and Certain States
Section 603 of the Act provides that
the Secretary will make payments to
local governments in two tranches, with
the second tranche being paid twelve
months after the first payment. In
addition, section 602(b)(6)(A)(ii)
provides that the Secretary may
withhold payment of up to 50 percent
of the amount allocated to each State
and territory for a period of up to twelve
months from the date on which the
State or territory provides its
certification to the Secretary. Any such
withholding for a State or territory is
required to be based on the
unemployment rate in the State or
territory as of the date of the
certification.
The Secretary has determined to
provide in this interim final rule for
withholding of 50 percent of the amount
of Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated to all
States (and the District of Columbia)
other than those with an unemployment
rate that is 2.0 percentage points or
more above its pre-pandemic (i.e.,
February 2020) level. The Secretary will
refer to the latest available monthly data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of
the date the certification is provided.
Based on data available at the time of
public release of this interim final rule,
this threshold would result in a majority
of States being paid in two tranches.
Splitting payments for the majority of
States is consistent with the
requirement in section 603 of the Act to
make payments from the Coronavirus
Local Fiscal Recovery Fund to local
governments in two tranches.176
Splitting payments to States into two
tranches will help encourage recipients
to adapt, as necessary, to new
developments that could arise over the
coming twelve months, including
potential changes to the nature of the
public health emergency and its
negative economic impacts. While the
U.S. economy has been recovering and
adding jobs in aggregate, there is still
considerable uncertainty in the
economic outlook and the interaction
between the pandemic and the
economy.177 For these reasons, Treasury
believes it will be appropriate for a
majority of recipients to adapt their
plans as the recovery evolves. For
example, a faster-than-expected
economic recovery in 2021 could lead a
recipient to dedicate more Fiscal
Recovery Funds to longer-term
investments starting in 2022. In
contrast, a slower-than-expected
economic recovery in 2021 could lead a
recipient to use additional funds for
near-term stimulus in 2022.
At the same time, the statute
contemplates the possibility that
elevated unemployment in certain
States could justify a single payment.
Elevated unemployment is indicative of
a greater need to assist unemployed
workers and stimulate a faster economic
recovery. For this reason, the interim
final rule provides that States and
territories with an increase in their
unemployment rate over a specified
threshold may receive a single payment,
with the expectation that a single
tranche will better enable these States
and territories to take additional
immediate action to aid the unemployed
and strengthen their economies.
Following the initial pandemic-
related spike in unemployment in 2020,
States’ unemployment rates have been
trending back towards pre-pandemic
levels. However, some States’ labor
markets are healing more slowly than
others. Moreover, States varied widely
in their pre-pandemic levels of
unemployment, and some States remain
substantially further from their pre-
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
568
26813 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
178 Includes the period during and immediately
following recessions, as defined by the National
Bureau of Economic Research. National Bureau of
Economic Research, US Business Cycle Expansions
and Contractions, https://www.nber.org/research/
data/us-business-cycle-expansions-and-
contractions (last visited Apr. 27, 2021). Based on
data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Unemployment Rate [UNRATE], retrieved from
FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE (last visited Apr.
27, 2021).
179 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic
News Release—Table 1. Civilian labor force and
unemployment by state and selected area,
seasonally adjusted, https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/laus.t01.htm (last visited Apr. 30,
2021). 180 Section 602(c)(3) of the Act.
pandemic starting point. Consequently,
Treasury is delineating States with
significant remaining elevation in the
unemployment rate, based on the net
difference to pre-pandemic levels.
Treasury has established that
significant remaining elevation in the
unemployment rate is a net change in
the unemployment rate of 2.0
percentage points or more relative to
pre-pandemic levels. In the four
previous recessions going back to the
early 1980s, the national unemployment
rate rose by 3.6, 2.3, 2.0, and 5.0
percentage points, as measured from the
start of the recession to the eventual
peak during or immediately following
the recession.178 Each of these increases
can therefore represent a recession’s
impact on unemployment. To identify
States with significant remaining
elevation in unemployment, Treasury
took the lowest of these four increases,
2.0 percentage points, to indicate states
where, despite improvement in the
unemployment rate, current labor
market conditions are consistent still
with a historical benchmark for a
recession.
No U.S. territory will be subject to
withholding of its payment from the
Fiscal Recovery Funds. For Puerto Rico,
the Secretary has determined that the
current level of the unemployment rate
(8.8 percent, as of March 2021 179) is
sufficiently high such that Treasury
should not withhold any portion of its
payment from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds regardless of its change in
unemployment rate relative to its pre-
pandemic level. For U.S. territories that
are not included in the Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ monthly unemployment rate
data, the Secretary will not exercise the
authority to withhold amounts from the
Fiscal Recovery Funds.
VI. Transfer
The statute authorizes State,
territorial, and Tribal governments;
counties; metropolitan cities; and
nonentitlement units of local
government (counties, metropolitan
cities, and nonentitlement units of local
government are collectively referred to
as ‘‘local governments’’) to transfer
amounts paid from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds to a number of specified entities.
By permitting these transfers, Congress
recognized the importance of providing
flexibility to governments seeking to
achieve the greatest impact with their
funds, including by working with other
levels or units of government or private
entities to assist recipient governments
in carrying out their programs. This
includes special-purpose districts that
perform specific functions in the
community, such as fire, water, sewer,
or mosquito abatement districts.
Specifically, under section 602(c)(3), a
State, territory, or Tribal government
may transfer funds to a ‘‘private
nonprofit organization . . . a Tribal
organization . . . a public benefit
corporation involved in the
transportation of passengers or cargo, or
a special-purpose unit of State or local
government.’’180 Similarly, section
603(c)(3) authorizes a local government
to transfer funds to the same entities
(other than Tribal organizations).
The interim final rule clarifies that the
lists of transferees in sections 602(c)(3)
and 603(c)(3) are not exclusive. The
interim final rule permits State,
territorial, and Tribal governments to
transfer Fiscal Recovery Funds to other
constituent units of government or
private entities beyond those specified
in the statute. Similarly, local
governments are authorized to transfer
Fiscal Recovery Funds to other
constituent units of government (e.g., a
county is able to transfer Fiscal
Recovery Funds to a city, town, or
school district within it) or to private
entities. This approach is intended to
help provide funding to local
governments with needs that may
exceed the allocation provided under
the statutory formula.
State, local, territorial, and Tribal
governments that receive a Federal
award directly from a Federal awarding
agency, such as Treasury, are
‘‘recipients.’’ A transferee receiving a
transfer from a recipient under sections
602(c)(3) and 603(c)(3) will be a
subrecipient. Subrecipients are entities
that receive a subaward from a recipient
to carry out a program or project on
behalf of the recipient with the
recipient’s Federal award funding. The
recipient remains responsible for
monitoring and overseeing the
subrecipient’s use of Fiscal Recovery
Funds and other activities related to the
award to ensure that the subrecipient
complies with the statutory and
regulatory requirements and the terms
and conditions of the award. Recipients
also remain responsible for reporting to
Treasury on their subrecipients’ use of
payments from the Fiscal Recovery
Funds for the duration of the award.
Transfers under sections 602(c)(3) and
603(c)(3) must qualify as an eligible use
of Fiscal Recovery Funds by the
transferor. Once Fiscal Recovery Funds
are received, the transferee must abide
by the restrictions on use applicable to
the transferor under the ARPA and other
applicable law and program guidance.
For example, if a county transferred
Fiscal Recovery Funds to a town within
its borders to respond to the COVID–19
public health emergency, the town
would be bound by the eligible use
requirements applicable to the county in
carrying out the county’s goal. This also
means that county A may not transfer
Fiscal Recovery Funds to county B for
use in county B because such a transfer
would not, from the perspective of the
transferor (county A), be an eligible use
in county A.
Section 603(c)(4) separately provides
for transfers by a local government to its
State or territory. A transfer under
section 603(c)(4) will not make the State
a subrecipient of the local government,
and such Fiscal Recovery Funds may be
used by the State for any purpose
permitted under section 602(c). A
transfer under section 603(c)(4) will
result in a cancellation or termination of
the award on the part of the transferor
local government and a modification of
the award to the transferee State or
territory. The transferor must provide
notice of the transfer to Treasury in a
format specified by Treasury. If the local
government does not provide such
notice, it will remain legally obligated to
Treasury under the award and remain
responsible for ensuring that the
awarded Fiscal Recovery Funds are
being used in accordance with the
statute and program guidance and for
reporting on such uses to Treasury. A
State that receives a transfer from a local
government under section 603(c)(4) will
be bound by all of the use restrictions
set forth in section 602(c) with respect
to the use of those Fiscal Recovery
Funds, including the prohibitions on
use of such Fiscal Recovery Funds to
offset certain reductions in taxes or to
make deposits into pension funds.
Question 35: What are the advantages
and disadvantages of treating the list of
transferees in sections 602(c)(3) and
603(c)(3) as nonexclusive, allowing
States and localities to transfer funds to
entities outside of the list?
Question 36: Are there alternative
ways of defining ‘‘special-purpose unit
of State or local government’’ and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
569
26814 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
‘‘public benefit corporation’’ that would
better further the aims of the Funds?
VII. Nonentitlement Units of
Government
The Fiscal Recovery Funds provides
for $19.53 billion in payments to be
made to States and territories which
will distribute the funds to
nonentitlement units of local
government (NEUs); local governments
which generally have populations below
50,000. These local governments have
not yet received direct fiscal relief from
the Federal Government during the
COVID–19 public health emergency,
making Fiscal Recovery Funds
payments an important source of
support for their public health and
economic responses. Section 603
requires Treasury to allocate and pay
Fiscal Recovery Funds to the States and
territories and requires the States and
territories to distribute Fiscal Recovery
Funds to NEUs based on population
within 30 days of receipt unless an
extension is granted by the Secretary.
The interim final rule clarifies certain
aspects regarding the distribution of
Fiscal Recovery by States and territories
to NEUs, as well as requirements around
timely payments from the Fiscal
Recovery Funds.
The ARPA requires that States and
territories allocate funding to NEUs in
an amount that bears the same
proportion as the population of the NEU
bears to the total population of all NEUs
in the State or territory, subject to a cap
(described below). Because the statute
requires States and territories to make
distributions based on population,
States and territories may not place
additional conditions or requirements
on distributions to NEUs, beyond those
required by the ARPA and Treasury’s
implementing regulations and guidance.
For example, a State may not impose
stricter limitations than permitted by
statute or Treasury regulations or
guidance on an NEU’s use of Fiscal
Recovery Funds based on the NEU’s
proposed spending plan or other
policies. States and territories are also
not permitted to offset any debt owed by
the NEU against the NEU’s distribution.
Further, States and territories may not
provide funding on a reimbursement
basis—e.g., requiring NEUs to pay for
project costs up front before being
reimbursed with Fiscal Recovery Funds
payments—because this funding model
would not comport with the statutory
requirement that States and territories
make distributions to NEUs within the
statutory timeframe.
Similarly, States and territories
distributing Fiscal Recovery Funds
payments to NEUs are responsible for
complying with the Fiscal Recovery
Funds statutory requirement that
distributions to NEUs not exceed 75
percent of the NEU’s most recent
budget. The most recent budget is
defined as the NEU’s most recent annual
total operating budget, including its
general fund and other funds, as of
January 27, 2020. Amounts in excess of
such cap and therefore not distributed
to the NEU must be returned to Treasury
by the State or territory. States and
territories may rely for this
determination on a certified top-line
budget total from the NEU.
Under the interim final rule, the total
allocation and distribution to an NEU,
including the sum of both the first and
second tranches of funding, cannot
exceed the 75 percent cap. States and
territories must permit NEUs without
formal budgets as of January 27, 2020 to
self-certify their most recent annual
expenditures as of January 27, 2020 for
the purpose of calculating the cap. This
approach will provide an administrable
means to implement the cap for small
local governments that do not adopt a
formal budget.
Section 603(b)(3) of the Social
Security Act provides for Treasury to
make payments to counties but provides
that, in the case of an amount to be paid
to a county that is not a unit of general
local government, the amount shall
instead be paid to the State in which
such county is located, and such State
shall distribute such amount to each
unit of general local government within
such county in an amount that bears the
same proportion to the amount to be
paid to such county as the population
of such units of general local
government bears to the total population
of such county. As with NEUs, States
may not place additional conditions or
requirements on distributions to such
units of general local government,
beyond those required by the ARPA and
Treasury’s implementing regulations
and guidance.
In the case of consolidated
governments, section 603(b)(4) allows
consolidated governments (e.g., a city-
county consolidated government) to
receive payments under each allocation
based on the respective formulas. In the
case of a consolidated government,
Treasury interprets the budget cap to
apply to the consolidated government’s
NEU allocation under section 603(b)(2)
but not to the consolidated
government’s county allocation under
section 603(b)(3).
If necessary, States and territories may
use the Fiscal Recovery Funds under
section 602(c)(1)(A) to fund expenses
related to administering payments to
NEUs and units of general local
government, as disbursing these funds
itself is a response to the public health
emergency and its negative economic
impacts. If a State or territory requires
more time to disburse Fiscal Recovery
Funds to NEUs than the allotted 30
days, Treasury will grant extensions of
not more than 30 days for States and
territories that submit a certification in
writing in accordance with section
603(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I). Additional extensions
may be granted at the discretion of the
Secretary.
Question 37: What are alternative
ways for States and territories to enforce
the 75 percent cap while reducing the
administrative burden on them?
Question 38: What criteria should
Treasury consider in assessing requests
for extensions for further time to
distribute NEU payments?
VIII. Reporting
States (defined to include the District
of Columbia), territories, metropolitan
cities, counties, and Tribal governments
will be required to submit one interim
report and thereafter quarterly Project
and Expenditure reports through the
end of the award period on December
31, 2026. The interim report will
include a recipient’s expenditures by
category at the summary level from the
date of award to July 31, 2021 and, for
States and territories, information
related to distributions to
nonentitlement units. Recipients must
submit their interim report to Treasury
by August 31, 2021. Nonentitlement
units of local government are not
required to submit an interim report.
The quarterly Project and Expenditure
reports will include financial data,
information on contracts and subawards
over $50,000, types of projects funded,
and other information regarding a
recipient’s utilization of the award
funds. The reports will include the same
general data (e.g., on obligations,
expenditures, contracts, grants, and sub-
awards) as those submitted by recipients
of the CRF, with some modifications.
Modifications will include updates to
the expenditure categories and the
addition of data elements related to
specific eligible uses, including some of
the reporting elements described in
sections above. The initial quarterly
Project and Expenditure report will
cover two calendar quarters from the
date of award to September 30, 2021,
and must be submitted to Treasury by
October 31, 2021. The subsequent
quarterly reports will cover one
calendar quarter and must be submitted
to Treasury within 30 days after the end
of each calendar quarter.
Nonentitlement units of local
government will be required to submit
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
570
26815 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
181 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
182 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B); see also 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) (creating an exception to the requirement
of a 30-day delay before the effective date of a rule
‘‘for good cause found and published with the
rule’’).
annual Project and Expenditure reports
until the end of the award period on
December 31, 2026. The initial annual
Project and Expenditure report for
nonentitlement units of local
government will cover activity from the
date of award to September 30, 2021
and must be submitted to Treasury by
October 31, 2021. The subsequent
annual reports must be submitted to
Treasury by October 31 each year.
States, territories, metropolitan cities,
and counties with a population that
exceeds 250,000 residents will also be
required to submit an annual Recovery
Plan Performance report to Treasury.
The Recovery Plan Performance report
will provide the public and Treasury
information on the projects that
recipients are undertaking with program
funding and how they are planning to
ensure project outcomes are achieved in
an effective, efficient, and equitable
manner. Each jurisdiction will have
some flexibility in terms of the form and
content of the Recovery Plan
Performance report, as long as it
includes the minimum information
required by Treasury. The Recovery
Plan Performance report will include
key performance indicators identified
by the recipient and some mandatory
indicators identified by Treasury, as
well as programmatic data in specific
eligible use categories and the specific
reporting requirements described in the
sections above. The initial Recovery
Plan Performance report will cover the
period from the date of award to July 31,
2021 and must be submitted to Treasury
by August 31, 2021. Thereafter,
Recovery Plan Performance reports will
cover a 12-month period, and recipients
will be required to submit the report to
Treasury within 30 days after the end of
the 12-month period. The second
Recovery Plan Performance report will
cover the period from July 1, 2021 to
June 30, 2022, and must be submitted to
Treasury by July 31, 2022. Each annual
Recovery Plan Performance report must
be posted on the public-facing website
of the recipient. Local governments with
fewer than 250,000 residents, Tribal
governments, and nonentitlement units
of local government are not required to
develop a Recovery Plan Performance
report.
Treasury will provide additional
guidance and instructions on the
reporting requirements outlined above
for the Fiscal Recovery Funds at a later
date.
IX. Comments and Effective Date
This interim final rule is being issued
without advance notice and public
comment to allow for immediate
implementation of this program. As
discussed below, the requirements of
advance notice and public comment do
not apply ‘‘to the extent that there is
involved . . . a matter relating to agency
. . . grants.’’
181 The interim final rule
implements statutory conditions on the
eligible uses of the Fiscal Recovery
Funds grants, and addresses the
payment of those funds, the reporting
on uses of funds, and potential
consequences of ineligible uses. In
addition and as discussed below, the
Administrative Procedure Act also
provides an exception to ordinary
notice-and-comment procedures ‘‘when
the agency for good cause finds (and
incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefor in the
rules issued) that notice and public
procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’182 This good cause
justification also supports waiver of the
60-day delayed effective date for major
rules under the Congressional Review
Act at 5 U.S.C. 808(2). Although this
interim final rule is effective
immediately, comments are solicited
from interested members of the public
and from recipient governments on all
aspects of the interim final rule.
These comments must be submitted
on or before July 16, 2021.
X. Regulatory Analyses
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This interim final rule is
economically significant for the
purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and
13563. Treasury, however, is proceeding
under the emergency provision at
Executive Order 12866 section 6(a)(3)(D)
based on the need to act expeditiously
to mitigate the current economic
conditions arising from the COVID–19
public health emergency. The rule has
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in
accordance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule is necessary to implement the
ARPA in order to provide economic
relief to State, local, and Tribal
governments adversely impacted by the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB
must determine whether this regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and subject to review
by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a significant regulatory
action as an action likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy;
productivity; competition; jobs; the
environment; public health or safety; or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as ‘‘economically significant’’
regulations);
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This regulatory action is an
economically significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Treasury has also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, section 1(b) of
Executive Order 13563 requires that an
agency:
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives taking
into account, among other things, and to
the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) Select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including providing economic
incentives—such as user fees or
marketable permits—to encourage the
desired behavior, or providing
information that enables the public to
make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
571
26816 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
183 Gabriel Chodorow-Reich et al., Does State
Fiscal Relief during Recessions Increase
Employment? Evidence from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, American Econ. J.:
Econ. Policy, 4:3 118–45 (Aug. 2012), available at
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/
pol.4.3.118.
184 See, e.g., Fitzpatrick, Haughwout & Setren,
Fiscal Drag from the State and Local Sector?,
Liberty Street Economics Blog, Federal Reserve
Bank of New York (June 27, 2012), https://
www.libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/
06/fiscal-drag-from-the-state-and-local-sector.html;
Jiri Jonas, Great Recession and Fiscal Squeeze at
U.S. Subnational Government Level, IMF Working
Paper 12/184, (July 2012), available at https://
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/
wp12184.pdf; Gordon, supra note 9.
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ OMB’s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
Treasury has assessed the potential
costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action, and
is issuing this interim final rule only on
a reasoned determination that the
benefits exceed the costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, Treasury selected those
approaches that would maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows and the reasons stated
elsewhere in this document, Treasury
believes that this interim final rule is
consistent with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13563.
Treasury also has determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with States, territories, Tribal
governments, and localities in the
exercise of their governmental
functions.
This Regulatory Impact Analysis
discusses the need for regulatory action,
the potential benefits, and the potential
costs.
Need for Regulatory Action. This
interim final rule implements the $350
billion Fiscal Recovery Funds of the
ARPA, which Congress passed to help
States, territories, Tribal governments,
and localities respond to the ongoing
COVID–19 public health emergency and
its economic impacts. As the agency
charged with execution of these
programs, Treasury has concluded that
this interim final rule is needed to
ensure that recipients of Fiscal Recovery
Funds fully understand the
requirements and parameters of the
program as set forth in the statute and
deploy funds in a manner that best
reflects Congress’ mandate for targeted
fiscal relief.
This interim final rule is primarily a
transfer rule: It transfers $350 billion in
aid from the Federal Government to
states, territories, Tribal governments,
and localities, generating a significant
macroeconomic effect on the U.S.
economy. In making this transfer,
Treasury has sought to implement the
program in ways that maximize its
potential benefits while minimizing its
costs. It has done so by aiming to target
relief in key areas according to the
congressional mandate; offering clarity
to States, territories, Tribal
governments, and localities while
maintaining their flexibility to respond
to local needs; and limiting
administrative burdens.
Analysis of Benefits. Relative to a pre-
statutory baseline, the Fiscal Recovery
Funds provide a combined $350 billion
to State, local, and Tribal governments
for fiscal relief and support for costs
incurred responding to the COVID–19
pandemic. Treasury believes that this
transfer will generate substantial
additional economic activity, although
given the flexibility accorded to
recipients in the use of funds, it is not
possible to precisely estimate the extent
to which this will occur and the timing
with which it will occur. Economic
research has demonstrated that state
fiscal relief is an efficient and effective
way to mitigate declines in jobs and
output during an economic
downturn.183 Absent such fiscal relief,
fiscal austerity among State, local, and
Tribal governments could exert a
prolonged drag on the overall economic
recovery, as occurred following the
2007–09 recession.184
This interim final rule provides
benefits across several areas by
implementing the four eligible funding
uses, as defined in statute:
Strengthening the response to the
COVID–19 public health emergency and
its economic impacts; easing fiscal
pressure on State, local, and Tribal
governments that might otherwise lead
to harmful cutbacks in employment or
government services; providing
premium pay to essential workers; and
making necessary investments in certain
types of infrastructure. In implementing
the ARPA, Treasury also sought to
support disadvantaged communities
that have been disproportionately
impacted by the pandemic. The Fiscal
Recovery Funds as implemented by the
interim final rule can be expected to
channel resources toward these uses in
order to achieve substantial near-term
economic and public health benefits, as
well as longer-term benefits arising from
the allowable investments in water,
sewer, and broadband infrastructure and
aid to families.
These benefits are achieved in the
interim final rule through a broadly
flexible approach that sets clear
guidelines on eligible uses of Fiscal
Recovery Funds and provides State,
local, and Tribal government officials
discretion within those eligible uses to
direct Fiscal Recovery Funds to areas of
greatest need within their jurisdiction.
While preserving recipients’ overall
flexibility, the interim final rule
includes several provisions that
implement statutory requirements and
will help support use of Fiscal Recovery
Funds to achieve the intended benefits.
The remainder of this section clarifies
how Treasury’s approach to key
provisions in the interim final rule will
contribute to greater realization of
benefits from the program.
•Revenue Loss: Recipients will
compute the extent of reduction in
revenue by comparing actual revenue to
a counterfactual trend representing what
could have plausibly been expected to
occur in the absence of the pandemic.
The counterfactual trend begins with
the last full fiscal year prior to the
public health emergency (as required by
statute) and projects forward with an
annualized growth adjustment.
Treasury’s decision to incorporate a
growth adjustment into the calculation
of revenue loss ensures that the formula
more fully captures revenue shortfalls
relative to recipients’ pre-pandemic
expectations. Moreover, recipients will
have the opportunity to re-calculate
revenue loss at several points
throughout the program, recognizing
that some recipients may experience
revenue effects with a lag. This option
to re-calculate revenue loss on an
ongoing basis should result in more
support for recipients to avoid harmful
cutbacks in future years. In calculating
revenue loss, recipients will look at
general revenue in the aggregate, rather
than on a source-by-source basis. Given
that recipients may have experienced
offsetting changes in revenues across
sources, Treasury’s approach provides a
more accurate representation of the
effect of the pandemic on overall
revenues.
•Premium Pay: Per the statute,
recipients have broad latitude to
designate critical infrastructure sectors
and make grants to third-party
employers for the purpose of providing
premium pay or otherwise respond to
essential workers. While the interim
final rule generally preserves the
flexibility in the statute, it does add a
requirement that recipients give written
justification in the case that premium
pay would increase a worker’s annual
pay above a certain threshold. To set
this threshold, Treasury analyzed data
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
572
26817 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
185 Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity
and Support for Underserved Communities through
the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2021) (86 FR 7009,
January 25, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/
executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-
support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-
federal-government/ (last visited May 9, 2021).
186 David Cooper, Mary Gable & Algernon Austin,
Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper, The
Public-Sector Jobs Crisis: Women and African
Americans hit hardest by job losses in state and
local governments, https://www.epi.org/
publication/bp339-public-sector-jobs-crisis (last
visited May 9, 2021).
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
determine a level that would not require
further justification for premium pay to
the vast majority of essential workers,
while requiring higher scrutiny for
provision of premium pay to higher-
earners who, even without premium
pay, would likely have greater personal
financial resources to cope with the
effects of the pandemic. Treasury
believes the threshold in the interim
final rule strikes the appropriate balance
between preserving flexibility and
helping encourage use of these
resources to help those in greatest need.
The interim final rule also requires that
eligible workers have regular in-person
interactions or regular physical
handling of items that were also
handled by others. This requirement
will also help encourage use of financial
resources for those who have endured
the heightened risk of performing
essential work.
•Withholding of Payments to
Recipients: Treasury believes that for
the vast majority of recipient entities, it
will be appropriate to receive funds in
two separate payments. As discussed
above, withholding of payments ensures
that recipients can adapt spending plans
to evolving economic conditions and
that at least some of the economic
benefits will be realized in 2022 or later.
However, consistent with authorities
granted to Treasury in the statute,
Treasury recognizes that a subset of
States with significant remaining
elevation in the unemployment rate
could face heightened additional near-
term needs to aid unemployed workers
and stimulate the recovery. Therefore,
for a subset of State governments,
Treasury will not withhold any funds
from the first payment. Treasury
believes that this approach strikes the
appropriate balance between the general
reasons to provide funds in two
payments and the heightened additional
near-term needs in specific States. As
discussed above, Treasury set a
threshold based on historical analysis of
unemployment rates in recessions.
•Hiring Public Sector Employees:
The interim final rule states explicitly
that recipients may use funds to restore
their workforces up to pre-pandemic
levels. Treasury believes that this
statement is beneficial because it
eliminates any uncertainty that could
cause delays or otherwise negatively
impact restoring public sector
workforces (which, at time of
publication, remain significantly below
pre-pandemic levels).
Finally, the interim final rule aims to
promote and streamline the provision of
assistance to individuals and
communities in greatest need,
particularly communities that have been
historically disadvantaged and have
experienced disproportionate impacts of
the COVID–19 crisis. Targeting relief is
in line with Executive Order 13985,
‘‘Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities Through
the Federal Government,’’ which laid
out an Administration-wide priority to
support ‘‘equity for all, including people
of color and others who have been
historically underserved, marginalized,
and adversely affected by persistent
poverty and inequality.’’185 To this end,
the interim final rule enumerates a list
of services that may be provided using
Fiscal Recovery Funds in low-income
areas to address the disproportionate
impacts of the pandemic in these
communities; establishes the
characteristics of essential workers
eligible for premium pay and
encouragement to serve workers based
on financial need; provides that
recipients may use Fiscal Recovery
Funds to restore (to pre-pandemic
levels) state and local workforces, where
women and people of color are
disproportionately represented;186 and
targets investments in broadband
infrastructure to unserved and
underserved areas. Collectively, these
provisions will promote use of resources
to facilitate the provision of assistance
to individuals and communities with
the greatest need.
Analysis of Costs. This regulatory
action will generate administrative costs
relative to a pre-statutory baseline. This
includes, chiefly, costs required to
administer Fiscal Recovery Funds,
oversee subrecipients and beneficiaries,
and file periodic reports with Treasury.
It also requires States to allocate Fiscal
Recovery Funds to nonentitlement
units, which are smaller units of local
government that are statutorily required
to receive their funds through States.
Treasury expects that the
administrative burden associated with
this program will be moderate for a
grant program of its size. Treasury
expects that most recipients receive
direct or indirect funding from Federal
Government programs and that many
have familiarity with how to administer
and report on Federal funds or grant
funding provided by other entities. In
particular, States, territories, and large
localities will have received funds from
the CRF and Treasury expects them to
rely heavily on established processes
developed last year or through prior
grant funding, mitigating burden on
these governments.
Treasury expects to provide technical
assistance to defray the costs of
administration of Fiscal Recovery Funds
to further mitigate burden. In making
implementation choices, Treasury has
hosted numerous consultations with a
diverse range of direct recipients—
States, small cities, counties, and Tribal
governments—along with various
communities across the United States,
including those that are underserved.
Treasury lacks data to estimate the
precise extent to which this interim
final rule generates administrative
burden for State, local, and Tribal
governments, but seeks comment to
better estimate and account for these
costs, as well as on ways to lessen
administrative burdens.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 (entitled
Federalism) prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has federalism
implications if the rule either imposes
substantial, direct compliance costs on
State, local, and Tribal governments,
and is not required by statute, or
preempts state law, unless the agency
meets the consultation and funding
requirements of section 6 of the
Executive order. This interim final rule
does not have federalism implications
within the meaning of the Executive
order and does not impose substantial,
direct compliance costs on State, local,
and Tribal governments or preempt state
law within the meaning of the Executive
order. The compliance costs are
imposed on State, local, and Tribal
governments by sections 602 and 603 of
the Social Security Act, as enacted by
the ARPA. Notwithstanding the above,
Treasury has engaged in efforts to
consult and work cooperatively with
affected State, local, and Tribal
government officials and associations in
the process of developing the interim
final rule. Pursuant to the requirements
set forth in section 8(a) of Executive
Order 13132, Treasury certifies that it
has complied with the requirements of
Executive Order 13132.
Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., generally
requires public notice and an
opportunity for comment before a rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
573
26818 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
becomes effective. However, the APA
provides that the requirements of 5
U.S.C. 553 do not apply ‘‘to the extent
that there is involved . . . a matter
relating to agency . . . grants.’’ The
interim final rule implements statutory
conditions on the eligible uses of the
Fiscal Recovery Funds grants, and
addresses the payment of those funds,
the reporting on uses of funds, and
potential consequences of ineligible
uses. The rule is thus ‘‘both clearly and
directly related to a federal grant
program.’’ National Wildlife Federation
v. Snow, 561 F.2d 227, 232 (D.C. Cir.
1976). The rule sets forth the ‘‘process
necessary to maintain state . . .
eligibility for federal funds,’’ id., as well
as the ‘‘method[s] by which states can
. . . qualify for federal aid,’’ and other
‘‘integral part[s] of the grant program,’’
Center for Auto Safety v. Tiemann, 414
F. Supp. 215, 222 (D.D.C. 1976). As a
result, the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553
do not apply.
The APA also provides an exception
to ordinary notice-and-comment
procedures ‘‘when the agency for good
cause finds (and incorporates the
finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the rules issued) that notice
and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B); see also 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
(creating an exception to the
requirement of a 30-day delay before the
effective date of a rule ‘‘for good cause
found and published with the rule’’).
Assuming 5 U.S.C. 553 applied,
Treasury would still have good cause
under sections 553(b)(3)(B) and
553(d)(3) for not undertaking section
553’s requirements. The ARPA is a law
responding to a historic economic and
public health emergency; it is
‘‘extraordinary’’ legislation about which
‘‘both Congress and the President
articulated a profound sense of
‘urgency.’’’ Petry v. Block, 737 F.2d
1193, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Indeed,
several provisions implemented by this
interim final rule (sections 602(c)(1)(A)
and 603(c)(1)(A)) explicitly provide
funds to ‘‘respond to the public health
emergency,’’ and the urgency is further
exemplified by Congress’s command (in
sections 602(b)(6)(B) and 603(b)(7)(A))
that, ‘‘[t]o the extent practicable,’’ funds
must be provided to Tribes and cities
‘‘not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment.’’ See Philadelphia Citizens
in Action v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 877,
884 (3d Cir. 1982) (finding good cause
under circumstances, including
statutory time limits, where APA
procedures would have been ‘‘virtually
impossible’’). Finally, there is an urgent
need for States to undertake the
planning necessary for sound fiscal
policymaking, which requires an
understanding of how funds provided
under the ARPA will augment and
interact with existing budgetary
resources and tax policies. Treasury
understands that many states require
immediate rules on which they can rely,
especially in light of the fact that the
ARPA ‘‘covered period’’ began on
March 3, 2021. The statutory urgency
and practical necessity are good cause to
forego the ordinary requirements of
notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Congressional Review Act
The Administrator of OIRA has
determined that this is a major rule for
purposes of Subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the
Congressional Review Act or CRA) (5
U.S.C. 804(2) et seq.). Under the CRA,
a major rule takes effect 60 days after
the rule is published in the Federal
Register. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3).
Notwithstanding this requirement, the
CRA allows agencies to dispense with
the requirements of section 801 when
the agency for good cause finds that
such procedure would be impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest and the rule shall take effect at
such time as the agency promulgating
the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
Pursuant to section 808(2), for the
reasons discussed above, Treasury for
good cause finds that a 60-day delay to
provide public notice is impracticable
and contrary to the public interest.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collections
associated with State, territory, local,
and Tribal government applications
materials necessary to receive Fiscal
Recovery Funds (e.g., payment
information collection and acceptance
of award terms) have been reviewed and
approved by OMB pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35) (PRA) emergency processing
procedures and assigned control
number 1505–0271. The information
collections related to ongoing reporting
requirements, as discussed in this
interim final rule, will be submitted to
OMB for emergency processing in the
near future. Under the PRA, an agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection unless it
displays a valid OMB control number.
Estimates of hourly burden under this
program are set forth in the table below.
Burden estimates below are preliminary.
Reporting
Number of
respondents
(estimated)
Number of
responses per
respondent
Total responses Hours per
response
Total burden
in hours
Cost to respondent
($48.80 per hour*)
Recipient Payment Form .....................5,050 1 .....................5,050 .25 (15 minutes) ...1,262.5 $61,610
Acceptance of Award Terms ...............5,050 1 .....................5,050 .25 (15 minutes) ...1,262.5 61,610
Title VI Assurances .............................5,050 1 .....................5,050 .50 (30 minutes) ...2,525 123,220
Quarterly Project and Expenditure Re-
port.
5,050 4*** ................. 20,200 25 ......................... 505,000 24,644,000
Annual Project and Expenditure Re-
port from NEUs.
TBD 1 per year ....... †20,000–40,000 15 ......................... 300,000–600,000 14,640,000–29,280,000
Annual Recovery Plan Performance
report.
418 1 per year ....... 418 100 ....................... 41,800 2,039,840
Total ..............................................(**) N/A ................. 55,768–75,768 141 ....................... 851,850–1,151,850 41,570,280–56,210,280
*Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Accountants and Auditors, on the internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/busi-
ness-and-financial/accountants-and-auditors.htm (visited March 28, 2020). Base wage of $33.89/hour increased by 44 percent to account for fully loaded employer
cost of employee compensation (benefits, etc.) for a fully loaded wage rate of $48.80.
**5,050–TBD.
***Per year after first year.
†(Estimate only).
Periodic reporting is required by
section 602(c) of Section VI of the Social
Security Act and under the interim final
rule.
As discussed in Section VIII of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, recipients
of Fiscal Recovery Funds will be
required to submit one interim report
and thereafter quarterly Project and
Expenditure reports until the end of the
award period. Recipients must submit
interim reports to Treasury by August
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
574
26819 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
31, 2021. The quarterly Project and
Expenditure reports will include
financial data, information on contracts
and subawards over $50,000, types of
projects funded, and other information
regarding a recipient’s utilization of the
award funds.
Nonentitlement unit recipients will be
required to submit annual Project and
Expenditure reports until the end of the
award period. The initial annual Project
and Expenditure report for
Nonentitlement unit recipients must be
submitted to Treasury by October 31,
2021. The subsequent annual reports
must be submitted to Treasury by
October 31 each year. States, territories,
metropolitan cities, and counties with a
population that exceeds 250,000
residents will also be required to submit
an annual Recovery Plan Performance
report to Treasury. The Recovery Plan
Performance report will include
descriptions of the projects funded and
information on the performance
indicators and objectives of the award.
Each annual Recovery Plan Performance
report must be posted on the public-
facing website of the recipient. Treasury
will provide additional guidance and
instructions on the all the reporting
requirements outlined above for the
Fiscal Recovery Funds program at a
later date.
These and related periodic reporting
requirements are under consideration
and will be submitted to OMB for
approval under the PRA emergency
provisions in the near future.
Treasury invites comments on all
aspects of the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements including:
(a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information has practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of the estimate of the burden
of the collection of information; (c) ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information;
and (e) estimates of capital or start-up
costs and costs of operation,
maintenance, and purchase of services
to provide information. Comments
should be sent by the comment deadline
to the www.regulations.gov docket with
a copy to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; or
email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires that when an agency
issues a proposed rule, or a final rule
pursuant to section 553(b) of the
Administrative Procedure Act or
another law, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis that meets
the requirements of the RFA and
publish such analysis in the Federal
Register. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.
Rules that are exempt from notice and
comment under the APA are also
exempt from the RFA requirements,
including the requirement to conduct a
regulatory flexibility analysis, when
among other things the agency for good
cause finds that notice and public
procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. Since this rule is exempt from
the notice and comment requirements of
the APA, Treasury is not required to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 35
Executive compensation, Public
health emergency, State and local
governments, Tribal governments.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of the
Treasury amends 31 CFR part 35 as
follows:
PART 35—PANDEMIC RELIEF
PROGRAMS
■1. The authority citation for part 35 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 802(f); 42 U.S.C.
803(f); 31 U.S.C. 321; Division N, Title V,
Subtitle B, Pub. L. 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182;
Section 104A, Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat.
2160, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.);
Pub. L. 117–2, 135 Stat. 4 (42 U.S.C. 802 et
seq.).
■2. Revise the part heading to read as
set forth above.
■3. Add subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A—Coronavirus State and
Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
Sec.
35.1 Purpose.
35.2 Applicability.
35.3 Definitions.
35.4 Reservation of authority, reporting.
35.5 Use of funds.
35.6 Eligible uses.
35.7 Pensions.
35.8 Tax.
35.9 Compliance with applicable laws.
35.10 Recoupment.
35.11 Payments to States.
35.12 Distributions to nonentitlement units
of local government and units of general
local government.
§35.1 Purpose.
This subpart implements section 9901
of the American Rescue Plan Act
(Subtitle M of Title IX of Pub. L.
117–2), which amends Title VI of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.) by adding sections 602 and 603 to
establish the Coronavirus State Fiscal
Recovery Fund and Coronavirus Local
Fiscal Recovery Fund.
§35.2 Applicability.
This subpart applies to States,
territories, Tribal governments,
metropolitan cities, nonentitlement
units of local government, counties, and
units of general local government that
accept a payment or transfer of funds
made under section 602 or 603 of the
Social Security Act.
§35.3 Definitions.
As used in this subpart:
Baseline means tax revenue of the
recipient for its fiscal year ending in
2019, adjusted for inflation in each
reporting year using the Bureau of
Economic Analysis’s Implicit Price
Deflator for the gross domestic product
of the United States.
County means a county, parish, or
other equivalent county division (as
defined by the Census Bureau).
Covered benefits include, but are not
limited to, the costs of all types of leave
(vacation, family-related, sick, military,
bereavement, sabbatical, jury duty),
employee insurance (health, life, dental,
vision), retirement (pensions, 401(k)),
unemployment benefit plans (Federal
and State), workers’ compensation
insurance, and Federal Insurance
Contributions Act taxes (which includes
Social Security and Medicare taxes).
Covered change means a change in
law, regulation, or administrative
interpretation. A change in law includes
any final legislative or regulatory action,
a new or changed administrative
interpretation, and the phase-in or
taking effect of any statute or rule if the
phase-in or taking effect was not
prescribed prior to the start of the
covered period.
Covered period means, with respect to
a State, Territory, or Tribal government,
the period that:
(1) Begins on March 3, 2021; and
(2) Ends on the last day of the fiscal
year of such State, Territory, or Tribal
government in which all funds received
by the State, Territory, or Tribal
government from a payment made
under section 602 or 603 of the Social
Security Act have been expended or
returned to, or recovered by, the
Secretary.
COVID–19 means the Coronavirus
Disease 2019.
COVID–19 public health emergency
means the period beginning on January
27, 2020 and until the termination of the
national emergency concerning the
COVID–19 outbreak declared pursuant
to the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
575
26820 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
Deposit means an extraordinary
payment of an accrued, unfunded
liability. The term deposit does not refer
to routine contributions made by an
employer to pension funds as part of the
employer’s obligations related to
payroll, such as either a pension
contribution consisting of a normal cost
component related to current employees
or a component addressing the
amortization of unfunded liabilities
calculated by reference to the
employer’s payroll costs.
Eligible employer means an employer
of an eligible worker who performs
essential work.
Eligible workers means workers
needed to maintain continuity of
operations of essential critical
infrastructure sectors, including health
care; emergency response; sanitation,
disinfection, and cleaning work;
maintenance work; grocery stores,
restaurants, food production, and food
delivery; pharmacy; biomedical
research; behavioral health work;
medical testing and diagnostics; home-
and community-based health care or
assistance with activities of daily living;
family or child care; social services
work; public health work; vital services
to Tribes; any work performed by an
employee of a State, local, or Tribal
government; educational work, school
nutrition work, and other work required
to operate a school facility; laundry
work; elections work; solid waste or
hazardous materials management,
response, and cleanup work; work
requiring physical interaction with
patients; dental care work;
transportation and warehousing; work at
hotel and commercial lodging facilities
that are used for COVID–19 mitigation
and containment; work in a mortuary;
work in critical clinical research,
development, and testing necessary for
COVID–19 response.
(1) With respect to a recipient that is
a metropolitan city, nonentitlement unit
of local government, or county, workers
in any additional sectors as each chief
executive officer of such recipient may
designate as critical to protect the health
and well-being of the residents of their
metropolitan city, nonentitlement unit
of local government, or county; or
(2) With respect to a State, Territory,
or Tribal government, workers in any
additional sectors as each Governor of a
State or Territory, or each Tribal
government, may designate as critical to
protect the health and well-being of the
residents of their State, Territory, or
Tribal government.
Essential work means work that:
(1) Is not performed while
teleworking from a residence; and
(2) Involves:
(i) Regular in-person interactions with
patients, the public, or coworkers of the
individual that is performing the work;
or
(ii) Regular physical handling of items
that were handled by, or are to be
handled by patients, the public, or
coworkers of the individual that is
performing the work.
Funds means, with respect to a
recipient, amounts provided to the
recipient pursuant to a payment made
under section 602(b) or 603(b) of the
Social Security Act or transferred to the
recipient pursuant to section 603(c)(4)
of the Social Security Act.
General revenue means money that is
received from tax revenue, current
charges, and miscellaneous general
revenue, excluding refunds and other
correcting transactions, proceeds from
issuance of debt or the sale of
investments, agency or private trust
transactions, and intergovernmental
transfers from the Federal Government,
including transfers made pursuant to
section 9901 of the American Rescue
Plan Act. General revenue does not
include revenues from utilities. Revenue
from Tribal business enterprises must be
included in general revenue.
Intergovernmental transfers means
money received from other
governments, including grants and
shared taxes.
Metropolitan city has the meaning
given that term in section 102(a)(4) of
the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5302(a)(4)) and includes cities that
relinquish or defer their status as a
metropolitan city for purposes of
receiving allocations under section 106
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5306) for fiscal
year 2021.
Net reduction in total spending is
measured as the State or Territory’s total
spending for a given reporting year
excluding its spending of funds,
subtracted from its total spending for its
fiscal year ending in 2019, adjusted for
inflation using the Bureau of Economic
Analysis’s Implicit Price Deflator for the
gross domestic product of the United
States.
Nonentitlement unit of local
government means a ‘‘city,’’ as that term
is defined in section 102(a)(5) of the
Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(5)), that
is not a metropolitan city.
Nonprofit means a nonprofit
organization that is exempt from Federal
income taxation and that is described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
Obligation means an order placed for
property and services and entering into
contracts, subawards, and similar
transactions that require payment.
Pension fund means a defined benefit
plan and does not include a defined
contribution plan.
Premium pay means an amount of up
to $13 per hour that is paid to an
eligible worker, in addition to wages or
remuneration the eligible worker
otherwise receives, for all work
performed by the eligible worker during
the COVID–19 public health emergency.
Such amount may not exceed $25,000
with respect to any single eligible
worker. Premium pay will be
considered to be in addition to wages or
remuneration the eligible worker
otherwise receives if, as measured on an
hourly rate, the premium pay is:
(1) With regard to work that the
eligible worker previously performed,
pay and remuneration equal to the sum
of all wages and remuneration
previously received plus up to $13 per
hour with no reduction, substitution,
offset, or other diminishment of the
eligible worker’s previous, current, or
prospective wages or remuneration; or
(2) With regard to work that the
eligible worker continues to perform,
pay of up to $13 that is in addition to
the eligible worker’s regular rate of
wages or remuneration, with no
reduction, substitution, offset, or other
diminishment of the workers’ current
and prospective wages or remuneration.
Qualified census tract has the same
meaning given in 26 U.S.C.
42(d)(5)(B)(ii)(I).
Recipient means a State, Territory,
Tribal government, metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local
government, county, or unit of general
local government that receives a
payment made under section 602(b) or
603(b) of the Social Security Act or
transfer pursuant to section 603(c)(4) of
the Social Security Act.
Reporting year means a single year or
partial year within the covered period,
aligned to the current fiscal year of the
State or Territory during the covered
period.
Secretary means the Secretary of the
Treasury.
State means each of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia.
Small business means a business
concern or other organization that:
(1) Has no more than 500 employees,
or if applicable, the size standard in
number of employees established by the
Administrator of the Small Business
Administration for the industry in
which the business concern or
organization operates; and
(2) Is a small business concern as
defined in section 3 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
576
26821 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
Tax revenue means revenue received
from a compulsory contribution that is
exacted by a government for public
purposes excluding refunds and
corrections and, for purposes of §35.8,
intergovernmental transfers. Tax
revenue does not include payments for
a special privilege granted or service
rendered, employee or employer
assessments and contributions to
finance retirement and social insurance
trust systems, or special assessments to
pay for capital improvements.
Territory means the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, or
American Samoa.
Tribal enterprise means a business
concern:
(1) That is wholly owned by one or
more Tribal governments, or by a
corporation that is wholly owned by one
or more Tribal governments; or
(2) That is owned in part by one or
more Tribal governments, or by a
corporation that is wholly owned by one
or more Tribal governments, if all other
owners are either United States citizens
or small business concerns, as these
terms are used and consistent with the
definitions in 15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(2)(D).
Tribal government means the
recognized governing body of any
Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
nation, pueblo, village, community,
component band, or component
reservation, individually identified
(including parenthetically) in the list
published by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs on January 29, 2021, pursuant to
section 104 of the Federally Recognized
Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C.
5131).
Unemployment rate means the U–3
unemployment rate provided by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of the
Local Area Unemployment Statistics
program, measured as total
unemployment as a percentage of the
civilian labor force.
Unemployment trust fund means an
unemployment trust fund established
under section 904 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1104).
Unit of general local government has
the meaning given to that term in
section 102(a)(1) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)).
Unserved and underserved
households or businesses means one or
more households or businesses that are
not currently served by a wireline
connection that reliably delivers at least
25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps
of upload speed.
§35.4 Reservation of authority, reporting.
(a) Reservation of authority. Nothing
in this subpart shall limit the authority
of the Secretary to take action to enforce
conditions or violations of law,
including actions necessary to prevent
evasions of this subpart.
(b) Extensions or accelerations of
timing. The Secretary may extend or
accelerate any deadline or compliance
date of this subpart, including reporting
requirements that implement this
subpart, if the Secretary determines that
such extension or acceleration is
appropriate. In determining whether an
extension or acceleration is appropriate,
the Secretary will consider the period of
time that would be extended or
accelerated and how the modified
timeline would facilitate compliance
with this subpart.
(c) Reporting and requests for other
information. During the covered period,
recipients shall provide to the Secretary
periodic reports providing detailed
accounting of the uses of funds, all
modifications to a State or Territory’s
tax revenue sources, and such other
information as the Secretary may
require for the administration of this
section. In addition to regular reporting
requirements, the Secretary may request
other additional information as may be
necessary or appropriate, including as
may be necessary to prevent evasions of
the requirements of this subpart. False
statements or claims made to the
Secretary may result in criminal, civil,
or administrative sanctions, including
fines, imprisonment, civil damages and
penalties, debarment from participating
in Federal awards or contracts, and/or
any other remedy available by law.
§35.5 Use of funds.
(a) In general. A recipient may only
use funds to cover costs incurred during
the period beginning March 3, 2021, and
ending December 31, 2024, for one or
more of the purposes enumerated in
sections 602(c)(1) and 603(c)(1) of the
Social Security Act, as applicable,
including those enumerated in section
§35.6, subject to the restrictions set
forth in sections 602(c)(2) and 603(c)(2)
of the Social Security Act, as applicable.
(b) Costs incurred. A cost shall be
considered to have been incurred for
purposes of paragraph (a) of this section
if the recipient has incurred an
obligation with respect to such cost by
December 31, 2024.
(c) Return of funds. A recipient must
return any funds not obligated by
December 31, 2024, and any funds not
expended to cover such obligations by
December 31, 2026.
§35.6 Eligible uses.
(a) In general. Subject to §§35.7 and
35.8, a recipient may use funds for one
or more of the purposes described in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section
(b) Responding to the public health
emergency or its negative economic
impacts. A recipient may use funds to
respond to the public health emergency
or its negative economic impacts,
including for one or more of the
following purposes:
(1) COVID–19 response and
prevention. Expenditures for the
mitigation and prevention of COVID–19,
including:
(i) Expenses related to COVID–19
vaccination programs and sites,
including staffing, acquisition of
equipment or supplies, facilities costs,
and information technology or other
administrative expenses;
(ii) COVID–19-related expenses of
public hospitals, clinics, and similar
facilities;
(iii) COVID–19 related expenses in
congregate living facilities, including
skilled nursing facilities, long-term care
facilities, incarceration settings,
homeless shelters, residential foster care
facilities, residential behavioral health
treatment, and other group living
facilities;
(iv) Expenses of establishing
temporary public medical facilities and
other measures to increase COVID–19
treatment capacity, including related
construction costs and other capital
investments in public facilities to meet
COVID–19-related operational needs;
(v) Expenses of establishing
temporary public medical facilities and
other measures to increase COVID–19
treatment capacity, including related
construction costs and other capital
investments in public facilities to meet
COVID–19-related operational needs;
(vi) Costs of providing COVID–19
testing and monitoring, contact tracing,
and monitoring of case trends and
genomic sequencing for variants;
(vii) Emergency medical response
expenses, including emergency medical
transportation, related to COVID–19;
(viii) Expenses for establishing and
operating public telemedicine
capabilities for COVID–19-related
treatment;
(ix) Expenses for communication
related to COVID–19 vaccination
programs and communication or
enforcement by recipients of public
health orders related to COVID–19;
(x) Expenses for acquisition and
distribution of medical and protective
supplies, including sanitizing products
and personal protective equipment;
(xi) Expenses for disinfection of
public areas and other facilities in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
577
26822 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
response to the COVID–19 public health
emergency;
(xii) Expenses for technical assistance
to local authorities or other entities on
mitigation of COVID–19-related threats
to public health and safety;
(xiii) Expenses for quarantining or
isolation of individuals;
(xiv) Expenses of providing paid sick
and paid family and medical leave to
public employees to enable compliance
with COVID–19 public health
precautions;
(xv) Expenses for treatment of the
long-term symptoms or effects of
COVID–19, including post-intensive
care syndrome;
(xvi) Expenses for the improvement of
ventilation systems in congregate
settings, public health facilities, or other
public facilities;
(xvii) Expenses related to establishing
or enhancing public health data
systems; and
(xviii) Mental health treatment,
substance misuse treatment, and other
behavioral health services.
(2) Public health and safety staff.
Payroll and covered benefit expenses for
public safety, public health, health care,
human services, and similar employees
to the extent that the employee’s time is
spent mitigating or responding to the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
(3) Hiring State and local government
staff. Payroll, covered benefit, and other
costs associated with the recipient
increasing the number of its employees
up to the number of employees that it
employed on January 27, 2020.
(4) Assistance to unemployed
workers. Assistance, including job
training, for individuals who want and
are available for work, including those
who have looked for work sometime in
the past 12 months or who are
employed part time but who want and
are available for full-time work.
(5) Contributions to State
unemployment insurance trust funds.
Contributions to an unemployment trust
fund up to the level required to restore
the unemployment trust fund to its
balance on January 27, 2020 or to pay
back advances received under Title XII
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1321) for the payment of benefits
between January 27, 2020 and May 17,
2021.
(6) Small businesses. Assistance to
small businesses, including loans,
grants, in-kind assistance, technical
assistance or other services, that
responds to the negative economic
impacts of the COVID–19 public health
emergency.
(7) Nonprofits. Assistance to nonprofit
organizations, including loans, grants,
in-kind assistance, technical assistance
or other services, that responds to the
negative economic impacts of the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
(8) Assistance to households.
Assistance programs, including cash
assistance programs, that respond to the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
(9) Aid to impacted industries. Aid to
tourism, travel, hospitality, and other
impacted industries that responds to the
negative economic impacts of the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
(10) Expenses to improve efficacy of
public health or economic relief
programs. Administrative costs
associated with the recipient’s COVID–
19 public health emergency assistance
programs, including services responding
to the COVID–19 public health
emergency or its negative economic
impacts, that are not federally funded.
(11) Survivor’s benefits. Benefits for
the surviving family members of
individuals who have died from
COVID–19, including cash assistance to
widows, widowers, or dependents of
individuals who died of COVID–19.
(12) Disproportionately impacted
populations and communities. A
program, service, or other assistance
that is provided in a qualified census
tract, that is provided to households and
populations living in a qualified census
tract, that is provided by a Tribal
government, or that is provided to other
households, businesses, or populations
disproportionately impacted by the
COVID–19 public health emergency,
such as:
(i) Programs or services that facilitate
access to health and social services,
including:
(A) Assistance accessing or applying
for public benefits or services;
(B) Remediation of lead paint or other
lead hazards; and
(C) Community violence intervention
programs;
(ii) Programs or services that address
housing insecurity, lack of affordable
housing, or homelessness, including:
(A) Supportive housing or other
programs or services to improve access
to stable, affordable housing among
individuals who are homeless;
(B) Development of affordable
housing to increase supply of affordable
and high-quality living units; and
(C) Housing vouchers and assistance
relocating to neighborhoods with higher
levels of economic opportunity and to
reduce concentrated areas of low
economic opportunity;
(iii) Programs or services that address
or mitigate the impacts of the COVID–
19 public health emergency on
education, including:
(A) New or expanded early learning
services;
(B) Assistance to high-poverty school
districts to advance equitable funding
across districts and geographies; and
(C) Educational and evidence-based
services to address the academic, social,
emotional, and mental health needs of
students; and
(iv) Programs or services that address
or mitigate the impacts of the COVID–
19 public health emergency on
childhood health or welfare, including:
(A) New or expanded childcare;
(B) Programs to provide home visits
by health professionals, parent
educators, and social service
professionals to individuals with young
children to provide education and
assistance for economic support, health
needs, or child development; and
(C) Services for child welfare-
involved families and foster youth to
provide support and education on child
development, positive parenting, coping
skills, or recovery for mental health and
substance use.
(c) Providing premium pay to eligible
workers. A recipient may use funds to
provide premium pay to eligible
workers of the recipient who perform
essential work or to provide grants to
eligible employers, provided that any
premium pay or grants provided under
this paragraph (c) must respond to
eligible workers performing essential
work during the COVID–19 public
health emergency. A recipient uses
premium pay or grants provided under
this paragraph (c) to respond to eligible
workers performing essential work
during the COVID–19 public health
emergency if it prioritizes low- and
moderate-income persons. The recipient
must provide, whether for themselves or
on behalf of a grantee, a written
justification to the Secretary of how the
premium pay or grant provided under
this paragraph (c) responds to eligible
workers performing essential work if the
premium pay or grant would increase an
eligible worker’s total wages and
remuneration above 150 percent of such
eligible worker’s residing State’s average
annual wage for all occupations or their
residing county’s average annual wage,
whichever is higher.
(d) Providing government services. For
the provision of government services to
the extent of a reduction in the
recipient’s general revenue, calculated
according to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Frequency. A recipient must
calculate the reduction in its general
revenue using information as-of
December 31, 2020, December 31, 2021,
December 31, 2022, and December 31,
2023 (each, a calculation date) and
following each calculation date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
578
26823 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
(2) Calculation. A reduction in a
recipient’s general revenue equals:
Where:
Base Year Revenue is the recipient’s general
revenue for the most recent full fiscal
year prior to the COVD–19 public health
emergency;
Growth Adjustment is equal to the greater of
4.1 percent (or 0.041) and the recipient’s
average annual revenue growth over the
three full fiscal years prior to the
COVID–19 public health emergency.
n equals the number of months elapsed from
the end of the base year to the
calculation date.
Actual General Revenue is a recipient’s
actual general revenue collected during
12-month period ending on each
calculation date;
Subscript t denotes the specific calculation
date.
(e) To make necessary investments in
infrastructure. A recipient may use
funds to make investments in:
(1) Clean Water State Revolving Fund
and Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund investments. Projects or activities
of the type that would be eligible under
section 603(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1383(c)) or section 1452 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j–12);
or,
(2) Broadband. Broadband
infrastructure that is designed to
provide service to unserved or
underserved households and businesses
and that is designed to, upon
completion:
(i) Reliably meet or exceed
symmetrical 100 Mbps download speed
and upload speeds; or
(ii) In cases where it is not
practicable, because of the excessive
cost of the project or geography or
topography of the area to be served by
the project, to provide service meeting
the standards set forth in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section:
(A) Reliably meet or exceed 100 Mbps
download speed and between at least 20
Mbps and 100 Mbps upload speed; and
(B) Be scalable to a minimum of 100
Mbps download speed and 100 Mbps
upload speed.
§35.7 Pensions.
A recipient may not use funds for
deposit into any pension fund.
§35.8 Tax.
(a) Restriction. A State or Territory
shall not use funds to either directly or
indirectly offset a reduction in the net
tax revenue of the State or Territory
resulting from a covered change during
the covered period.
(b) Violation. Treasury will consider a
State or Territory to have used funds to
offset a reduction in net tax revenue if,
during a reporting year:
(1) Covered change. The State or
Territory has made a covered change
that, either based on a reasonable
statistical methodology to isolate the
impact of the covered change in actual
revenue or based on projections that use
reasonable assumptions and do not
incorporate the effects of
macroeconomic growth to reduce or
increase the projected impact of the
covered change, the State or Territory
assesses has had or predicts to have the
effect of reducing tax revenue relative to
current law;
(2) Exceeds the de minimis threshold.
The aggregate amount of the measured
or predicted reductions in tax revenue
caused by covered changes identified
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in
the aggregate, exceeds 1 percent of the
State’s or Territory’s baseline;
(3) Reduction in net tax revenue. The
State or Territory reports a reduction in
net tax revenue, measured as the
difference between actual tax revenue
and the State’s or Territory’s baseline,
each measured as of the end of the
reporting year; and
(4) Consideration of other changes.
The aggregate amount of measured or
predicted reductions in tax revenue
caused by covered changes is greater
than the sum of the following, in each
case, as calculated for the reporting
year:
(i) The aggregate amount of the
expected increases in tax revenue
caused by one or more covered changes
that, either based on a reasonable
statistical methodology to isolate the
impact of the covered change in actual
revenue or based on projections that use
reasonable assumptions and do not
incorporate the effects of
macroeconomic growth to reduce or
increase the projected impact of the
covered change, the State or Territory
assesses has had or predicts to have the
effect of increasing tax revenue; and
(ii) Reductions in spending, up to the
amount of the State’s or Territory’s net
reduction in total spending, that are in:
(A) Departments, agencies, or
authorities in which the State or
Territory is not using funds; and
(B) Departments, agencies, or
authorities in which the State or
Territory is using funds, in an amount
equal to the value of the spending cuts
in those departments, agencies, or
authorities, minus funds used.
(c) Amount and revenue reduction
cap. If a State or Territory is considered
to be in violation pursuant to paragraph
(b) of this section, the amount used in
violation of paragraph (a) of this section
is equal to the lesser of:
(1) The reduction in net tax revenue
of the State or Territory for the reporting
year, measured as the difference
between the State’s or Territory’s
baseline and its actual tax revenue, each
measured as of the end of the reporting
year; and,
(2) The aggregate amount of the
reductions in tax revenues caused by
covered changes identified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, minus the sum of
the amounts in identified in paragraphs
(b)(4)(i) and (ii).
§35.9 Compliance with applicable laws.
A recipient must comply with all
other applicable Federal statutes,
regulations, and Executive orders, and a
recipient shall provide for compliance
with the American Rescue Plan Act, this
subpart, and any interpretive guidance
by other parties in any agreements it
enters into with other parties relating to
these funds.
§35.10 Recoupment.
(a) Identification of violations—(1) In
general. Any amount used in violation
of §35.5, §35.6, or §35.7 may be
identified at any time prior to December
31, 2026.
(2) Annual reporting of amounts of
violations. On an annual basis, a
recipient that is a State or Territory
must calculate and report any amounts
used in violation of §35.8.
(b) Calculation of amounts subject to
recoupment—(1) In general. Except as
provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, Treasury will calculate any
amounts subject to recoupment
resulting from a violation of §35.5,
§35.6, or §35.7 as the amounts used in
violation of such restrictions.
(2) Violations of §35.8. Treasury will
calculate any amounts subject to
recoupment resulting from a violation of
§35.8, equal to the lesser of:
(i) The amount set forth in §35.8(c);
and,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:07 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2 ER17MY21.003</GPH>Max {[Base Year Revenue* (1 + Growth Adjustment)(~~)] -Actual General Revenue6 O}
579
26824 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 93/Monday, May 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations
(ii) The amount of funds received by
such recipient.
(c) Notice. If Treasury calculates an
amount subject to recoupment under
paragraph (b) of this section, Treasury
will provide the recipient a written
notice of the amount subject to
recoupment along with an explanation
of such amounts.
(d) Request for reconsideration.
Unless Treasury extends the time
period, within 60 calendar days of
receipt of a notice of recoupment
provided under paragraph (c) of this
section, a recipient may submit a
written request to Treasury requesting
reconsideration of any amounts subject
to recoupment under paragraph (b) of
this section. To request reconsideration
of any amounts subject to recoupment,
a recipient must submit to Treasury a
written request that includes:
(1) An explanation of why the
recipient believes all or some of the
amount should not be subject to
recoupment; and
(2) A discussion of supporting
reasons, along with any additional
information.
(e) Final amount subject to
recoupment. Unless Treasury extends
the time period, within 60 calendar days
of receipt of the recipient’s request for
reconsideration provided pursuant to
paragraph (d) of this section, the
recipient will be notified of the
Secretary’s decision to affirm, withdraw,
or modify the notice of recoupment.
Such notification will include an
explanation of the decision, including
responses to the recipient’s supporting
reasons and consideration of additional
information provided.
(f) Repayment of funds. Unless
Treasury extends the time period, a
recipient shall repay to the Secretary
any amounts subject to recoupment in
accordance with instructions provided
by Treasury:
(1) Within 120 calendar days of
receipt of the notice of recoupment
provided under paragraph (c) of this
section, in the case of a recipient that
does not submit a request for
reconsideration in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section; or
(2) Within 120 calendar days of
receipt of the Secretary’s decision under
paragraph (e) of this section, in the case
of a recipient that submits a request for
reconsideration in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section.
§35.11 Payments to States.
(a) In general. With respect to any
State or Territory that has an
unemployment rate as of the date that
it submits an initial certification for
payment of funds pursuant to section
602(d)(1) of the Social Security Act that
is less than two percentage points above
its unemployment rate in February
2020, the Secretary will withhold 50
percent of the amount of funds allocated
under section 602(b) of the Social
Security Act to such State or territory
until the date that is twelve months
from the date such initial certification is
provided to the Secretary.
(b) Payment of withheld amount. In
order to receive the amount withheld
under paragraph (a) of this section, the
State or Territory must submit to the
Secretary at least 30 days prior to the
date referenced in paragraph (a) the
following information:
(1) A certification, in the form
provided by the Secretary, that such
State or Territory requires the payment
to carry out the activities specified in
section 602(c) of the Social Security Act
and will use the payment in compliance
with section 602(c) of the Social
Security Act; and,
(2) Any reports required to be filed by
that date pursuant to this subpart that
have not yet been filed.
§35.12 Distributions to nonentitlement
units of local government and units of
general local government.
(a) Nonentitlement units of local
government. Each State or Territory that
receives a payment from Treasury
pursuant to section 603(b)(2)(B) of the
Social Security Act shall distribute the
amount of the payment to
nonentitlement units of government in
such State or Territory in accordance
with the requirements set forth in
section 603(b)(2)(C) of the Social
Security Act and without offsetting any
debt owed by such nonentitlement units
of local governments against such
payments.
(b) Budget cap. A State or Territory
may not make a payment to a
nonentitlement unit of local government
pursuant to section 603(b)(2)(C) of the
Social Security Act and paragraph (a) of
this section in excess of the amount
equal to 75 percent of the most recent
budget for the nonentitlement unit of
local government as of January 27, 2020.
A State or Territory shall permit a
nonentitlement unit of local government
without a formal budget as of January
27, 2020, to provide a certification from
an authorized officer of the
nonentitlement unit of local government
of its most recent annual expenditures
as of January 27, 2020, and a State or
Territory may rely on such certification
for purposes of complying with this
paragraph (b).
(c) Units of general local government.
Each State or Territory that receives a
payment from Treasury pursuant to
section 603(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Social
Security Act, in the case of an amount
to be paid to a county that is not a unit
of general local government, shall
distribute the amount of the payment to
units of general local government within
such county in accordance with the
requirements set forth in section
603(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Social Security
Act and without offsetting any debt
owed by such units of general local
government against such payments.
(d) Additional conditions. A State or
Territory may not place additional
conditions or requirements on
distributions to nonentitlement units of
local government or units of general
local government beyond those required
by section 603 of the Social Security Act
or this subpart.
Laurie Schaffer,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021–10283 Filed 5–13–21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AK–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17MYR2.SGM 17MYR2
580
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
1
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
Frequently Asked Questions
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
This document contains answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Coronavirus State
and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSFRF / CLFRF, or Fiscal Recovery Funds). Treasury will
be updating this document periodically in response to questions received from stakeholders.
Recipients and stakeholders should consult the Interim Final Rule for additional information.
• For overall information about the program, including information on requesting funding,
please see https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-
and-tribal-governments
• For general questions about CSFRF / CLFRF, please email SLFRP@treasury.gov
• Treasury is seeking comment on all aspects of the Interim Final Rule. Stakeholders are
encouraged to submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(https://www.regulations.gov/document/TREAS-DO-2021-0008-0002) on or before July
16, 2021. Please be advised that comments received will be part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. Do not disclose any information in your comment or
supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Questions added 5/27/21: 1.5, 1.6, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 3.9, 4.5, 4.6, 10.3, 10.4 (noted with “[5/27]”)
Questions added 6/8/21: 2.16, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 4.7, 6.7, 8.2, 9.4, 9.5, 10.5 (noted with “[6/8]”)
Answers to frequently asked questions on distribution of funds to non-entitlement units of local
government (NEUs) can be found in this FAQ supplement, which is regularly updated.
1. Eligibility and Allocations
1.1. Which governments are eligible for funds?
The following governments are eligible:
• States and the District of Columbia
• Territories
• Tribal governments
• Counties
• Metropolitan cities
• Non-entitlement units, or smaller local governments
1.2. Which governments receive funds directly from Treasury?
581
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
2
Treasury will distribute funds directly to each eligible state, territory, metropolitan city,
county, or Tribal government. Smaller local governments that are classified as non-
entitlement units will receive funds through their applicable state government.
1.3. Are special-purpose units of government eligible to receive funds?
Special-purpose units of local government will not receive funding allocations; however,
a state, territory, local, or Tribal government may transfer funds to a special-purpose unit
of government. Special-purpose districts perform specific functions in the community,
such as fire, water, sewer or mosquito abatement districts.
1.4. How are funds being allocated to Tribal governments, and how will Tribal
governments find out their allocation amounts?
$20 billion of Fiscal Recovery Funds was reserved for Tribal governments. The
American Rescue Plan Act specifies that $1 billion will be allocated evenly to all eligible
Tribal governments. The remaining $19 billion will be distributed using an allocation
methodology based on enrollment and employment.
There will be two payments to Tribal governments. Each Tribal government’s first
payment will include (i) an amount in respect of the $1 billion allocation that is to be
divided equally among eligible Tribal governments and (ii) each Tribal government’s pro
rata share of the Enrollment Allocation. Tribal governments will be notified of their
allocation amount and delivery of payment 4-5 days after completing request for funds in
the Treasury Submission Portal. The deadline to make the initial request for funds is
June 7, 2021.
In mid-June or shortly after completing the initial request for funds, Tribal governments
will receive an email notification to re-enter the Treasury Submission Portal to confirm or
amend their 2019 employment numbers that were submitted to the Department of the
Treasury for the CARES Act’s Coronavirus Relief Fund. The deadline to confirm
employment numbers is June 21, 2021. Treasury will calculate each Tribal government’s
pro rata share of the Employment Allocation for those Tribal governments that confirmed
or submitted amended employment numbers. In late-June, Treasury will communicate to
Tribal governments the amount of their portion of the Employment Allocation and the
anticipated date for the second payment.
1.5. My county is a unit of general local government with population under 50,000. Will
my county receive funds directly from Treasury? [5/27]
Yes. All counties that are units of general local government will receive funds directly
from Treasury and should apply via the online portal. The list of county allocations is
available here.
1.6. My local government expected to be classified as a non-entitlement unit. Instead, it
was classified as a metropolitan city. Why? [5/27]
582
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
3
The American Rescue Plan Act defines, for purposes of the Coronavirus Local Fiscal
Recovery Fund (CLFRF), metropolitan cities to include those that are currently
metropolitan cities under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
but also those cities that relinquish or defer their status as a metropolitan city for purposes
of the CDBG program. This would include, by way of example, cities that are principal
cities of their metropolitan statistical area, even if their population is less than 50,000. In
other words, a city that is eligible to be a metropolitan city under the CDBG program is
eligible as a metropolitan city under the CLFRF, regardless of how that city has elected to
participate in the CDBG program.
Unofficial allocation estimates produced by other organizations may have classified
certain local governments as non-entitlement units of local government. However, based
on the statutory definitions, some of these local governments should have been classified
as metropolitan cities.
2. Eligible Uses – Responding to the Public Health Emergency / Negative
Economic Impacts
2.1. What types of COVID-19 response, mitigation, and prevention activities are
eligible?
A broad range of services are needed to contain COVID-19 and are eligible uses,
including vaccination programs; medical care; testing; contact tracing; support for
isolation or quarantine; supports for vulnerable populations to access medical or public
health services; public health surveillance (e.g., monitoring case trends, genomic
sequencing for variants); enforcement of public health orders; public communication
efforts; enhancement to health care capacity, including through alternative care facilities;
purchases of personal protective equipment; support for prevention, mitigation, or other
services in congregate living facilities (e.g., nursing homes, incarceration settings,
homeless shelters, group living facilities) and other key settings like schools; ventilation
improvements in congregate settings, health care settings, or other key locations;
enhancement of public health data systems; and other public health responses. Capital
investments in public facilities to meet pandemic operational needs are also eligible, such
as physical plant improvements to public hospitals and health clinics or adaptations to
public buildings to implement COVID-19 mitigation tactics.
2.2. If a use of funds was allowable under the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) to
respond to the public health emergency, may recipients presume it is also allowable
under CSFRF/CLFRF?
Generally, funding uses eligible under CRF as a response to the direct public health
impacts of COVID-19 will continue to be eligible under CSFRF/CLFRF, with the
following two exceptions: (1) the standard for eligibility of public health and safety
583
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
4
payrolls has been updated; and (2) expenses related to the issuance of tax-anticipation
notes are not an eligible funding use.
2.3. If a use of funds is not explicitly permitted in the Interim Final Rule as a response to
the public health emergency and its negative economic impacts, does that mean it is
prohibited?
The Interim Final Rule contains a non-exclusive list of programs or services that may be
funded as responding to COVID-19 or the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19
public health emergency, along with considerations for evaluating other potential uses of
Fiscal Recovery Funds not explicitly listed. The Interim Final Rule also provides
flexibility for recipients to use Fiscal Recovery Funds for programs or services that are
not identified on these non-exclusive lists but which meet the objectives of section
602(c)(1)(A) or 603(c)(1)(A) by responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency
with respect to COVID-19 or its negative economic impacts.
2.4. May recipients use funds to respond to the public health emergency and its negative
economic impacts by replenishing state unemployment funds?
Consistent with the approach taken in the CRF, recipients may make deposits into the
state account of the Unemployment Trust Fund up to the level needed to restore the pre-
pandemic balances of such account as of January 27, 2020, or to pay back advances
received for the payment of benefits between January 27, 2020 and the date when the
Interim Final Rule is published in the Federal Register.
2.5. What types of services are eligible as responses to the negative economic impacts of
the pandemic?
Eligible uses in this category include assistance to households; small businesses and non-
profits; and aid to impacted industries.
Assistance to households includes, but is not limited to: food assistance; rent, mortgage,
or utility assistance; counseling and legal aid to prevent eviction or homelessness; cash
assistance; emergency assistance for burials, home repairs, weatherization, or other
needs; internet access or digital literacy assistance; or job training to address negative
economic or public health impacts experienced due to a worker’s occupation or level of
training.
Assistance to small business and non-profits includes, but is not limited to:
• loans or grants to mitigate financial hardship such as declines in revenues or
impacts of periods of business closure, for example by supporting payroll and
benefits costs, costs to retain employees, mortgage, rent, or utilities costs, and
other operating costs;
• Loans, grants, or in-kind assistance to implement COVID-19 prevention or
mitigation tactics, such as physical plant changes to enable social distancing,
584
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
5
enhanced cleaning efforts, barriers or partitions, or COVID-19 vaccination,
testing, or contact tracing programs; and
• Technical assistance, counseling, or other services to assist with business planning
needs
2.6. May recipients use funds to respond to the public health emergency and its negative
economic impacts by providing direct cash transfers to households?
Yes, provided the recipient considers whether, and the extent to which, the household has
experienced a negative economic impact from the pandemic. Additionally, cash transfers
must be reasonably proportional to the negative economic impact they are intended to
address. Cash transfers grossly in excess of the amount needed to address the negative
economic impact identified by the recipient would not be considered to be a response to
the COVID-19 public health emergency or its negative impacts. In particular, when
considering appropriate size of permissible cash transfers made in response to the
COVID-19 public health emergency, state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments may
consider and take guidance from the per person amounts previously provided by the
federal government in response to the COVID crisis.
2.7. May funds be used to reimburse recipients for costs incurred by state and local
governments in responding to the public health emergency and its negative
economic impacts prior to passage of the American Rescue Plan?
Use of Fiscal Recovery Funds is generally forward looking. The Interim Final Rule
permits funds to be used to cover costs incurred beginning on March 3, 2021.
2.8. May recipients use funds for general economic development or workforce
development?
Generally, not. Recipients must demonstrate that funding uses directly address a negative
economic impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency, including funds used for
economic or workforce development. For example, job training for unemployed workers
may be used to address negative economic impacts of the public health emergency and be
eligible.
2.9. How can recipients use funds to assist the travel, tourism, and hospitality
industries?
Aid provided to tourism, travel, and hospitality industries should respond to the negative
economic impacts of the pandemic. For example, a recipient may provide aid to support
safe reopening of businesses in the tourism, travel and hospitality industries and to
districts that were closed during the COVID-19 public health emergency, as well as aid a
planned expansion or upgrade of tourism, travel and hospitality facilities delayed due to
the pandemic.
585
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
6
Tribal development districts are considered the commercial centers for tribal hospitality,
gaming, tourism and entertainment industries.
2.10. May recipients use funds to assist impacted industries other than travel, tourism,
and hospitality?
Yes, provided that recipients consider the extent of the impact in such industries as
compared to tourism, travel, and hospitality, the industries enumerated in the statute. For
example, nationwide the leisure and hospitality industry has experienced an
approximately 17 percent decline in employment and 24 percent decline in revenue, on
net, due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Recipients should also consider
whether impacts were due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as opposed to longer-term
economic or industrial trends unrelated to the pandemic.
Recipients should maintain records to support their assessment of how businesses or
business districts receiving assistance were affected by the negative economic impacts of
the pandemic and how the aid provided responds to these impacts.
2.11. How does the Interim Final Rule help address the disparate impact of COVID-19 on
certain populations and geographies?
In recognition of the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 virus on health and
economic outcomes in low-income and Native American communities, the Interim Final
Rule identifies a broader range of services and programs that are considered to be in
response to the public health emergency when provided in these communities.
Specifically, Treasury will presume that certain types of services are eligible uses when
provided in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT), to families living in QCTs, or when these
services are provided by Tribal governments.
Recipients may also provide these services to other populations, households, or
geographic areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In identifying these
disproportionately-impacted communities, recipients should be able to support their
determination for how the pandemic disproportionately impacted the populations,
households, or geographic areas to be served.
Eligible services include:
• Addressing health disparities and the social determinants of health, including:
community health workers, public benefits navigators, remediation of lead paint
or other lead hazards, and community violence intervention programs;
• Building stronger neighborhoods and communities, including: supportive housing
and other services for individuals experiencing homelessness, development of
affordable housing, and housing vouchers and assistance relocating to
neighborhoods with higher levels of economic opportunity;
586
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
7
• Addressing educational disparities exacerbated by COVID-19, including: early
learning services, increasing resources for high-poverty school districts,
educational services like tutoring or afterschool programs, and supports for
students’ social, emotional, and mental health needs; and
• Promoting healthy childhood environments, including: child care, home visiting
programs for families with young children, and enhanced services for child
welfare-involved families and foster youth.
2.12. May recipients use funds to pay for vaccine incentive programs (e.g., cash or in-kind
transfers, lottery programs, or other incentives for individuals who get vaccinated)?
Yes. Under the Interim Final Rule, recipients may use Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency, including
expenses related to COVID-19 vaccination programs. See forthcoming 31 CFR
35.6(b)(1)(i). Programs that provide incentives reasonably expected to increase the
number of people who choose to get vaccinated, or that motivate people to get vaccinated
sooner than they otherwise would have, are an allowable use of funds so long as such
costs are reasonably proportional to the expected public health benefit.
2.13. May recipients use funds to pay “back to work incentives” (e.g., cash payments for
newly employed workers after a certain period of time on the job)? [5/27]
Yes. Under the Interim Final Rule, recipients may use Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds to provide assistance to unemployed workers. See forthcoming
31 CFR 35.6(b)(4). This assistance can include job training or other efforts to accelerate
rehiring and thus reduce unemployment, such as childcare assistance, assistance with
transportation to and from a jobsite or interview, and incentives for newly employed
workers.
2.14. The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) included as an eligible use: "Payroll expenses
for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar employees
whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the
COVID-19 public health emergency." What has changed in CSFRF/CLFRF, and
what type of documentation is required under CSFRF/CLFRF? [5/27]
Many of the expenses authorized under the Coronavirus Relief Fund are also eligible uses
under the CSFRF/CLFRF. However, in the case of payroll expenses for public safety,
public health, health care, human services, and similar employees (hereafter, public
health and safety staff), the CSFRF/CLFRF does differ from the CRF. This change
reflects the differences between the ARPA and CARES Act and recognizes that the
response to the COVID-19 public health emergency has changed and will continue to
change over time. In particular, funds may be used for payroll and covered benefits
expenses for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar
employees, including first responders, to the extent that the employee’s time that is
dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
587
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
8
For administrative convenience, the recipient may consider a public health and safety
employee to be entirely devoted to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public
health emergency, and therefore fully covered, if the employee, or his or her operating
unit or division, is primarily dedicated (e.g., more than half of the employee’s time is
dedicated) to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Recipients may use presumptions for assessing whether an employee, division, or
operating unit is primarily dedicated to COVID-19 response. The recipient should
maintain records to support its assessment, such as payroll records, attestations from
supervisors or staff, or regular work product or correspondence demonstrating work on
the COVID-19 response. Recipients need not routinely track staff hours. Recipients
should periodically reassess their determinations.
2.15. What staff are included in “public safety, public health, health care, human
services, and similar employees”? Would this include, for example, 911 operators,
morgue staff, medical examiner staff, or EMS staff? [5/27]
As discussed in the Interim Final Rule, funds may be used for payroll and covered
benefits expenses for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and
similar employees, for the portion of the employee’s time that is dedicated to responding
to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Public safety employees would include police officers (including state police officers),
sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, firefighters, emergency medical responders, correctional and
detention officers, and those who directly support such employees such as dispatchers
and supervisory personnel. Public health employees would include employees involved
in providing medical and other health services to patients and supervisory personnel,
including medical staff assigned to schools, prisons, and other such institutions, and other
support services essential for patient care (e.g., laboratory technicians, medical examiner
or morgue staff) as well as employees of public health departments directly engaged in
matters related to public health and related supervisory personnel. Human services staff
include employees providing or administering social services; public benefits; child
welfare services; and child, elder, or family care, as well as others.
2.16. May recipients use funds to establish a public jobs program? [6/8]
Yes. The Interim Final Rule permits a broad range of services to unemployed or
underemployed workers and other individuals that suffered negative economic impacts
from the pandemic. That can include public jobs programs, subsidized employment,
combined education and on-the-job training programs, or job training to accelerate
rehiring or address negative economic or public health impacts experienced due to a
worker’s occupation or level of training. The broad range of permitted services can also
include other employment supports, such as childcare assistance or assistance with
transportation to and from a jobsite or interview.
588
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
9
The Interim Final Rule includes as an eligible use re-hiring public sector staff up to the
government’s level of pre-pandemic employment. “Public sector staff” would not
include individuals participating in a job training or subsidized employment program
administered by the recipient.
3. Eligible Uses – Revenue Loss
3.1. How is revenue defined for the purpose of this provision?
The Interim Final Rule adopts a definition of “General Revenue” that is based on, but not
identical, to the Census Bureau’s concept of “General Revenue from Own Sources” in the
Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances.
General Revenue includes revenue from taxes, current charges, and miscellaneous
general revenue. It excludes refunds and other correcting transactions, proceeds from
issuance of debt or the sale of investments, agency or private trust transactions, and
revenue generated by utilities and insurance trusts. General revenue also includes
intergovernmental transfers between state and local governments, but excludes
intergovernmental transfers from the Federal government, including Federal transfers
made via a state to a locality pursuant to the CRF or the Fiscal Recovery Funds.
Tribal governments may include all revenue from Tribal enterprises and gaming
operations in the definition of General Revenue.
3.2. Will revenue be calculated on an entity-wide basis or on a source-by-source basis
(e.g. property tax, income tax, sales tax, etc.)?
Recipients should calculate revenue on an entity-wide basis. This approach minimizes
the administrative burden for recipients, provides for greater consistency across
recipients, and presents a more accurate representation of the net impact of the
COVID- 19 public health emergency on a recipient’s revenue, rather than relying on
financial reporting prepared by each recipient, which vary in methodology used and
which generally aggregates revenue by purpose rather than by source.
3.3. Does the definition of revenue include outside concessions that contract with a state
or local government?
Recipients should classify revenue sources as they would if responding to the U.S.
Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances. According to
the Census Bureau’s Government Finance and Employment Classification manual, the
following is an example of current charges that would be included in a state or local
government’s general revenue from own sources: “Gross revenue of facilities operated by
a government (swimming pools, recreational marinas and piers, golf courses, skating
rinks, museums, zoos, etc.); auxiliary facilities in public recreation areas (camping areas,
589
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
10
refreshment stands, gift shops, etc.); lease or use fees from stadiums, auditoriums, and
community and convention centers; and rentals from concessions at such facilities.”
3.4. What is the time period for estimating revenue loss? Will revenue losses experienced
prior to the passage of the Act be considered?
Recipients are permitted to calculate the extent of reduction in revenue as of four points
in time: December 31, 2020; December 31, 2021; December 31, 2022; and December 31,
2023. This approach recognizes that some recipients may experience lagged effects of the
pandemic on revenues.
Upon receiving Fiscal Recovery Fund payments, recipients may immediately calculate
revenue loss for the period ending December 31, 2020.
3.5. What is the formula for calculating the reduction in revenue?
A reduction in a recipient’s General Revenue equals:
Max {[Base Year Revenue* (1+Growth Adjustment)(nt12)] - Actual General Revenuet ; 0}
Where:
Base Year Revenue is General Revenue collected in the most recent full fiscal year prior
to the COVD-19 public health emergency.
Growth Adjustment is equal to the greater of 4.1 percent (or 0.041) and the recipient’s
average annual revenue growth over the three full fiscal years prior to the COVID-19
public health emergency.
n equals the number of months elapsed from the end of the base year to the calculation
date.
Actual General Revenue is a recipient’s actual general revenue collected during 12-month
period ending on each calculation date.
Subscript t denotes the calculation date.
3.6. Are recipients expected to demonstrate that reduction in revenue is due to the
COVID-19 public health emergency?
In the Interim Final Rule, any diminution in actual revenue calculated using the formula
above would be presumed to have been “due to” the COVID-19 public health emergency.
This presumption is made for administrative ease and in recognition of the broad-based
economic damage that the pandemic has wrought.
590
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
11
3.7. May recipients use pre-pandemic projections as a basis to estimate the reduction in
revenue?
No. Treasury is disallowing the use of projections to ensure consistency and
comparability across recipients and to streamline verification. However, in estimating
the revenue shortfall using the formula above, recipients may incorporate their average
annual revenue growth rate in the three full fiscal years prior to the public health
emergency.
3.8. Once a recipient has identified a reduction in revenue, are there any restrictions on
how recipients use funds up to the amount of the reduction?
The Interim Final Rule gives recipients broad latitude to use funds for the provision of
government services to the extent of reduction in revenue. Government services can
include, but are not limited to, maintenance of infrastructure or pay-go spending for
building new infrastructure, including roads; modernization of cybersecurity, including
hardware, software, and protection of critical infrastructure; health services;
environmental remediation; school or educational services; and the provision of police,
fire, and other public safety services.
However, paying interest or principal on outstanding debt, replenishing rainy day or other
reserve funds, or paying settlements or judgments would not be considered provision of a
government service, since these uses of funds do not entail direct provision of services to
citizens. This restriction on paying interest or principal on any outstanding debt
instrument, includes, for example, short-term revenue or tax anticipation notes, or paying
fees or issuance costs associated with the issuance of new debt. In addition, the
overarching restrictions on all program funds (e.g., restriction on pension deposits,
restriction on using funds for non-federal match where barred by regulation or statute)
would apply.
3.9. How do I know if a certain type of revenue should be counted for the purpose of
computing revenue loss? [5/27]
As discussed in FAQ #3.1, the Interim Final Rule adopts a definition of “General
Revenue” that is based on, but not identical, to the Census Bureau’s concept of “General
Revenue from Own Sources” in the Annual Survey of State and Local Government
Finances.
Recipients should refer to the definition of “General Revenue” included in the Interim
Final Rule. See forthcoming 31 CFR 35.3. If a recipient is unsure whether a particular
revenue source is included in the Interim Final Rule’s definition of “General Revenue,”
the recipient may consider the classification and instructions used to complete the Census
Bureau’s Annual Survey.
For example, parking fees would be classified as a Current Charge for the purpose of the
Census Bureau’s Annual Survey, and the Interim Final Rule’s concept of “General
591
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
12
Revenue” includes all Current Charges. Therefore, parking fees would be included in the
Interim Final Rule’s concept of “General Revenue.”
The Census Bureau’s Government Finance and Employment Classification manual is
available here.
3.10. In calculating revenue loss, are recipients required to use audited financials? [6/8]
Where audited data is not available, recipients are not required to obtain audited data.
Treasury expects all information submitted to be complete and accurate. See 31 CFR
35.4(c).
3.11. In calculating revenue loss, should recipients use their own data, or Census data?
[6/8]
Recipients should use their own data sources to calculate general revenue, and do not
need to rely on published revenue data from the Census Bureau. Treasury acknowledges
that due to differences in timing, data sources, and definitions, recipients’ self-reported
general revenue figures may differ somewhat from those published by the Census
Bureau.
3.12. Should recipients calculate revenue loss on a cash basis or an accrual basis? [6/8]
Recipients may provide data on a cash, accrual, or modified accrual basis, provided that
recipients are consistent in their choice of methodology throughout the covered period
and until reporting is no longer required.
4. Eligible Uses – General
4.1. May recipients use funds to replenish a budget stabilization fund, rainy day fund, or
similar reserve account?
No. Funds made available to respond to the public health emergency and its negative
economic impacts are intended to help meet pandemic response needs and provide
immediate stabilization for households and businesses. Contributions to rainy day funds
and similar reserves funds would not address these needs or respond to the COVID-19
public health emergency, but would rather be savings for future spending needs.
Similarly, funds made available for the provision of governmental services (to the extent
of reduction in revenue) are intended to support direct provision of services to citizens.
Contributions to rainy day funds are not considered provision of government services,
since such expenses do not directly relate to the provision of government services.
4.2. May recipients use funds to invest in infrastructure other than water, sewer, and
broadband projects (e.g. roads, public facilities)?
592
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
13
Under 602(c)(1)(C) or 603(c)(1)(C), recipients may use funds for maintenance of
infrastructure or pay-go spending for building of new infrastructure as part of the general
provision of government services, to the extent of the estimated reduction in revenue due
to the public health emergency.
Under 602(c)(1)(A) or 603(c)(1)(A), a general infrastructure project typically would not
be considered a response to the public health emergency and its negative economic
impacts unless the project responds to a specific pandemic-related public health need
(e.g., investments in facilities for the delivery of vaccines) or a specific negative
economic impact of the pandemic (e.g., affordable housing in a Qualified Census Tract).
4.3. May recipients use funds to pay interest or principal on outstanding debt?
No. Expenses related to financing, including servicing or redeeming notes, would not
address the needs of pandemic response or its negative economic impacts. Such expenses
would also not be considered provision of government services, as these financing
expenses do not directly provide services or aid to citizens.
This applies to paying interest or principal on any outstanding debt instrument, including,
for example, short-term revenue or tax anticipation notes, or paying fees or issuance costs
associated with the issuance of new debt.
4.4. May recipients use funds to satisfy nonfederal matching requirements under the
Stafford Act? May recipients use funds to satisfy nonfederal matching requirements
generally?
Fiscal Recovery Funds are subject to pre-existing limitations in other federal statutes and
regulations and may not be used as non-federal match for other Federal programs whose
statute or regulations bar the use of Federal funds to meet matching requirements. For
example, expenses for the state share of Medicaid are not an eligible use. For information
on FEMA programs, please see here.
4.5. Are governments required to submit proposed expenditures to Treasury for
approval? [5/27]
No. Recipients are not required to submit planned expenditures for prior approval by
Treasury. Recipients are subject to the requirements and guidelines for eligible uses
contained in the Interim Final Rule.
4.6. How do I know if a specific use is eligible? [5/27]
Fiscal Recovery Funds must be used in one of the four eligible use categories specified in
the American Rescue Plan Act and implemented in the Interim Final Rule:
593
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
14
a) To respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts,
including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to
impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;
b) To respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public
health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers;
c) For the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue
due to the COVID–19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in
the most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency; and
d) To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
Recipients should consult Section II of the Interim Final Rule for additional information
on eligible uses. For recipients evaluating potential uses under (a), the Interim Final Rule
contains a non-exclusive list of programs or services that may be funded as responding to
COVID-19 or the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency,
along with considerations for evaluating other potential uses of Fiscal Recovery Funds
not explicitly listed. See Section II of the Interim Final Rule for additional discussion.
For recipients evaluating potential uses under (c), the Interim Final Rule gives recipients
broad latitude to use funds for the provision of government services to the extent of
reduction in revenue. See FAQ #3.8 for additional discussion.
For recipients evaluating potential uses under (b) and (d), see Sections 5 and 6.
4.7. Do restrictions on using Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to
cover costs incurred beginning on March 3, 2021 apply to costs incurred by the
recipient (e.g., a State, local, territorial, or Tribal government) or to costs incurred
by households, businesses, and individuals benefiting from assistance provided using
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds? [6/8]
The Interim Final Rule permits funds to be used to cover costs incurred beginning on
March 3, 2021. This limitation applies to costs incurred by the recipient (i.e., the state,
local, territorial, or Tribal government receiving funds). However, recipients may use
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to provide assistance to households,
businesses, and individuals within the eligible use categories described in the Interim
Final Rule for economic harms experienced by those households, businesses, and
individuals prior to March 3, 2021. For example,
• Public Health/Negative Economic Impacts – Recipients may use Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to provide assistance to households – such
as rent, mortgage, or utility assistance – for economic harms experienced or costs
incurred by the household prior to March 3, 2021 (e.g., rental arrears from
preceding months), provided that the cost of providing assistance to the household
was not incurred by the recipient prior to March 3, 2021.
594
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
15
• Premium Pay – Recipients may provide premium pay retrospectively for work
performed at any time since the start of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Such premium pay must be “in addition to” wages and remuneration already
received and the obligation to provide such pay must not have been incurred by
the recipient prior to March 3, 2021.
• Revenue Loss – The Interim Final Rule gives recipients broad latitude to use
funds for the provision of government services to the extent of reduction in
revenue. The calculation of lost revenue begins with the recipient’s revenue in
the last full fiscal year prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency and
includes the 12-month period ending December 31, 2020. However, use of funds
for government services must be forward looking for costs incurred by the
recipient after March 3, 2021.
• Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband – Recipients may use Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to make necessary investments in water,
sewer, and broadband. See FAQ Section 6. Recipients may use Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to cover costs incurred for eligible
projects planned or started prior to March 3, 2021, provided that the project costs
covered by the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were incurred
after March 3, 2021.
5. Eligible Uses – Premium Pay
5.1. What criteria should recipients use in identifying essential workers to receive
premium pay?
Essential workers are those in critical infrastructure sectors who regularly perform in-
person work, interact with others at work, or physically handle items handled by others.
Critical infrastructure sectors include healthcare, education and childcare, transportation,
sanitation, grocery and food production, and public health and safety, among others, as
provided in the Interim Final Rule. Governments receiving Fiscal Recovery Funds have
the discretion to add additional sectors to this list, so long as the sectors are considered
critical to protect the health and well-being of residents.
The Interim Final Rule emphasizes the need for recipients to prioritize premium pay for
lower income workers. Premium pay that would increase a worker’s total pay above
150% of the greater of the state or county average annual wage requires specific
justification for how it responds to the needs of these workers.
5.2. What criteria should recipients use in identifying third-party employers to receive
grants for the purpose of providing premium pay to essential workers?
Any third-party employers of essential workers are eligible. Third-party contractors who
employ essential workers in eligible sectors are also eligible for grants to provide
595
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
16
premium pay. Selection of third-party employers and contractors who receive grants is at
the discretion of recipients.
To ensure any grants respond to the needs of essential workers and are made in a fair and
transparent manner, the rule imposes some additional reporting requirements for grants to
third-party employers, including the public disclosure of grants provided.
5.3. May recipients provide premium pay retroactively for work already performed?
Yes. Treasury encourages recipients to consider providing premium pay retroactively for
work performed during the pandemic, recognizing that many essential workers have not
yet received additional compensation for their service during the pandemic.
6. Eligible Uses – Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure
6.1. What types of water and sewer projects are eligible uses of funds?
The Interim Final Rule generally aligns eligible uses of the Funds with the wide range of
types or categories of projects that would be eligible to receive financial assistance
through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
Under the DWSRF, categories of eligible projects include: treatment, transmission and
distribution (including lead service line replacement), source rehabilitation and
decontamination, storage, consolidation, and new systems development.
Under the CWSRF, categories of eligible projects include: construction of publicly-
owned treatment works, nonpoint source pollution management, national estuary
program projects, decentralized wastewater treatment systems, stormwater systems, water
conservation, efficiency, and reuse measures, watershed pilot projects, energy efficiency
measures for publicly-owned treatment works, water reuse projects, security measures at
publicly-owned treatment works, and technical assistance to ensure compliance with the
Clean Water Act.
As mentioned in the Interim Final Rule, eligible projects under the DWSRF and CWSRF
support efforts to address climate change, as well as to meet cybersecurity needs to
protect water and sewer infrastructure. Given the lifelong impacts of lead exposure for
children, and the widespread nature of lead service lines, Treasury also encourages
recipients to consider projects to replace lead service lines.
6.2. May construction on eligible water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure projects
continue past December 31, 2024, assuming funds have been obligated prior to that
date?
596
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
17
Yes. Treasury is interpreting the requirement that costs be incurred by December 31,
2024 to only require that recipients have obligated the funds by such date. The period of
performance will run until December 31, 2026, which will provide recipients a
reasonable amount of time to complete projects funded with Fiscal Recovery Funds.
6.3. May recipients use funds as a non-federal match for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)?
Recipients may not use funds as a state match for the CWSRF and DWSRF due to
prohibitions in utilizing federal funds as a state match in the authorizing statutes and
regulations of the CWSRF and DWSRF.
6.4. Does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) apply to eligible infrastructure
projects?
NEPA does not apply to Treasury’s administration of the Funds. Projects supported with
payments from the Funds may still be subject to NEPA review if they are also funded by
other federal financial assistance programs.
6.5. What types of broadband projects are eligible?
The Interim Final Rule requires eligible projects to reliably deliver minimum speeds of
100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload. In cases where it is impracticable due to
geography, topography, or financial cost to meet those standards, projects must reliably
deliver at least 100 Mbps download speed, at least 20 Mbps upload speed, and be
scalable to a minimum of 100 Mbps download speed and 100 Mbps upload speed.
Projects must also be designed to serve unserved or underserved households and
businesses, defined as those that are not currently served by a wireline connection that
reliably delivers at least 25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps of upload speed.
6.6. For broadband investments, may recipients use funds for related programs such as
cybersecurity or digital literacy training?
Yes. Recipients may use funds to provide assistance to households facing negative
economic impacts due to Covid-19, including digital literacy training and other programs
that promote access to the Internet. Recipients may also use funds for modernization of
cybersecurity, including hardware, software, and protection of critical infrastructure, as
part of provision of government services up to the amount of revenue lost due to the
public health emergency.
6.7. How do I know if a water, sewer, or broadband project is an eligible use of funds?
Do I need pre-approval? [6/8]
Recipients do not need approval from Treasury to determine whether an investment in a
water, sewer, or broadband project is eligible under CSFRF/CLFRF. Each recipient
597
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
18
should review the Interim Final Rule (IFR), along with the preamble to the Interim Final
Rule, in order to make its own assessment of whether its intended project meets the
eligibility criteria in the IFR. A recipient that makes its own determination that a project
meets the eligibility criteria as outlined in the IFR may pursue the project as a
CSFRF/CLFRF project without pre-approval from Treasury. Local government
recipients similarly do not need state approval to determine that a project is eligible under
CSFRF/CLFRF. However, recipients should be cognizant of other federal or state laws
or regulations that may apply to construction projects independent of CSFRF/CLFRF
funding conditions and that may require pre-approval.
For water and sewer projects, the IFR refers to the EPA Drinking Water and Clean Water
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) for the categories of projects and activities that are eligible
for funding. Recipients should look at the relevant federal statutes, regulations, and
guidance issued by the EPA to determine whether a water or sewer project is eligible. Of
note, the IFR does not incorporate any other requirements contained in the federal
statutes governing the SRFs or any conditions or requirements that individual states may
place on their use of SRFs.
7. Non-Entitlement Units (NEUs)
Answers to frequently asked questions on distribution of funds to NEUs can be found in
this FAQ supplement, which is regularly updated.
8. Ineligible Uses
8.1. What is meant by a pension “deposit”? Can governments use funds for routine
pension contributions for employees whose payroll and covered benefits are eligible
expenses?
Treasury interprets “deposit” in this context to refer to an extraordinary payment into a
pension fund for the purpose of reducing an accrued, unfunded liability. More
specifically, the interim final rule does not permit this assistance to be used to make a
payment into a pension fund if both: (1) the payment reduces a liability incurred prior to
the start of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and (2) the payment occurs outside
the recipient’s regular timing for making such payments.
Under this interpretation, a “deposit” is distinct from a “payroll contribution,” which
occurs when employers make payments into pension funds on regular intervals, with
contribution amounts based on a pre-determined percentage of employees’ wages and
salaries. In general, if an employee’s wages and salaries are an eligible use of Fiscal
Recovery Funds, recipients may treat the employee’s covered benefits as an eligible use
of Fiscal Recovery Funds.
598
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
19
8.2. May recipients use Fiscal Recovery Funds to fund Other Post-Employment Benefits
(OPEB)? [6/8]
OPEB refers to benefits other than pensions (see, e.g., Governmental Accounting
Standards Board, “Other Post-Employment Benefits”). Treasury has determined that
Sections 602(c)(2)(B) and 603(c)(2), which refer only to pensions, do not prohibit
CSFRF/CLFRF recipients from funding OPEB. Recipients of either the CSFRF/CLFRF
may use funds for eligible uses, and a recipient seeking to use CSFRF/CLFRF funds for
OPEB contributions would need to justify those contributions under one of the four
eligible use categories.
9. Reporting
9.1. What records must be kept by governments receiving funds?
Financial records and supporting documents related to the award must be retained for a
period of five years after all funds have been expended or returned to Treasury,
whichever is later. This includes those which demonstrate the award funds were used for
eligible purposes in accordance with the ARPA, Treasury’s regulations implementing
those sections, and Treasury’s guidance on eligible uses of funds.
9.2. What reporting will be required, and when will the first report be due?
Recipients will be required to submit an interim report, quarterly project and expenditure
reports, and annual recovery plan performance reports as specified below, regarding their
utilization of Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds.
Interim reports: States (defined to include the District of Columbia), territories,
metropolitan cities, counties, and Tribal governments will be required to submit one
interim report. The interim report will include a recipient’s expenditures by category at
the summary level and for states, information related to distributions to non-entitlement
units of local government must also be included in the interim report. The interim report
will cover activity from the date of award to July 31, 2021 and must be submitted to
Treasury by August 31, 2021. Non-entitlement units of local government are not required
to submit an interim report.
Quarterly Project and Expenditure reports: State (defined to include the District of
Columbia), territorial, metropolitan city, county, and Tribal governments will be required
to submit quarterly project and expenditure reports. This report will include financial
data, information on contracts and subawards over $50,000, types of projects funded, and
other information regarding a recipient’s utilization of award funds. Reports will be
required quarterly with the exception of non-entitlement units, which will report
annually. An interim report is due on August 31, 2021. The reports will include the
same general data as those submitted by recipients of the Coronavirus Relief Fund, with
some modifications to expenditure categories and the addition of data elements related to
599
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
20
specific eligible uses. The initial quarterly Project and Expenditure report will cover two
calendar quarters from the date of award to September 30, 2021 and must be submitted to
Treasury by October 31, 2021. The subsequent quarterly reports will cover one calendar
quarter and must be submitted to Treasury within 30 days after the end of each calendar
quarter.
Non-entitlement units of local government will be required to submit the project and
expenditure report annually. The initial annual Project and Expenditure report for non-
entitlement units of local government will cover activity from the date of award to
September 30, 2021 and must be submitted to Treasury by October 31, 2021. The
subsequent annual reports must be submitted to Treasury by October 31 each year.
Recovery Plan Performance reports: States (defined to include the District of Columbia),
territories, metropolitan cities, and counties with a population that exceeds 250,000
residents will also be required to submit an annual recovery plan performance report to
Treasury. This report will include descriptions of the projects funded and information on
the performance indicators and objectives of each award, helping local residents
understand how their governments are using the substantial resources provided by
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program. The initial recovery plan
performance report will cover activity from date of award to July 31, 2021 and must be
submitted to Treasury by August 31, 2021. Thereafter, the recovery plan performance
reports will cover a 12-month period and recipients will be required to submit the report
to Treasury within 30 days after the end of the 12-month period. The second Recovery
Plan Performance report will cover the period from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 and
must be submitted to Treasury by July 31, 2022. Each annual recovery plan performance
report must be posted on the public-facing website of the recipient. Local governments
with fewer than 250,000 residents, Tribal governments, and non-entitlement units of local
government are not required to develop a Recovery Plan Performance report.
Treasury will provide further guidance and instructions on the reporting requirements for
program at a later date.
9.3. What provisions of the Uniform Guidance for grants apply to these funds? Will the
Single Audit requirements apply?
Most of the provisions of the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200) apply to this program,
including the Cost Principles and Single Audit Act requirements. Recipients should refer
to the Assistance Listing for detail on the specific provisions of the Uniform Guidance
that do not apply to this program. The Assistance Listing will be available on
beta.SAM.gov.
9.4. Once a recipient has identified a reduction in revenue, how will Treasury track use
of funds for the provision of government services? [6/8]
The ARPA establishes four categories of eligible uses and further restrictions on the use
of funds to ensure that Fiscal Recovery Funds are used within the four eligible use
600
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
21
categories. The Interim Final Rule implements these restrictions, including the scope of
the eligible use categories and further restrictions on tax cuts and deposits into
pensions. Reporting requirements will align with this structure.
Consistent with the broad latitude provided to recipients to use funds for government
services to the extent of the reduction in revenue, recipients will be required to submit a
description of services provided. As discussed in IFR, these services can include a broad
range of services but may not be used directly for pension deposits, contributions to
reserve funds, or debt service. Recipients may use sources of funding other than Fiscal
Recovery Funds to make deposits to pension funds, contribute to reserve funds, and pay
debt service, including during the period of performance for the Fiscal Recovery Fund
award.
For recipients using Fiscal Recovery Funds to provide government services to the extent
of reduction in revenue, the description of government services reported to Treasury may
be narrative or in another form, and recipients are encouraged to report based on their
existing budget processes and to minimize administrative burden. For example, a
recipient with $100 in revenue replacement funds available could indicate that $50 were
used for personnel costs and $50 were used for pay-go building of sidewalk
infrastructure.
In addition to describing the government services provided to the extent of reduction in
revenue, all recipients will also be required to indicate that Fiscal Recovery Funds are not
used directly to make a deposit in a pension fund. Further, recipients subject to the tax
offset provision will be required to provide information necessary to implement the
Interim Final Rule, as described in the Interim Final Rule. Treasury does not anticipate
requiring other types of reporting or recordkeeping on spending in pensions, debt service,
or contributions to reserve funds.
These requirements will be further detailed in forthcoming guidance on reporting
requirements for the Fiscal Recovery Funds.
9.5. What is the Assistance Listing and Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number for the program? [6/8]
The Assistance Listing for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
(CSLFRF) was published May 28, 2021 on SAM.gov. This includes the final CFDA
Number for the program, 21.027.
The assistance listing includes helpful information including program purpose, statutory
authority, eligibility requirements, and compliance requirements for recipients. The
CFDA number is the unique 5-digit code for each type of federal assistance, and can be
used to search for program information, including funding opportunities, spending on
usaspending.gov, or audit results through the Federal Audit Clearinghouse.
601
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
22
To expedite payments and meet statutory timelines, Treasury issued initial payments
under an existing CFDA number. If you have already received funds or captured the
initial CFDA number in your records, please update your systems and reporting to reflect
the final CFDA number 21.027. Recipients must use the final CFDA number for all
financial accounting, audits, subawards, and associated program reporting
requirements.
To ensure public trust, Treasury expects all recipients to serve as strong stewards of these
funds. This includes ensuring funds are used for intended purposes and recipients have in
place effective financial management, internal controls, and reporting for transparency
and accountability.
Please see Treasury’s Interim Final Rule for more information. Further guidance on
recipient compliance and reporting responsibilities is forthcoming.
10. Miscellaneous
10.1. May governments retain assets purchased with Fiscal Recovery Funds? If so, what
rules apply to the proceeds of disposition or sale of such assets?
Yes, if the purchase of the asset was consistent with the limitations on the eligible use of
funds. If such assets are disposed of prior to December 31, 2024, the proceeds would be
subject to the restrictions on the eligible use of payments.
10.2. Can recipients use funds for administrative purposes?
Recipients may use funds to cover the portion of payroll and benefits of employees
corresponding to time spent on administrative work necessary due to the COVID–19
public health emergency and its negative economic impacts. This includes, but is not
limited to, costs related to disbursing payments of Fiscal Recovery Funds and managing
new grant programs established using Fiscal Recovery Funds.
10.3. Are recipients required to remit interest earned on CSFRF/CLFRF payments made
by Treasury? [5/27]
No. CSFRF/CLFRF payments made by Treasury to states, territories, and the District of
Columbia are not subject to the requirement of the Cash Management Improvement Act
and Treasury’s implementing regulations at 31 CFR part 205 to remit interest to
Treasury. CSFRF/CLFRF payments made by Treasury to local governments and Tribes
are not subject to the requirement of 2 CFR 200.305(b)(8)–(9) to maintain balances in an
interest-bearing account and remit payments to Treasury.
10.4. Is there a deadline to apply for funds? [5/27]
602
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
23
The Interim Final Rule requires that costs be incurred by December 31, 2024. Eligible
recipients are encouraged to apply as soon as possible. For recipients other than Tribal
governments, there is not a specific application deadline.
Tribal governments do have deadlines to complete the application process and should
visit www.treasury.gov/SLFRPTribal for guidance on applicable deadlines.
10.5. May recipients use funds to cover the costs of consultants to assist with managing
and administering the funds? [6/8]
Yes. Recipients may use funds for administering the CSFRF/CLFRF program, including
costs of consultants to support effective management and oversight, including
consultation for ensuring compliance with legal, regulatory, and other requirements.
11. Operations
11.1. How do I know if my entity is eligible?
The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 set forth the jurisdictions eligible to receive funds under the program, which are:
• States and the District of Columbia
• Territories
• Tribal governments
• Counties
• Metropolitan cities (typically, but not always, those with populations over 50,000)
• Non-entitlement units of local government, or smaller local governments
(typically, but not always, those with populations under 50,000)
11.2. How does an eligible entity request payment?
Eligible entities (other than non-entitlement units) must submit their information to the
Treasury Submission Portal. Please visit the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Fund website for more information on the submission process.
11.3. I cannot log into the Treasury Submission Portal or am having trouble navigating
it. Who can help me?
If you have questions about the Treasury Submission Portal or for technical support,
please email covidreliefitsupport@treasury.gov.
11.4. What do I need to do to receive my payment?
All eligible payees are required to have a DUNS Number previously issued by Dun &
Bradstreet (https://www.dnb.com/).
603
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
24
All eligible payees are also required to have an active registration with the System for
Award Management (SAM) (https://www.sam.gov).
And eligible payees must have a bank account enabled for Automated Clearing House
(ACH) direct deposit. Payees with a Wire account are encouraged to provide that
information as well.
More information on these and all program pre-submission requirements can be found on
the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund website.
11.5. Why is Treasury employing id.me for the Treasury Submission Portal?
ID.me is a trusted technology partner to multiple government agencies and healthcare
providers. It provides secure digital identity verification to those government agencies
and healthcare providers to make sure you're you – and not someone pretending to be you
– when you request access to online services. All personally identifiable information
provided to ID.me is encrypted and disclosed only with the express consent of the user.
Please refer to ID.me Contact Support for assistance with your ID.me account. Their
support website is https://help.id.me.
11.6. Why is an entity not on the list of eligible entities in Treasury Submission Portal?
The ARP statute lays out which governments are eligible for payments. The list of
entities within the Treasury Submission Portal includes entities eligible to receive a direct
payment of funds from Treasury, which include states (defined to include the District of
Columbia), territories, Tribal governments, counties, and metropolitan cities.
Eligible non-entitlement units of local government will receive a distribution of funds
from their respective state government and should not submit information to the Treasury
Submission Portal.
If you believe an entity has been mistakenly left off the eligible entity list, please email
SLFRP@treasury.gov.
11.7. What is an Authorized Representative?
An Authorized Representative is an individual with legal authority to bind the
government entity (e.g., the Chief Executive Officer of the government entity). An
Authorized Representative must sign the Acceptance of Award terms for it to be valid.
11.8. How does a Tribal government determine their allocation?
Tribal governments will receive information about their allocation when the submission
to the Treasury Submission Portal is confirmed to be complete and accurate.
11.9. How do I know the status of my request for funds (submission)?
604
AS OF JUNE 8, 2021
25
Entities can check the status of their submission at any time by logging into Treasury
Submission Portal.
11.10. My Treasury Submission Portal submission requires additional
information/correction. What is the process for that?
If your Authorized Representative has not yet signed the award terms, you can edit your
submission with in the into Treasury Submission Portal. If your Authorized
Representative has signed the award terms, please email SLFRP@treasury.gov to request
assistance with updating your information.
11.11. My request for funds was denied. How do I find out why it was denied or appeal the
decision?
Please check to ensure that no one else from your entity has applied, causing a duplicate
submission. Please also review the list of all eligible entities on the Coronavirus State
and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund website.
If you still have questions regarding your submission, please email
SLFRP@treasury.gov.
11.12. When will entities get their money?
Before Treasury is able to execute a payment, a representative of an eligible government
must submit the government’s information for verification through the Treasury
Submission Portal. The verification process takes approximately four business days. If
any errors are identified, the designated point of contact for the government will be
contacted via email to correct the information before the payment can proceed. Once
verification is complete, the designated point of contact of the eligible government will
receive an email notifying them that their submission has been verified. Payments are
generally scheduled for the next business day after this verification email, though funds
may not be available immediately due to processing time of their financial institution.
11.13. How does a local government entity provide Treasury with a notice of transfer of
funds to its State?
For more information on how to provide Treasury with notice of transfer to a state, please
email SLRedirectFunds@treasury.gov.
605
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
OMB Approved No. 1505-0271
Expiration Date: November 30, 2021
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS
Recipient name and address:DUNS Number:
Taxpayer Identification Number:
Assistance Listing Number: 21.027
Sections 602(b) and 603(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) as added by section 9901 of the
American Rescue Plan Act, Pub. L. No. 117-2 (March 11, 2021) authorize the Department of the
Treasury (Treasury) to make payments to certain recipients from the Coronavirus State Fiscal
Recovery Fund and the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund.
Recipient hereby agrees, as a condition to receiving such payment from Treasury, to the terms
attached hereto.
Recipient:
Authorized Representative:
Title:
Date signed:
U.S.Department of the Treasury:
Authorized Representative:
Title:
Date:
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE
The information collected will be used for the U.S. Government to process requests for support. The
estimated burden associated with this collection of information is 15 minutes per response. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be
directed to the Office of Privacy, Transparency and Records, Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220. DO NOT send the form to this address. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless
it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
606
1.
2 .
3.
4.
5 .
6.
7.
8.
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND
AWARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Use of Funds.
a. Recipient understands and agrees that the funds disbursed under this award may only be
used in compliance with section 603(c) of the Social Security Act (the Act), Treasury’s
regulations implementing that section, and guidance issued by Treasury regarding the
foregoing.
b. Recipient will determine prior to engaging in any project using this assistance that it has
the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure proper planning,
management, and completion of such project.
Period of Performance. The period of performance for this award begins on the date hereof and
ends on December 31, 2026. As set forth in Treasury’s implementing regulations, Recipient
may use award funds to cover eligible costs incurred during the period that begins on March
3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024.
Reporting. Recipient agrees to comply with any reporting obligations established by Treasury
as they relate to this award.
Maintenance of and Access to Records
a. Recipient shall maintain records and financial documents sufficient to evidence compliance
with section 603(c) of the Act, Treasury’s regulations implementing that section, and
guidance issued by Treasury regarding the foregoing.
b. The Treasury Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office, or
their authorized representatives, shall have the right of access to records (electronic and
otherwise) of Recipient in order to conduct audits or other investigations.
c. Records shall be maintained by Recipient for a period of five (5) years after all funds have
been expended or returned to Treasury, whichever is later.
Pre-award Costs. Pre-award costs, as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.458, may not be paid with
funding from this award.
Administrative Costs. Recipient may use funds provided under this award to cover both direct
and indirect costs.
Cost Sharing. Cost sharing or matching funds are not required to be provided by Recipient.
Conflicts of Interest. Recipient understands and agrees it must maintain a conflict of
interest policy consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.318(c) and that such conflict of interest policy
is applicable to each activity funded under this award. Recipient and subrecipients must
disclose in writing to Treasury or the pass-through entity, as appropriate, any potential
conflict of interest affecting the awarded funds in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.112.
2
607
9. Compliance with Applicable Law and Regulations.
a. Recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of section 603 of the Act, regulations
adopted by Treasury pursuant to section 603(f) of the Act, and guidance issued by Treasury
regarding the foregoing. Recipient also agrees to comply with all other applicable federal
statutes, regulations, and executive orders, and Recipient shall provide for such compliance
by other parties in any agreements it enters into with other parties relating to this award.
b. Federal regulations applicable to this award include, without limitation, the following:
i. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, other than such provisions as Treasury may
determine are inapplicable to this Award and subject to such exceptions as may be
otherwise provided by Treasury. Subpart F – Audit Requirements of the Uniform
Guidance, implementing the Single Audit Act, shall apply to this award.
ii. Universal Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM), 2 C.F.R. Part 25,
pursuant to which the award term set forth in Appendix A to 2 C.F.R. Part 25 is
hereby incorporated by reference.
iii. Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information, 2 C.F.R. Part 170,
pursuant to which the award term set forth in Appendix A to 2 C.F.R. Part 170 is
hereby incorporated by reference.
iv. OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement), 2 C.F.R. Part 180, including the requirement to include a term or
condition in all lower tier covered transactions (contracts and subcontracts described
in 2 C.F.R. Part 180, subpart B) that the award is subject to 2 C.F.R. Part 180 and
Treasury’s implementing regulation at 31 C.F.R. Part 19.
v. Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters, pursuant to which the award term set
forth in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XII to Part 200 is hereby incorporated by
reference.
vi. Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace, 31 C.F.R. Part 20.
vii. New Restrictions on Lobbying, 31 C.F.R. Part 21.
viii. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
§§ 4601-4655) and implementing regulations.
ix. Generally applicable federal environmental laws and regulations.
c. Statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination applicable to this award include,
without limitation, the following:
i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.) and Treasury’s
implementing regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 22, which prohibit discrimination on the
basis of race, color, or national origin under programs or activities receiving federal
financial assistance;
3
608
10 . _____ _
11. ___ _
12. _____ _
13. ___ _
14. ------------
ii. The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601
et seq.), which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability;
iii. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance;
iv. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq.), and
Treasury’s implementing regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 23, which prohibit
discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal
financial assistance; and
v. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§
12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under
programs, activities, and services provided or made available by state and local
governments or instrumentalities or agencies thereto.
Remedial Actions. In the event of Recipient’s noncompliance with section 603 of the Act, other
applicable laws, Treasury’s implementing regulations, guidance, or any reporting or other
program requirements, Treasury may impose additional conditions on the receipt of a
subsequent tranche of future award funds, if any, or take other available remedies as set
forth in 2 C.F.R. § 200.339. In the case of a violation of section 603(c) of the Act regarding the
use of funds, previous payments shall be subject to recoupment as provided in section 603(e)
of the Act.
Hatch Act. Recipient agrees to comply, as applicable, with requirements of the Hatch Act (5
U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 and 7324-7328), which limit certain political activities of State or local
government employees whose principal employment is in connection with an activity
financed in whole or in part by this federal assistance.
False Statements. Recipient understands that making false statements or claims in connection
with this award is a violation of federal law and may result in criminal, civil, or administrative
sanctions, including fines, imprisonment, civil damages and penalties, debarment from
participating in federal awards or contracts, and/or any other remedy available by law.
Publications. Any publications produced with funds from this award must display the
following language: “This project [is being] [was] supported, in whole or in part, by federal
award number [enter project FAIN] awarded to [name of Recipient] by the U.S. Department
of the Treasury.”
Debts Owed the Federal Government.
a. Any funds paid to Recipient (1) in excess of the amount to which Recipient is finally
determined to be authorized to retain under the terms of this award; (2) that are
determined by the Treasury Office of Inspector General to have been misused; or (3)
that are determined by Treasury to be subject to a repayment obligation pursuant to
section 603(e) of the Act and have not been repaid by Recipient shall constitute a debt
to the federal government.
b. Any debts determined to be owed the federal government must be paid promptly by
4
609
15. ___ _
16. ----------
17. ---------------
18. -------------
Recipient. A debt is delinquent if it has not been paid by the date specified in Treasury’s
initial written demand for payment, unless other satisfactory arrangements have been
made or if the Recipient knowingly or improperly retains funds that are a debt as
defined in paragraph 14(a). Treasury will take any actions available to it to collect such
a debt.
Disclaimer.
a. The United States expressly disclaims any and all responsibility or liability to Recipient
or third persons for the actions of Recipient or third persons resulting in death, bodily
injury, property damages, or any other losses resulting in any way from the
performance of this award or any other losses resulting in any way from the
performance of this award or any contract, or subcontract under this award.
b. The acceptance of this award by Recipient does not in any way establish an agency
relationship between the United States and Recipient.
Protections for Whistleblowers.
a. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. § 4712, Recipient may not discharge, demote, or otherwise
discriminate against an employee in reprisal for disclosing to any of the list of persons or
entities provided below, information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of
gross mismanagement of a federal contract or grant, a gross waste of federal funds, an
abuse of authority relating to a federal contract or grant, a substantial and specific danger
to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal
contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant.
b. The list of persons and entities referenced in the paragraph above includes the following:
i. A member of Congress or a representative of a committee of Congress;
ii. An Inspector General;
iii. The Government Accountability Office;
iv. A Treasury employee responsible for contract or grant oversight or management;
v. An authorized official of the Department of Justice or other law enforcement
agency;
vi. A court or grand jury; or
vii. A management official or other employee of Recipient, contractor, or
subcontractor who has the responsibility to investigate, discover, or address
misconduct.
c. Recipient shall inform its employees in writing of the rights and remedies provided under
this section, in the predominant native language of the workforce.
Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States. Pursuant to Executive Order 13043, 62 FR
19217 (Apr. 18, 1997), Recipient should encourage its contractors to adopt and enforce on-the-
job seat belt policies and programs for their employees when operating company-owned,
rented or personally owned vehicles.
Reducing Text Messaging While Driving. Pursuant to Executive Order 13513, 74 FR 51225
(Oct. 6, 2009), Recipient should encourage its employees, subrecipients, and contractors to
adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving, and Recipient should
establish workplace safety policies to decrease accidents caused by distracted drivers.
5
610
OMB Approved No. 1505-0271
Expiration Date: November 30, 2021
ASSURANCES OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS
ASSURANCES OF COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE VI OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
As a condition of receipt of federal financial assistance from the Department of the Treasury, the
recipient named below (hereinafter referred to as the “Recipient”) provides the assurances stated herein. The
federal financial assistance may include federal grants, loans and contracts to provide assistance to the
Recipient’s beneficiaries, the use or rent of Federal land or property at below market value, Federal training, a
loan of Federal personnel, subsidies, and other arrangements with the intention of providing assistance. Federal
financial assistance does not encompass contracts of guarantee or insurance, regulated programs, licenses,
procurement contracts by the Federal government at market value, or programs that provide direct benefits.
The assurances apply to all federal financial assistance from or funds made available through the
Department of the Treasury, including any assistance that the Recipient may request in the future.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 provides that the provisions of the assurances apply to all of
the operations of the Recipient’s program(s) and activity(ies), so long as any portion of the Recipient’s
program(s) or activity(ies) is federally assisted in the manner prescribed above.
1. Recipient ensures its current and future compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, which prohibits exclusion from participation, denial of the benefits of, or subjection to
discrimination under programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, of any person in the
United States on the ground of race, color, or national origin (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), as implemented by
the Department of the Treasury Title VI regulations at 31 CFR Part 22 and other pertinent executive orders
such as Executive Order 13166, directives, circulars, policies, memoranda, and/or guidance documents.
2. Recipient acknowledges that Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency,” seeks to improve access to federally assisted programs and activities for
individuals who, because of national origin, have Limited English proficiency (LEP). Recipient
understands that denying a person access to its programs, services, and activities because of LEP is a form
of national origin discrimination prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Department of the Treasury’s implementing regulations. Accordingly, Recipient shall initiate reasonable
steps, or comply with the Department of the Treasury’s directives, to ensure that LEP persons have
meaningful access to its programs, services, and activities. Recipient understands and agrees that
meaningful access may entail providing language assistance services, including oral interpretation and
written translation where necessary, to ensure effective communication in the Recipient’s programs,
services, and activities.
3. Recipient agrees to consider the need for language services for LEP persons when Recipient develops
applicable budgets and conducts programs, services, and activities. As a resource, the Department of the
Treasury has published its LEP guidance at 70 FR 6067. For more information on taking reasonable steps
to provide meaningful access for LEP persons, please visit http://www.lep.gov.
1
611
OMB Approved No. 1505-0271
Expiration Date: November 30, 2021
4. Recipient acknowledges and agrees that compliance with the assurances constitutes a condition of continued
receipt of federal financial assistance and is binding upon Recipient and Recipient’s successors, transferees,
and assignees for the period in which such assistance is provided.
5. Recipient acknowledges and agrees that it must require any sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors,
successors, transferees, and assignees to comply with assurances 1-4 above, and agrees to incorporate the
following language in every contract or agreement subject to Title VI and its regulations between the
Recipient and the Recipient’s sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors, successors, transferees, and
assignees:
The sub-grantee, contractor, subcontractor, successor, transferee, and assignee shall comply with Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from
excluding from a program or activity, denying benefits of, or otherwise discriminating against a person
on the basis of race, color, or national origin (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), as implemented by the
Department of the Treasury’s Title VI regulations, 31 CFR Part 22, which are herein incorporated by
reference and made a part of this contract (or agreement). Title VI also includes protection to persons
with “Limited English Proficiency” in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, 42
U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., as implemented by the Department of the Treasury’s Title VI regulations, 31
CFR Part 22, and herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract or agreement.
6. Recipient understands and agrees that if any real property or structure is provided or improved with the aid
of federal financial assistance by the Department of the Treasury, this assurance obligates the Recipient, or
in the case of a subsequent transfer, the transferee, for the period during which the real property or structure
is used for a purpose for which the federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving
the provision of similar services or benefits. If any personal property is provided, this assurance obligates
the Recipient for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.
7. Recipient shall cooperate in any enforcement or compliance review activities by the Department of the
Treasury of the aforementioned obligations. Enforcement may include investigation, arbitration, mediation,
litigation, and monitoring of any settlement agreements that may result from these actions. The Recipient
shall comply with information requests, on-site compliance reviews and reporting requirements.
8. Recipient shall maintain a complaint log and inform the Department of the Treasury of any complaints of
discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, and limited English proficiency covered by
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations and provide, upon request, a list of all
such reviews or proceedings based on the complaint, pending or completed, including outcome. Recipient
also must inform the Department of the Treasury if Recipient has received no complaints under Title VI.
9. Recipient must provide documentation of an administrative agency’s or court’s findings of non-compliance
of Title VI and efforts to address the non-compliance, including any voluntary compliance or other
2
612
_________________________________
_________________________________
OMB Approved No. 1505-0271
Expiration Date: November 30, 2021
agreements between the Recipient and the administrative agency that made the finding. If the Recipient
settles a case or matter alleging such discrimination, the Recipient must provide documentation of the
settlement. If Recipient has not been the subject of any court or administrative agency finding of
discrimination, please so state.
10. If the Recipient makes sub-awards to other agencies or other entities, the Recipient is responsible for
ensuring that sub-recipients also comply with Title VI and other applicable authorities covered in this
document State agencies that make sub-awards must have in place standard grant assurances and review
procedures to demonstrate that that they are effectively monitoring the civil rights compliance of sub-
recipients.
The United States of America has the right to seek judicial enforcement of the terms of this assurances
document and nothing in this document alters or limits the federal enforcement measures that the United States
may take in order to address violations of this document or applicable federal law.
Under penalty of perjury, the undersigned official(s) certifies that official(s) has read and understood the
Recipient’s obligations as herein described, that any information submitted in conjunction with this assurances
document is accurate and complete, and that the Recipient is in compliance with the aforementioned
nondiscrimination requirements.
Recipient Date
Signature of Authorized Official
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE
The information collected will be used for the U.S. Government to process requests for support. The estimated burden associated with
this collection of information is 30 minutes per response. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions
for reducing this burden should be directed to the Office of Privacy, Transparency and Records, Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220. DO NOT send the form to this address. An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
3
613
CERTIFICATION OF CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND
ALLOCATION ACCEPATANCE (42 U.S.C. section 603)
I, , am the chief executive or authorized designee of
, and I certify that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Check one:
In my role as an authorized representative, I am accepting the
allocation from the Coronavirus
Local Fiscal Recovery Fund.
In my role as an authorized representative, I am declining the
[Insert city or town name here] allocation from the Coronavirus Local
Fiscal Recovery Fund, and authorize this allocation to be transferred to the
State of California. An additional U.S. Treasury form will likely be required
and subsequent information may be requested.
If you are accepting funds, proceed to questions 2 through 5. If you are
declining funds, skip to question 6 and sign and submit the form.
I have the authority on behalf of to
report the following information:
Entity’s Taxpayer Identification Number
DUNS number
Address
Total budget or top-line expenditure total as of January 27, 2020
I certify that my city or town is in compliance with 2 CFR Part 180 and that I
have the authority on behalf of to
submit the following U.S. Treasury documents:
Award Terms and Conditions agreement
Assurances of Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Authorized Representative
Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ______________________
Name (Print): ____________________________________ Title: ________________________
I certify that the total budget amount provided is supported by an approved
budget document, as of January 27, 2020. If my city or town does not have an
approved budget, I certify that the total annual expenditure amount
provided is supported by accounting documents. I agree to retain copies of
financial records and supporting documentation for five years after all funds
have been expended and the documents in item 3 of this certification and
submit them to U.S. Treasury as required, no later than October 31, 2021
I agree to submit a project and expenditures report annually to U.S. Treasury.
I understand the State will rely on this certification as a material representation in
distributing Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Relief Funds to
.
614
Agenda Item No.: 9.D
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE RESOLUTION 1280 AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF
PROPOSITION A FUNDS WITH THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS FOR
GENERAL FUNDS; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The City annually receives countywide tax disbursements from Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure
R and Measure M funds to be used for transportation and transit-related purposes. Proposition A and C
funds are dedicated to transit and major arterial improvements; they are not eligible for use in Rolling
Hills due to the roads within the City being privately owned and maintained. Measure R and Measure M
funds are eligible for transportation improvement projects on public properties. In years past, the City
would accumulate local return funds and solicit interest in exchanging the local return funds for General
Fund monies or gift funds towards other transportation-related purposes with another public agency.
Since 2019 the City has accumulated $84,000 Proposition A funds. On January 27, 2021, a letter was
sent to the neighboring Peninsula cities and PVP Transit inquiring as to their interest in an exchange of
Proposition A funds and gifting of the remaining funds.
DISCUSSION:
The City did not receive a request for the exchange of the Proposition A Local Return Funds from
neighboring Peninsula cities. The City of Beverly Hills staff expressed interest in an exchange of
Proposition A Funds at the requested exchange rate of $0.75 in General Funds for $1.00 in Proposition
A Funds. The City of Beverly Hills proposes to use the Proposition A Local Return funding to provide
Dial-A-Ride services, On-Demand Transportation, and Senior 30-Day Bus Passes to its elderly and
individuals with disabilities, as well fund eligible capital improvement projects related to the new Metro
D Line (Purple) that is currently being built. The City of Beverly Hills has received authority from their
Council to execute the attached agreements, once approved by the Rolling Hills City Council. Staff
recommends that the City Council approve the exchange rate of $0.75 in General Funds for $1.00 in
615
Proposition A funds and direct staff to prepare documents to finalize the exchange.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the City Council approves the exchange the City will receive $63,000 in General Fund revenues in
exchange for $84,000 in restricted funds that the City is unable to spend. The following summarizes the
disposition of Proposition A funds over the past 10 years:
Proposition A
Fiscal Year (FY)Amount Benefiting
Agency
Exchange
Rate
General Fund
Revenue
1999/2000 $ 40,000 Torrance $0.65 $26,000
2001/2002 $ 80,000 Torrance $0.65 $52,000
2004/2005 $ 87,475 Torrance $0.65 $56,858
2007/2008 $100,000 PVP Transit $0.70 $70,000
2010/2011 $ 65,000 Rancho PV $0.75 $48,750
2012/2013 $ 60,000 Rancho PV $0.75 $45,000
2014/2015 $ 75,000 PVP Transit $0.75 $56,250
2016/2017 $ 75,000 Rancho PV $0.75 $56,250
2018/2019 $75,000 PVP Transit $0.75 $56,250
2020/2021 $84,000 Beverly Hills $0.75 $63,000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council consider and approve the following:
1. Exchange of $84,000 ($0.75 per $1.00) in Proposition A funds with the City of Beverly Hills and
authorize the City Manager to execute the Fund Exchange Agreement between the City of Rolling
Hills and the City of Beverly Hills, Prop A Local Return Fund Exchange.
2. Approve Resolution 1280 Approving an Agreement between the City of Rolling Hills and the
City of Beverly Hills that authorizes the Exchange of Proposition “A” Local Return Funds for
General Funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1280 Prop_A_Funds.pdf
616
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 1280
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND THE CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS THAT AUTHORIZES THE EXCHANGE OF
PROPOSITION “A” TRANSPORTATION LOCAL RETURN FUNDS
FOR GENERAL FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has uncommitted Proposition “A” Funds within its
reserve allocation in the amount of $84,000; and
WHEREAS, Proposition “A” Funds are dedicated to transit and major arterial
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the roads within the City are privately owned and maintained, and there are
no, and will be no, projects within the City that are eligible for Proposition “A” Funds; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2021, the City sent a letter to neighboring Peninsula cities
inquiring as to interest in an exchange of Proposition “A” Funds at the requested exchange rate of $0.75
in General Funds for $1.00 in Proposition “A” Funds; and
WHEREAS, none of the Peninsula cities expressed interest in the requested exchange to
the City of Rolling Hills staff. However, the City of Beverly Hills staff expressed an interest in exchanging,
so staff is recommending an exchange with the City of Beverly Hills as the City of Beverly Hills has
transportation programs eligible to be funded by Proposition “A” Funds; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021, the City Council voted to approve the requested exchange
of $84,000 in Proposition “A” Funds for $63,000 in General Funds with the City of Beverly Hills pending
the City of Beverly Hills approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2021, the City of Beverly Hills approved the requested exchange
rate of $0.75 in General Funds for $1.00 in Proposition “A” Funds; and
WHEREAS, both agencies agree that this exchange of funds would provide a benefit to
both agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council approves an Agreement for the acquisition of General
Funds from the City of Beverly Hills in exchange for Proposition “A” Funds from the City of Rolling
Hills. Said Agreement is hereto attached as Exhibit “A”, and is made a part hereof by reference.
Section 2. The Mayor or her representative is hereby authorized to affix her signature
to this Resolution, indicating its approval.
617
-2-
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to execute any
necessary documents, including, but not limited to agreements, amendments, forms, applications, etc., to
follow through with the exchange of funds.
Section 4. The City Clerk, or duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ON THIS 14 DAY OF JUNE, 2021.
____________________________________
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Janely Sandoval
City Clerk
618
-3-
EXHIBIT A
FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
AND THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
PROP A LOCAL RETURN FUND EXCHANGE
This Fund Exchange Agreement is made and entered into this _______day of ____________, 2021,
by and between the City of Beverly Hills, California and the City of Rolling Hills, California with
respect to the following facts:
A. The City of Beverly Hills proposes to use Proposition A Local Return funding to provide Dial-A-Ride
services, On-Demand Transportation, and Senior 30-Day Bus Passes to its elderly and individuals with
disabilities, as well as fund eligible capital improvement projects related to the new Metro D Line
(Purple) that is currently being built. Adequate Proposition A Local Return funding for such services
is not available given the limited amount of the City of Beverly Hills’ Local Return allocation and the
needs of other priority transit projects in the City.
B. City of Rolling Hills has uncommitted funding authority for its Fiscal Years 2018-19 to 2020-
21 allocation of Proposition A Local Return funds which could be made available to the City
of Beverly Hills to assist in providing the services discussed in Paragraph A of this
Agreement.
C. City of Beverly Hills is willing to exchange its general funds in the amount indicated in
Section 1 below in exchange for City of Rolling Hills’s uncommitted Proposition A Local
Return funds.
D. City of Rolling Hills is willing to exchange its uncommitted Proposition A Local Return
funding in the amount indicated in Section 1 below to City of Beverly Hills, for the purpose
identified in Paragraph A above, for City of Beverly Hills’ general funds.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the parties and of the
promises herein contained, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Exchange. City of Rolling Hills shall transfer $84,000 of its Fiscal Year 2018-19, 2019-20 and
2020-21 Proposition A Local Return Funds to City of Beverly Hills. In return, City of Beverly Hills
shall transfer $63,000 of its General Funds to City of Rolling Hills.
2. Consideration. City of Rolling Hills shall transfer the Proposition A Local Return funds to City
of Beverly Hills in one lump sum payment. City of Beverly Hills shall transfer its general funds to
City of Rolling Hills in one lump sum payment. The payment shall be due and payable upon
approval by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) of City of
Beverly Hills' project description Form (Form A) covering the services discussed in Paragraph A
above.
619
-4-
3. Term. This Agreement is effective on the date above written and for such time as is necessary
for both parties to complete their mutual obligations under this Agreement.
4. Termination. Termination of this Agreement may be made by either party before the date of
approval of the project description covering the funds in question by the Metro so long as written
notice of intent to terminate is given to the other party at least five (5) days prior to the termination
date.
5. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party
to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States
Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. Elaine Jeng, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
b. George Chavez, City Manager
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
6. Assurances
a. City of Beverly Hills shall use the assigned Proposition A Local Return funds only
for the purpose of providing the services discussed in Paragraph A of this Agreement and within
the time limits specified in Metro's Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines.
b. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement City of Beverly Hills shall
provide Metro with the Standard Assurances and Understandings Regarding Receipt and Use of
Proposition A Funds specified in the Guidelines regarding the use of the assigned Proposition A
Local Return funds.
7. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties, with respect to the
subject matter herein. This Agreement shall not be amended nor any provisions or breach hereof
waived, except in writing signed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Fund Exchange Agreement to be executed
by their respective officers, duly authorized, on the day and year above written.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
________________________ ________________________
Elaine Jeng, City Manager George Chavez, City Manager
620
-5-
ATTEST:
________________________ _________________________
Janely Sandoval, City Clerk Huma Ahmed, City Clerk
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
________________________ _________________________
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Laurence S. Wiener, City Attorney
621
-6-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1280 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND THE CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS THAT AUTHORIZES THE EXCHANGE OF
PROPOSITION “A” TRANSPORTATION LOCAL RETURN FUNDS
FOR GENERAL FUNDS.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on June 14, 2021 by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________________
Janely Sandoval
City Clerk
622
Agenda Item No.: 9.E
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1278 UPDATING THE
FEE SCHEDULE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1260.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
On May 24, 2021, staff recommended changes to the Schedule of Fees to help the City recoup labor
costs processing Wireless Telecommunication Facility projects, Construction and Demolition Debris
Hauling applications, and responding to and tracking false alarm incidents.
DISCUSSION:
PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEE SCHEDULE
False Alarm Fees
False Alarm Paid Within 30 Days Paid After 30 Days
Total Assessed Amount
After 30 Days for Each
Added Offense
1st Offense $0 $0 $0
2nd Offense $0 $0 $0
3rd Offense $50 $100 $100
4th Offense $100 $200 $300
5th Offense $150 $300 $600
6th Offense $200 $400 $1,000
Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application
Current Proposed
Application Fee $0 $1,000
Construction and Demolition Debris Hauling Permit
Current Proposed
623
Application Fee $100 $150
Deposit $750 $1,000
FISCAL IMPACT:
If supported by the City Council, the recommendations will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 1278 updating the Fee Schedule for
Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and repealing Resolution No. 1260.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1278 Fee Schedule FY21-22.pdf
624
Resolution No. 1278 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1278
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS MODIFYING THE ROLLING HILLS FEE RESOLUTION AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1260.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The following fees are established and charged for applications for
processing discretionary cases for Planning, Zoning and Subdivisions and shall be paid by
the applicant prior to submission for public hearing, pursuant to Title 16 (Subdivision) and
Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:
A. Site Plan Review $ 1,500
B. Conditional Use Permit $ 1,500
C. Variance $ 1,250
D. Variance, Minor $ 750
1. Minor deviation into required yard setback, not exceeding 5’ and
attached to main residential structure
E. Multiple discretionary reviews; Most expensive fee for the first
review and 1/2 fee for second
review. No cost for third or more
reviews.
F. Lighting Ordinance Modification $ 375
G. Outdoor Lighting Audit $ 150 (initiated by resident)
H. Time extension $ 200
I. Zone Change $ 2,000
J. General Plan Amendment $ 2,000
K. Zoning/Subdivision Code Amendment $ 2,000
L Discretionary Approval Modification $ 2/3 of original application fee
M. Appeal Fee $ 2/3 of original application fee
N. City Council and Planning $ 375 Fee to be credited if
Commission interpretation results in filing of a formal
and miscellaneous reviews application to City Council or
Planning Commission
O. Environmental Review fees for
discretionary permits
1. Preparation and Staff Review $ 200
of Initial Study
2. Preparation of Negative $ 50 (plus fee charged by CA
Declaration or Mitigated Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Negative Declaration applicable, as adjusted annually)
P. Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee plus 10%
Q. County Clerk Processing Fee County fee
625
Resolution No. 1278 2
R. Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,500, plus County fee
S. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map $ 1,500, plus County fee
T. Final Parcel/Tract Map County fee
U. Zoning violation and construction $ 1,500
penalty fee
1. Applications for illegal or “as built” grading or construction or non-
compliance with approved plans for projects that require Planning
Commission review. Fee is charged in addition to the discretionary
application review fee.
V. Stop work order $ 200
1. Fee charged for each additional “stop work order” that is issued
beyond the original stop work order for illegal construction and
grading activity.
W. Service Request County fee, plus 20%
(For services provided by L.A. County not included in the General
Services Agreement)
X. Appeal of Zone Clearance $ 375
Y. Stable Use Permit $ 375
(For stables under 800 sq ft considered by the Planning Commission)
Z. Major Remodel Review $ 375
(For remodels of more than 50% demolition)
Section 2. The following fees are established and charged for applications for
processing View Impairment, Traffic Commission, and Accessory Dwelling Unit cases:
A. View Impairment
1. Review by Committee on Trees and Views
Processing fee $ 2,000
2. Environmental Review Fees
A. Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study $ 200
B. Preparation of Negative Declaration or $ 50
Mitigated Negative Declaration (plus fee charged by
CA Department of
Fish and Wildlife, if
applicable, as
adjusted annually)
B. Traffic Commission Review
1. New driveways or other traffic $ 300
related items
C. Accessory Dwelling Unit
1. Accessory Dwelling Unit or $ 375
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
626
Resolution No. 1278 3
Section 3. The following fees are established and charged for General Administration
processing:
A. General Plan $ 30
B. Zoning Code $ 25
C. Subdivision Code $ 25
D. Budget $ 30
E. Zoning Map $ 3
F. Xeroxed copies, each page $ 0.25
G. False Alarms
Fee for 1st and 2nd incident involving a false alarm is waived
If paid within 30 days If paid after 30 days
3rd false alarm $ 50 $100
4th false alarm $ 100 $300
5th false alarm $ 150 $600
6th false alarm $ 200 $1,000
Section 4. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit
pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:
A. 1. BUILDING PERMIT Two and one-quarter
times the amount set forth in the
Building Code for each fee, table
and schedule therein.
2. PARKS AND RECREATION Each new residential dwelling shall
pay 2% of the first $ 100,000 of
construction valuation, plus 0.25% of
such valuation over $ 100,000.
B. PLUMBING PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Plumbing Code
for each fee, table and schedule therein.
C. MECHANICAL PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Mechanical
Code for each fee, table and schedule
therein.
D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Electrical Code
for each fee, table and schedule therein.
E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, 0.42% of the valuation of the proposed
SITE AND PLAN REVIEW structures; however, minimum fee shall
be $ 535.00 and the maximum fee shall
be $ 3,588.00
F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC The amount set forth in the Los
SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT Angeles County Building and
EQUIPMENT Electrical Codes for each fee, table and
627
Resolution No. 1278 4
schedule therein, plus $ 60.11 City
administrative fee.
Section 5. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit
pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code for review
conducted by the City’s contract building official, other than Los Angeles County Department
of Building and Safety:
A. BUILDING PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 A.1 of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
B. PLUMBING PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 B. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
C. MECHANICAL PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 C. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 D. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on
Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be charged
for the alternative use of the City’s
contract building official.
E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT,
SITE AND PLAN REVIEW In addition to the provisions of Section
4 E. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fess shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC In addition to the provision of Section
SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT 4 F. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
EQUIPMENT on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees, plus $60.11
City administrative fee, shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
Section 6. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit
relating to construction and demolition waste:
A. CONSTRUCTION AND $ 150 single project permit, plus
628
Resolution No. 1278 5
DEMOLITION PERMIT $1,000 deposit refundable upon
submittal of a Certificate of
Compliance.
Section 7. The following fines are established for issuance of administrative citations
relating to a violation of Chapter 9.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:
Administrative Penalty for $ 2,500 1st violation
violation of Chapter 9.58 $ 5,000 2nd violation within one year of the 1st
violation
$ 7,500 Each additional violation within one
year of the 1st violation
Section 8. The following fees are established and charged for processing landscaping
submittals subject to the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Review of landscape submittal $1,500 (portion refunded if not spent;
package and verification of compliance additional funds may be collected, if
needed to complete the review); plus
$5,000 deposit refundable upon
submittal of a Certificate of
Compliance.
Section 9. The following fees are established and charged for processing utility pole
removal reimbursement applications pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
1259.
Review of utility pole removal reimbursement $100
application.
Appeal of utility pole removal reimbursement $300
decision.
Section 10. The following fee is established and charged for processing wireless
telecommunication facility applications:
Application fee: $1,000
Section 11. Should the City accept payment of any fee identified in this resolution by
means of credit card, an additional 3% surcharge on such fee shall be charged as a convenience
fee for processing the payment. When City accepts payment by means of credit card, it shall also
accept payment by means of cash or check.
Section 12. The fees set forth do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing
such services.
Section 13. The City Council Resolution No. 1260 is hereby repealed and superseded
by this Resolution .
629
Resolution No. 1278 6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2021.
_________________________________
BEA DEIRINGER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
JANELY SANDOVAL
CITY CLERK
630
Resolution No. 1278 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1278 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS MODIFYING THE ROLLING HILLS FEE RESOLUTION AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1260.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of June 2021
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
JANELY SANDOVAL
CITY CLERK
631
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REPORT ON REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY AND REGIONAL
CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEES MEETINGS HELD ON MAY 13, 2021.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Public Safety Committee (PSC) meets quarterly to allow the four Peninsula
cities to discuss coordination issues. Two elected officials from each of the four cities serve on the
PSC. On this Committee, Mayor Bea Dieringer and Councilmember Pat Wilson represent the City of
Rolling Hills.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Contract Law Committee (RCLC) also meets quarterly. The
three Peninsula cities - Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes - contracts with
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement under one contract. The RCLC
serves as the governing board for the joint contract. On this committee, Mayor Dieringer and
Councilmember Wilson represent the City of Rolling Hills.
DISCUSSION:
At the May 13, 2021 PSC meeting, the Committee approved a strategy for Peninsula wide emergency
coordination through a shared coordinator (Rancho Palos Verdes Emergency Coordinator). The
strategy includes the Committee's focus on the following three areas of emergency preparedness of
immediate nature, for the next six to twelve months:
Study Peninsula evacuation routes
First Responders' input on routes
Identify exit points and measures to improve these locations for readiness
Establish communication contacts to respective cities for traffic control
Protocols for evacuating large animals
Identify temporary shelter locations
Understand utility vulnerabilities and implement readiness measures
Understand utilities' contingency plans for continuous service
Utilities' recommended measure for individual contingency plan
Communication protocols among Peninsula cities
632
Incident command to respective cities EOC to community
Outlets to receive emergency notifications
Neighborhood watch organizations
At the May 13, 2021 RCLC meeting, the Committee approved placing cities logos on Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department Lomita Station patrol cars.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
RegionalContractLawCommittee_2021-05-13_AgendaPacketFinal.Supplemental.pdf
633
Agenda
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Regional Contract Law Committee
May 13, 2021
Page 1 of 2
SUPPLEMENTAL
CITY CLERKS: PLEASE POST
AGENDA
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021
7:30 A.M.*
VIRTUAL MEETING
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by Governor Gavin
Newsom on March 17, 2020, the meeting of the Regional Contract Law Committee for
Thursday, May 13, 2021, at 7:30 a.m.*, will be conducted via teleconference
using the Zoom platform. Please see separate cover for public participation options.
*Meeting will begin immediately following the preceding
Peninsula Public Safety Committee meeting
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PUBLIC COMMENT
NOTE: This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments
regarding items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no
action will take place on any items not listed on the agenda.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2021
5.OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
634
Agenda
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Regional Contract Law Committee
May 13, 2021
Page 2 of 2
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONSIDER AND APPROVE A PURCHASING POLICY FOR THE
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW CITIES (RPV)
B. QUARTERLY LAW ENFORCEMENT/TRAFFIC/COMMUNITY
OUTREACH REPORT (VERBAL REPORT)
C. MCCORMICK AMBULANCE UPDATE (VERBAL REPORT)
7. OTHER MATTERS FROM REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
A. REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW CITIES LOGO ON SHERIFF’S
VEHICLES (RPV)
NOTE: This is the appropriate time for Committee Members to direct the
placement of items for future action on upcoming agendas.
8. ADJOURNMENT
A. Next regular meeting Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 7:30 a.m. immediately
following the preceding Peninsula Public Safety Committee meeting.
635
Page 1 of 1
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March
17, 20202, the meeting of the Peninsula Public Safety Committee and the Peninsula Regional
Contract Law Committee for Thursday, May 13, 2021, at 7:30am, will be conducted via
teleconference using the Zoom platform.
Those members of the public wishing to participate may do so in the following ways:
1. Viewing the “live” meeting: To view the City Council meeting live, email Connie Viramontes
at cityclerk@cityofrh.net with you name and contact information prior to 3pm on Wednesday
prior to the meeting. Upon successful submission, you will receive an email with further
instructions on how to connect to the meeting.
2. Comments on non-agenda and specific agenda item(s): If you wish to make a comment, please
submit via email to Connie Viramontes at cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Comments received by 3pm
on the Wednesday prior to the meeting will be forwarded to the Committees prior to the
meeting for consideration. Comments received after 3pm on the Wednesday prior to the
meeting will not be read during the meeting.
3. Comments on non-agenda and specific agenda item(s) during the “live” meeting: If you are
watching the meeting live and wish to make a comment on an agenda item, as it is being
heard, you may submit your brief comment using the following methods below. Please note
that there is a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Chair’s
direction. Your comment will be read or heard during the meeting, if received in real time and
prior to the commencement of that item.
a. Email: Comments will be accepted via email at cityclerk@cityofrh.net during the
meeting, prior to the close of the public comment portion on an item or during public
comments for non-agenda items, and read aloud into the record with a maximum
allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Chair’s discretion.
b. Telephone: If you wish to speak during the meeting, email Connie Viramontes at
cityclerk@cityofrh.net with you name, contact information, and the item number on
which you wish to comment. Upon successful submission, you will receive an email
with further instructions on how to connect to the meeting.
In compliance with the American with Disability Act, if you require a disability-related modification
or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City at least 48 hours prior
to the meeting via cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Staff will use their best effort to provide reasonable
accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety.
636
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENDA ITEM 4A
MEETING DATE: 05/13/2021
637
Regional Contract Law Committee Minutes
February 11, 2021
Page 1 of 8
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT
MINUTES TO MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2021
I. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement was called to order
by Committee Chair Pro Tem Alegria at 8:30 a.m. via Zoom.
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Rancho Palos Verdes
Eric Alegria, Mayor
David Bradley, Mayor Pro Tem
Rolling Hills Estates
Steve Zuckerman, Mayor
Velveth Schmitz, Councilmember
Rolling Hills
Bea Dieringer, Mayor
Patrick Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT: Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
Jesse Villalpando, Emergency Services Coordinator
McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
Rolling Hills Estates
Greg Grammer, City Manager
Alexa Davis, Assistant City Manager
Jessica Slawson, Administrative Analyst
Rolling Hills
Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Palos Verdes Estates
Laura Guglielmo, City Manager
Tony Best, Acting Police Chief
Marcelle Herrera, Community Relations Officer
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Captain James Powers, Lomita Sheriff’s Station
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
Brenna Terrones, Assistant Superintendent of Admin Services
Linda Reid, Member of Board of Education
638
Regional Emergency Preparedness Committee Minutes
February 11, 2021
Page 2
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2020
Member Dieringer moved to approve the minutes. Chair Alegria seconded the motion.
The motion passed.
AYES: Chair Alegria, Members: Bradley, Zuckerman, Schmitz, Dieringer, and Wilson.
NOES: None
V. COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION
Chair Alegria thanked the committee for the opportunity to serve and nominated Member
Dieringer as Chair and Member Wilson as Vice Chair. Member Zuckerman seconded the
nominations.
AYES: Chair Alegria, Members: Bradley, Zuckerman, Schmitz, Dieringer, and Wilson.
NOES: None
Chair Dieringer thanked Member Alegria for his service.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. PVPUSD SRO UPDATE (VERBAL REPORT)
PVPUSD Board of Education Member Linda Reid reported that the Board and
Superintendent Alex Cherniss decided to fund the SROs for the current school year. No
contribution is needed from the cities. She cited the lack of students at secondary schools
as the reason for the decision. Board Member Reid also reported that the SROs are
staffed at the high schools.
Board Member Reid thanked Mayor Alegria for advocating vaccination for the teachers.
Chair Dieringer inquired the timeframe to have students back on campus.
Board Member Reid responded that K-2 elementary school students were brought back
to campus and grades 3-5 were ramping up to return. The case rate requirement was 7
per 100,000 but this threshold could change. Because of the ever changing
requirements, Board Member Reid said it is impossible to know the timeframe for students
to return to school.
639
Regional Emergency Preparedness Committee Minutes
February 11, 2021
Page 3
B. FLOCK SAFETY CAMERA UPDATE (VERBAL REPORT)
Analyst Bright reported that RPV commenced the Flock Safety Camera grant program on
September 30, 2020. To date, six HOAs have purchased ten cameras with the $10,000
grant and installation of the cameras was anticipated in March 2021. On January 19,
2021, RPV City Council allocated an additional $10,000 for the grant program.
Member Alegria expressed the community’s concerns with the permitting process and the
lack of communication from Flock. Member Alegria noted that if Flock’s lack of
engagement was causing delays to the deployment of cameras, the City needs hold Flock
accountable to perform.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. PENINSULA PUBLIC SAFETY COLLABORATION
Analyst Bright reported that at the November 12, 2021 meeting, the Committee directed
staff to inquire PVE’s interest in joining the Peninsula Public Safety Committee. The
scope of the Peninsula Public Safety Committee would include regional emergency
preparedness and regional public safety matters such as disaster training, crime trends
and crime response plans. On December 22, 2020, PVE City Council voted to participate
in the Peninsula Public Safety Committee. The membership of the Regional Law
Committee would include RPV, RHE and RH and the committee would oversee the joint
law enforcement contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Analyst
Bright recommended to the Committee to rename the Peninsula Regional Emergency
Committee to Peninsula Public Safety Committee and formally invite PVE to the
committee. Analyst Bright also recommended to rename the Peninsula Regional Law
Committee to the Peninsula Regional Contract Law Committee.
Member Alegria noted that in the last few years, from his perspective, he observed
increasing levels of engagement from PVE in regional matters. Member Alegria thanked
members from PVE for their partnership and participation in the committee.
Member Schmitz commented that in the last year during the pandemic, the collaboration
and partnership of the Peninsula cities resulted in effective performance from providers.
She expressed support for the proposed committees.
Member Wilson inquired if the duration to the committee meetings need adjustment if the
recommended actions were approved by the Committee.
Chair Dieringer confirmed with staff that if the recommended actions were approved by
the Committee, the Regional Contract Law Committee meetings would be held
immediately after the Public Safety Committee meetings.
City Manager Mihranian added that on the agenda for the Regional Law Committee, a
note is added to inform the public that the meeting shall follow immediately after the
Emergency Preparedness Committee meeting.
640
Regional Emergency Preparedness Committee Minutes
February 11, 2021
Page 4
Member Alegria moved to create the Public Safety Committee comprising of RPV, RHE,
RH, and PVE and to create the Regional Contract Law Committee comprising of RPV,
RHE, and RH. Member Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed.
AYES: Chair Alegria, Members: Bradley, Zuckerman, Schmitz, Dieringer, and Wilson.
NOES: None
B. QUARTERLY LAW ENFORCEMENT, TRAFFIC, AND COMMUNITY
OUTREACH REPORT
Captain Powers presented statistics for the last quarter of 2020.
Member Wilson inquired about the remaining time on the supplemental traffic
enforcement contract for Rolling Hills and if the Sheriff’s Department will catch up and
use the available time for the remainder of the year. Member Wilson requested traffic
enforcement on Crest Road.
Chair Dieringer echoed Member Wilson’s request for traffic enforcement on Crest Road.
Chair Dieringer also inquired about a traffic collision where an airbag deployed. She
asked if the driver was cited.
Captain Powers said he will follow up on the remaining time on the supplemental traffic
enforcement contract and focus on Crest Road. Captain Powers did not know if the driver
was cited in the referenced collision. Captain Powers reported that the collision was
reported after the incident occurred. The Sheriff’s Department would need to place the
driver behind the wheel at the time of the incident and show impairment to cite the driver.
Captain Powers noted that it is possible for a citation to be mailed later.
Chair Dieringer recognized Member Zuckerman and Bradley’s time constraints and asked
for their comments and questions on this item.
Member Bradley inquired on the statistics presented by Captain Powers and if he can
show them geographically to identify hot spots. Member Bradley noted that RPV has
speeding issues on the switch back and on the north side of the City, similar to a chronic
location like Crest Road in Rolling Hills. It would be helpful to communicate with the
community that the Sheriff’s Department is deploying resources at targeted areas using
a mapping system. Member Bradley requested Captains Powers to present statistics
geographically at next committee meeting.
Captain Powers responded that the Sheriff’s Department does have a mapping system
tracking statistics to identify hot spots. Statistics on traffic enforcement are not tracked
geographically. He will work on presenting statistics geographically at the next meeting.
Captain Powers said that community feedback is most helpful in identifying problematic
areas.
641
Regional Emergency Preparedness Committee Minutes
February 11, 2021
Page 5
Member Schmitz asked Captain Powers the method to provide community feedback.
Captain Powers responded that the community should report observations directly to the
station.
Discussions ensued on using neighborhood watch, and social media to educate the
community that suspicious activities should be reported directly the Sheriff’s Department.
Chair Dieringer inquired about upcoming town hall meetings.
Captain Powers said that he will follow up and schedule a town hall meeting.
Member Bradley inquired on analysis on identity theft cases due to increased deliveries
because of lock downs.
Captain Powers responded that no analytics have been performed because there
headquarter detective unit deals with fraud. Captain Powers recommended not to pay
bills via mail with payment checks. The checks are susceptible to be taken. Captain
Powers mentioned in Rolling Hills, there were two incidents of mail placed in the wrong
mailbox but these incidents were recorded as theft.
Chair Dieringer added that identity theft would be a great topic for a town hall meeting.
Chair Dieringer inquired about a video of a homeless individual associated with the arson
incident in Rolling Hills.
Captain Powers responded that video was not clear and difficult to determine but could
have been a homeless individual lighting a fire to keep warm. The video showed a quick
flash and the fire ignited.
Member Wilson asked for the reason that the misplaced mail incidents were recorded as
crimes. Member Wilson also inquired about the miscellaneous felony.
Captain Powers responded that the investigator wanted to err on the side of caution and
designated the incidents as crimes. Captain Powers reported the miscellaneous felony
had to do with a husband and wife recording each other.
C. QUARTERLY MCCORMICK AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIME REPORT
Analyst Bright reported that McCormick Ambulance representative Daniel Perez could
not attend the meeting but he provided a report for the committee. Mr. Perez reported
that in December 2020 and January 2021, response time was impacted by the long wait
time at the hospitals, between 17 and 18 hours. Additional ambulances were deployed
in the Southbay by mutual aid with services coming from Calabasas and Hollywood.
Response time was also impacted by staff absences due to COVID-19 infection. Staffing
conditions improved in February 2021 with staff receiving second round of vaccination.
642
Regional Emergency Preparedness Committee Minutes
February 11, 2021
Page 6
As of January 30, 2021, there were no COVID-19 cases among the staff population. Mr.
Perez reported that he observed improvements on wait time at the hospital and the
availability of McCormick staff.
VIII. OTHER MATTERS FROM REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE MEMBERS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Contract
Law Committee, Chair Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m. The next meeting is
scheduled to be held on Thursday, May 13, 2020, beginning at 7:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elaine Jeng, P.E.
City Manager/Acting City Clerk
City of Rolling Hills
Approved,
____________________________________
Bea Dieringer
Chair and Mayor,
City of Rolling Hills
643
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
POLICY TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHERIFF EQUIPMENT
MAY 13, 2021
6-A
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW
Agenda Item No. 6-A
Meeting Date: 5-13-21 MEMORANDUM
TO: REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY MANAGERS
DATE: MAY 13, 2021
SUBJECT: POLICY TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF
SUPPLEMENTAL SHERIFF EQUIPMENT
PREPARED BY: McKenzie Bright, Rancho Palos Verdes Administrative Analyst
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Review the draft Purchasing Policy for Funding Supplemental Sheriff’s
Department Equipment that memorializes a formal process for the Lomita
Sheriff’s Station to request, and for the Committee to review, funding the
purchase of supplemental equipment not covered as contracted goods or
services.
2) If acceptable, adopt the Purchasing Policy for Funding Supplemental Sheriff’s
Department Equipment
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the August 13, 2020 Regional Contract Law Committee 1 (RCLC) meeting, the
Committee directed staff to review the Sheriff’s contract related to purchases of
supplemental equipment.
The Sheriff’s contract does not provide direction on the purchase of all supplemental
equipment. Certain items are listed on the Master Rate Sheet, such as additional
1 At the time, known as the Regional Law Enforcement Committee (RLEC).
644
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
POLICY TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHERIFF EQUIPMENT
MAY 13, 2021
6-A
vehicles and ALPR systems, but does not include items such as LIDAR equipment, that
the Committee was requested to approve at the August 13, 2020 meeting.
When certain essential equipment is not provided to the Lomita Station by the County or
by grant funds, the contract cities are requested to consider covering the financial cost
of such items if warranted.
At the August 13, 2020 meeting, the RCLC approved the purchase of five LIDAR guns
for a total budget of $11,534. Once the purchase was completed and the invoice was
received, the actual total cost of the purchase totaled $12,974.51 - $1,322.65 greater
than the approved amount. This discrepancy was due to taxes and fees not being
calculated in the quoted request, and an additional expenditure of $241 for equipment to
mount a newly purchased LIDAR unit.
To ensure that the RCLC is presented with complete information in order to make the
decision to purchase supplemental equipment in the future, Staff has prepared a
Purchasing Policy for the RCLC’s consideration, which will:
1.Require the Sheriff’s Department to provide detailed information on the
requested item including full cost information and a description of the need for
the item.
2.Require the Sheriff’s Department to present the request in advance of purchasing
the item(s).
3.Require RCLC approval prior to making a purchase.
4.Codify that requests will be evaluated at regularly scheduled RCLC meetings.
5.Codify the billing and existing cost formula between the three cities.
6.Maintain the Sheriff’s Department’s responsibility to ensure delivery and
equipment meets all necessary standards.
7.Authorize the City Managers to approve purchases for less than $3,000.
Requests that are below $3,000 are proposed to be considered by the City Managers
rather than the RCLC. This policy is in line with existing practices.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the RCLC review and provide direction on the draft Purchasing
Policy for Funding Supplemental Sheriff Equipment, and if acceptable, adopt the Policy.
645
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE POLICY
DATE ADOPTED:
SUBJECT: Purchasing Policy for Supplemental Sheriff Equipment
POLICY:
The Regional Contract Law Committee (RCLC, “Committee”) desires to memorialize a
purchasing policy for the Lomita Station Sheriff’s Department (Department) to purchase
equipment supplemental to the regional law enforcement services contract. Therefore,
the RCLC has established this policy for the consideration of purchasing requests made
by the Sheriff’s Department.
Whereby the Sheriff’s Department seeks funding to purchase supplemental equipment
from the cities represented by the RCLC (Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and
Rolling Hills Estates), the following details the process by which the Department may
seek approval for proposed purchases and the Cities may disburse funds:
1. For purposes of this policy, the Sheriff’s Department must submit a quote,
comprising full cost information to the RCLC in order for the Committee to review
and potentially approve. A completed quote must include:
1.1. the vendor’s description of the item(s),
1.2. unit cost of the item(s),
1.3. total cost including all relevant taxes and fees, and
1.4. a narrative description of the need for and/or use of the item(s).
2. The Sheriff’s Department may solicit quotes at its discretion, according to internal
procurement practices, and shall present its purchase request to the RCLC in
advance of purchasing the item(s).
3. Purchases will only be allowed for the approved amount. If the purchase amount
changes, the RCLC must be informed before the purchase occurs. Any
purchases made prior to RCLC approval are subject to the RCLC’s ultimate
decision of providing funding for the item(s). The RCLC shall not be held
financially responsible for item(s) purchased prior to the RCLC’s consent.
4. The RCLC shall review all requested equipment expenditures at the regularly
scheduled Committee meetings. The Sheriff’s Department may request an item
be placed on the agenda no less than two weeks in advance of the meeting.
646
5. Should the expenditure(s) be approved by the RCLC, invoices shall be billed to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275). Rancho Palos Verdes shall invoice Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills
Estates for their portion of the amount as follows: Rancho Palos Verdes (68%);
Rolling Hills Estates (28%); and Rolling Hills (4%).
6. It remains the responsibility of the Sheriff’s Department to ensure timely delivery
of equipment, full working order of the equipment, and timely delivery of invoices
to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
7. If the total cost of the purchase is less than $3,000 the City Managers from the
three cities may authorize the expenditure without a vote by the RCLC.
BACKGROUND:
The RCLC occasionally is asked to approve supplemental expenditures for the Lomita
Sheriff’s Station, in addition to its contracted budget. Without County or grant funds, it is
the responsibility of the RCLC, and the three cities, to evaluate and fund the
supplemental equipment purchases conducted by the Lomita Sheriff’s Station.
647
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENDA ITEM 6B
MEETING DATE: 05/13/2021
648
649
PRESENTED BY
CAPTAIN JAMES C. POWERS
LOMITA STATION
650
TRAFFIC
651
1st Quarter Comparison
2019 2020 2021
Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average
Total Collisions 14 14 20 16 22 16 9 16 11 12 15 13
Injury Collisions 3 5 7 5 6 6 2 5 4 4 11 6
Enforcement Index 26 16 10 18 23 32 75 43 26 36 10 24
Hazardous Cites 77 78 68 74 138 186 149 158 100 144 110 118
Non-Haz Cites 35 36 38 36 41 39 30 37 16 25 25 22
Parking Cites 49 68 139 85 102 20 19 47 18 21 4 26
DUI Arrests 2 1 0 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1
DUI Collisions 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Fatal Collisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*Traffic Enforcement Index: Haz.Cites + DUI Arrests / Fatal + Injury Collisions (20:1)
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Traffic Stats
652
2019 2020 2021
Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average
Total Collisions 16 9 13 13 12 16 6 11 6 7 4 6
Injury Collisions 5 2 4 4 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1
Enforcement Index 12 28 15 18 15 11 39 22 4 28 25 19
Hazardous Cites 62 54 57 58 58 45 39 37 7 28 25 20
Non-Haz Cites 13 4 16 11 16 17 9 14 4 5 10 22
Parking Cites 6 21 20 16 29 10 5 15 0 2 0 1
DUI Arrests 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
DUI Collisions 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Fatal Collisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Quarter Comparison
*Traffic Enforcement Index: Haz.Cites + DUI Arrests / Fatal + Injury Collisions (20:1)
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
Traffic Stats
653
1st Quarter Comparison
2019 2020 2021
Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average
Total Collisions 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Injury Collisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Enforcement Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Cites 13 22 12 16 5 10 22 12 9 36 10 18
Non-Haz Cites 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking Cites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI Arrests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI Collisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fatal Collisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*Traffic Enforcement Index: Haz.Cites + DUI Arrests / Fatal + Injury Collisions (20:1)
ROLLING HILLS
Traffic Stats
654
1st Quarter Comparison
2019 2020 2021
Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average Jan Feb Mar Average
Total Collisions 30 23 34 19 34 32 16 27 17 19 19 18
Injury Collisions 8 7 11 9 10 10 3 8 6 5 12 8
Enforcement Index 19 22 13 18 20 24 70 38 20 42 12 25
Hazardous Cites 152 154 137 148 201 241 210 217 116 208 145 156
Non-Haz Cites 48 40 57 48 57 56 39 51 20 30 35 28
Parking Cites 55 89 159 101 131 30 24 54 18 23 4 15
DUI Arrests 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2
DUI Collisions 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2
Fatal Collisions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*Traffic Enforcement Index: Haz.Cites + DUI Arrests / Fatal + Injury Collisions (20:1)
PENINSULA REGION
Totals
655
656
2021 PART I –1st QUARTER COMPARISON
Rancho Palos Verdes
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Homicide 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 0 2 1
Robbery 5 2 3 0 2
Aggravated Assault 4 6 2 3 4
Burglary, Residence 13 10 24 27 30
Burglary, Structure 2 1 1 9 10
Vehicle Burglary 22 11 10 20 28
Theft from Vehicle 11 13 8 28 27
Other Larceny / Theft 38 26 19 22 42
Grand Theft Auto 10 4 3 11 12
Arson 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 107 74 70 122 156
657
658
PART II CRIME ACTIVITY COMPARISON
Rancho Palos Verdes 1st Quarter
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Forgery 3 7 5 9 13
Fraud/ID Theft 37 31 28 37 48
Sex Offense, Felony 3 1 0 3 0
Sex Offense, Misdemeanor 4 4 1 1 1
Non-Aggravated Assault 6 9 3 8 16
Weapon Laws 3 4 2 3 3
Offenses Against Family 1 1 0 1 2
Liquor Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Drunk-Alcohol/Drugs 1 4 1 1 3
Disorderly Conduct 1 3 0 2 2
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0
Drunk Driving-Vehicle/Boat 3 6 3 0 5
Vandalism (Non-graffiti)15 10 6 13 19
Vandalism (Graffiti)1 0 0 1 0
Receiving Stolen Property 0 0 0 0 0
Federal Offenses w/o money 0 0 0 0 1
Federal Offenses w/ money 1 1 0 0 1
Felonies, Misc 3 1 6 9 3
Misdemeanors, Misc 6 7 4 5 5
TOTAL CRIME 88 89 59 93 122
ARRESTS
Part I 19 14 6 10 21
Part II 38 71 58 61 117
TOTAL ARRESTS 57 85 64 71 138
Burglaries 2 5 2 4 10
GTA's 8 4 2 2 3
Narco 4 9 7 10 17
659
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JAN FEB MAR
72
58
52
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
False Alarms
660
2021 PART I –1st QUARTER COMPARISON
Rolling Hills Estates
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Homicide 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 0 1 0 1 0
Robbery 0 0 1 0 0
Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 1 0
Burglary, Residence 4 4 5 1 4
Burglary, Structure 5 3 6 9 9
Vehicle Burglary 2 2 3 1 5
Theft from Vehicle 0 2 4 3 1
Other Larceny / Theft 15 14 9 7 25
Grand Theft Auto 1 1 0 1 1
Arson 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 28 27 28 24 45
661
662
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Forgery 0 3 3 2 3
Fraud/ID Theft 15 13 8 12 4
Sex Offense, Felony 1 0 0 1 1
Sex Offense, Misdemeanor 2 0 2 0 0
Non-Aggravated Assault 2 3 5 3 4
Weapon Laws 1 1 0 2 0
Offenses Against Family 1 0 0 0 0
Liquor Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Drunk-Alcohol/Drugs 1 0 0 0 3
Disorderly Conduct 0 0 1 1 0
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0
Drunk Driving-Vehicle/Boat 1 1 3 1 2
Vandalism (Non-graffiti)3 3 2 7 6
Vandalism (Graffiti)1 0 0 0 0
Receiving Stolen Property 0 0 0 0 0
Federal Offenses w/o money 0 0 0 0 0
Federal Offenses w/ money 0 0 0 2 0
Felonies, Misc 2 0 1 0 0
Misdemeanors, Misc 3 1 2 2 1
TOTAL CRIME 33 25 27 33 24
ARRESTS
Part I 3 1 5 9 7
Part II 14 17 17 27 33
TOTAL ARRESTS 17 18 22 36 40
Burglaries 1 0 0 2 2
GTA's 1 1 0 2 3
Narco 3 0 0 7 3
PART II CRIME ACTIVITY COMPARISON
Rolling Hills Estates 1st Quarter
663
0
5
10
15
20
25
JAN FEB MAR
20
14
25
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
False Alarms
664
2021 PART I –1st QUARTER COMPARISON
Rolling Hills
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Homicide 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0 0
Burglary, Residence 1 1 4 0 0
Burglary, Structure 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicle Burglary 0 0 0 0 0
Theft from Vehicle 1 0 0 0 0
Other Larceny / Theft 0 0 1 0 2
Grand Theft Auto 0 0 0 0 0
Arson 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 2 1 5 0 2
665
666
Rolling Hills 1st Quarter
Part II Crime Activity Comparison
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Forgery 1 0 1 0 0
Fraud/ID Theft 1 5 0 1 1
Sex Offense, Felony 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offense, Misdemeanor 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Aggravated Assault 1 0 1 0 1
Weapon Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Offenses Against Family 0 0 0 0 0
Liquor Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Drunk-Alcohol/Drugs 0 0 0 0 0
Disorderly Conduct 0 0 0 0 0
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0
Drunk Driving-Vehicle/Boat 0 0 0 0 0
Vandalism (Non-graffiti)0 0 0 0 1
Vandalism (Graffiti)0 0 0 0 0
Receiving Stolen Property 0 0 0 0 0
Federal Offenses w/o money 0 0 0 0 0
Federal Offenses w/ money 0 0 0 0 0
Felonies, Misc 0 0 0 0 0
Misdemeanors, Misc 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CRIME 3 5 2 1 3
ARRESTS
Part I 0 1 2 0 1
Part II 0 0 1 0 1
TOTAL ARRESTS 0 1 3 0 2
Burglaries 0 1 1 0 0
GTA's 0 0 0 0 0
Narco 0 0 1 0 0 667
ROLLING HILLS
False Alarms
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
JAN FEB MAR
6
1
6
668
669
Rancho Palos Verdes
5 710
20
27
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Rancho Palos Verdes LASD Target
Emergency Priority Routine
1ST Quarter Average Response Times
670
RANCHO PALOS VERDES EMERGENT CALL RESPONSE
1st Quarter 2021 Page 1
DATE LOCATION TYPE OF CALL ENTRY ENROUTE ARRIVAL
RESP TIME
MIN TAG
01/01 COLT RD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1443 1444 1448 5 52
01/01 WESTERN AV TRASH FIRE 1711 1712 1713 2 60
01/02 SUMMERLAND/WESTERN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1537 1540 1542 5 60
01/03 PV DR W/VIA LORADO TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1654 1655 1657 3 53
01/04 HAWTHORNE BL/PV DR W VERBAL DISTURBANCE 1848 1850 1853 5 74
01/05 PV DR EAST POSS BURG TO RESD 0449 0449 0451 2 5
01/06 WESTERN AV MEDICAL RESCUE 1114 1115 1116 2 24
01/07 GRAYSLAKE RD MEDICAL RESCUE 0401 0402 0406 5 6
01/07 VALLEY VIEW RD MEDICAL RESCUE 1037 1039 1039 2 29
01/07 SEAGATE DR FIRE ALARM 2324 2343 2349 1 99
01/08 ELLA RD MEDICAL RESCUE 0207 0208 0214 7 7
01/09 WESTERN AV SUSPICIOUS PERSON 1309 1309 1309 0 31
01/12 HAWTHORNE BL/PV DR W PERSON DOWN 1629 1632 1639 7 54
01/14 HEADLAND DR FIRE 1048 1049 1051 3 22
01/15 PENINSULA VERDE DR MEDICAL RESCUE 0027 0028 0030 3 1
01/15 DIAMONTE LN/PV DR E TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1717 1718 1720 3 76
01/15 TRUDIE DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1809 1811 1814 5 79
01/15 SPRINGCREEK RD FAMILY DISTURBANCE 1940 1942 0943 3 87
01/18 ENROSE AV POSS BURG TO RESD 0054 0054 0056 2 8
01/18 CORAL RIDGE RD POSS BURG TO RESD 1353 1355 1356 3 55
01/19 VIA RIVERA MEDICAL RESCUE 0002 0004 0009 7 1
01/19 PV DR EAST TREE FIRE 1649 1651 1652 3 84
01/20 NARCISSA DR/PV DR S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 0128 0128 0137 9 1
01/22 CORAL RIDGE RD MEDICAL RESCUE 0839 0843 0843 4 25
01/24 RAVENSPUR DR FAMILY DISTURBANCE 0430 0432 0432 2 9
01/25 SEACLIFF DR BURG TO RESD 1945 1945 1949 4 80
01/26 VIA DEL MAR MEDICAL RESCUE 1757 1758 1800 3 65
01/26 VISTA MESA DR PANIC ALARM 2310 2311 2315 5 91 671
RANCHO PALOS VERDES EMERGENT CALL RESPONSE
1st Quarter 2021 Page 2
DATE LOCATION TYPE OF CALL ENTRY ENROUTE ARRIVAL
RESP TIME
MIN TAG
01/27 AVENIDA APRENDA MEDICAL RESCUE 0846 0846 0849 3 22
01/27 WESTERN AV MEDICAL RESCUE 1512 1512 1517 5 48
01/28 BERNICE DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1524 1529 1529 5 61
01/28 GOLDEN MEADOW DR VEHICLE FIRE 2008 2008 2008 0 72
01/30 CREST RD MEDICAL RESCUE 1457 1458 0506 9 43
01/30 WARRIOR DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1823 1824 1826 3 64
02/02 NORTHBAY RD MEDICAL RESCUE 1300 1301 1306 6 56
02/03 VIA LA CRESTA MEDICAL RESCUE 0830 0831 0834 4 28
02/03 CROWNVIEW DR POSS BURG TO RESD 1044 1045 1049 5 38
02/03 SWEETBAY RD MEDICAL RESCUE 1910 1916 1916 6 81
02/03 PASEO DE LAZ LUZ DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE 2151 2153 2157 6 103
02/04 WESTERN AV POSS BURG TO VEH 0121 0122 0123 2 8
02/06 RUE LANGLOIS POSS BURG SUSPECT 1126 1127 1130 4 35
02/08 AVENIDA APRENDA/WESTERN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 0649 0950 0650 1 9
02/08 RAVENSPUR DR MEDICAL RESCUE 0658 0700 0704 6 10
02/10 IRONWOOD ST MISSING PERSON 1702 1702 1712 2 91
02/10 SANTA RENA DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1816 1817 1821 5 98
02/12 LA ROTUNDA DR MEDICAL RESCUE 0748 0750 0751 3 31
02/12 GANADO DR/PV DR E TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 2234 2234 2240 6 128
02/13 BEACHVIEW DR MEDICAL RESCUE 0914 0936 0941 8 36
02/16 SWEETBAY RD FAMILY DISTURBANCE 2050 2052 2052 2 93
02/16 PV DR EAST MEDICAL RESCUE 2140 2142 2144 4 95
02/18 TRUMP NATIONAL DR CHK AREA/SUSPICIOUS CIRCS 2044 2046 2049 5 83
02/23 TOSCANINI DR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1212 1214 1218 6 47
02/23 PV DR EAST MEDICAL RESCUE 1929 1930 1934 5 91
02/23 CALZADA DR MEDICAL RESCUE 2203 2204 2207 4 105
02/27 SUNNYSIDE RIDGE RD MEDICAL RESCUE 0517 0518 0521 4 12 672
RANCHO PALOS VERDES EMERGENT CALL RESPONSE
1st Quarter 2021 Page 3
DATE LOCATION TYPE OF CALL ENTRY ENROUTE ARRIVAL
RESP TIME
MIN TAG
02/27 AVENIDA ELEGANTE MEDICAL RESCUE 1820 1822 1826 6 93
02/27 PV DR S/SEA COVE DR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1918 1920 1922 4 97
03/02 CRENSHAW BL/VALLEY VIEW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 0719 0723 0728 9 23
03/02 ROCKINGHORSE RD BURG TO RESD 1846 1847 1851 5 88
03/02 HAWTHORNE/VERDE RIDGE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1946 1947 1948 2 91
03/03 LA ROTUNDA DR MEDICAL RESCUE 2158 2159 2205 7 111
03/04 TOSCANINI DR FAMILY DISTURBANCE 1320 1326 1328 8 66
03/05 CRENSHAW BL/CRESTRIDGE MEDICAL RESCUE 0220 0221 0225 5 5
03/05 ENROSE AV MEDICAL RESCUE 1013 1014 1018 5 48
03/06 LA VISTA VERDE MEDICAL RESCUE 1845 1846 1850 5 80
03/10 HAWTHORNE BL MEDICAL RESCUE 0637 0638 0642 5 24
03/10 HAWTHORNE/SAN NICOLAS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1546 1554 1554 8 112
03/10 CREST RD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1708 1709 1715 7 117
03/12 PV DR SOUTH TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1434 1447 1455 13 74
03/18 VISTA PACIFICA FIRE 0148 0151 0157 9 9
03/18 MONERO DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1934 1935 1937 3 118
03/20 TRUDIE DR MEDICAL RESCUE 0915 0915 0918 3 24
03/21 BASSWOOD AV MEDICAL RESCUE 2301 2302 2306 5 109
03/22 ELKRIDGE DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1152 1153 1155 3 66
03/22 SEA BREEZE AV BURG TO RESD 1857 1902 1904 7 117
03/23 HAWTHORNE BL/PV DR W POSS BURG TO BUSN 0425 0427 0431 6 9
03/23 PV DR E/VIA EL MIRO MEDICAL RESCUE 0451 0452 0457 6 10
03/24 REDONDELA DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1131 1133 1138 7 55
03/25 CAYUSE LN POSS BURG TO RESD 2301 2306 2308 7 140
03/26 PV DR EAST POSS BURG TO RESD 0027 0029 0033 6 2
03/26 PV DR E/VIA FRASCATI TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1135 1136 1141 6 49
03/26 TARRASA DR MEDICAL RESCUE 2259 2301 2302 3 142
673
RANCHO PALOS VERDES EMERGENT CALL RESPONSE
1st Quarter 2021 Page 3
DATE LOCATION TYPE OF CALL ENTRY ENROUTE ARRIVAL
RESP TIME
MIN TAG
03/27 ARROWROOT LN FAMILY DISTURBANCE 2330 2331 2333 3 109
03/28 SANTA BARBARA DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1553 1557 1558 5 50
03/28 ROCKHURST LN FIRE 1715 1716 1718 3 59
03/29 HIGHRIDGE RD MEDICAL RESCUE 2144 2145 2150 6 120
03/30 MONERO DR SUSPICIOUS PERSON 1126 1126 1128 2 34
674
4 78
2023
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Rolling Hills Estates LASD Target
Emergency Priority Routine
1st Quarter Average Response Times
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
675
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES EMERGENT CALL RESPONSE
1st Quarter 2021
DATE LOCATION TYPE OF CALL ENTRY ENROUTE ARRIVAL
RESP TIME
MIN TAG
01/13 ROCKBLUFF DR PERSON DOWN 0653 0654 0702 9 14
01/14 SYCAMORE LN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1350 1350 1400 10 35
01/17 BRANDING IRON/PV DR N TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1602 1603 1603 1 86
01/19 CARRIAGE DR FIRE 1501 1501 1503 2 71
01/21 CRENSHAW BL/PV DR N ASSAULT 1305 1306 1306 1 68
01/23 CHANDLER RANCH RD BURG TO BUSN 0142 0143 0147 5 2
01/29 PV DR NORTH TRESPASSING 0107 0108 0112 5 3
01/29 HAWTHORNE BL TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1714 1716 1716 2 66
02/04 CONESTOGA DR/PV DR E TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1839 1841 1843 4 102
02/14 ASPEN WY BURG TO RESD 0658 0700 0703 5 18
02/16 DEERHILL DR FAMILY DISTURBANCE 1555 1557 1601 6 74
02/23 HAWTHORNE BL/PV DR N TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 0712 0714 0716 4 22
02/25 BUCKSKIN LN MEDICAL RESCUE 0825 0826 0830 5 23
03/04 MONTECILLO DR SUSPICIOUS PERSON 0118 0121 0121 3 11
03/05 PV DR NORTH POSS BURG TO RESD 1809 1812 1812 3 100
03/13 CARRIAGE DR BRUSH FIRE 1805 1805 1809 4 80
03/27 PV DR EAST BURG TO BUSN 0335 0336 0336 1 2
03/27 VIA DE LA VISTE MEDICAL RESCUE 0704 0705 0706 2 11
03/31 SILVER SPUR RD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 1141 1142 1144 3 52
676
ROLLING HILLS
7 78
2024
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Rolling Hills LASD Target
Emergency Priority Routine
1st Quarter Average Response Times
677
ROLLING HILLS EMERGENT CALL RESPONSE
1st Quarter 2021
DATE LOCATION TYPE OF CALL ENTRY ENROUTE ARRIVAL
RESP TIME
MIN TAG
02/07 WILLIAMSBURG LN WIRES DOWN/FIRE 2225 2230 2230 5 87
03/04 EASTFIELD DR MEDICAL RESCUE 1652 1656 1701 5 93
678
PENINSULA REGION1stQuarter Average Response Times
5 79
20
26
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Region LASD Target
Emergency Priority Routine
679
680
SUPPLEMENTAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENDA ITEM 6C
MEETING DATE: 05/13/2021
681
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
8,008 ABBOTTSWOOD DR 2021-01-20 20:29:06 20:29:47 20:38:07 00:00:00 20:59:34 21:09:09 21:57:54 00:09:01 multiple calls
733 MOUNT SHASTA DR 2021-01-02 16:58:47 16:59:30 17:08:02 00:00:00 17:20:25 17:31:43 18:03:48 00:09:15 multiple calls
2,434 VIA CAMBRON 2021-01-06 18:13:19 18:14:10 18:22:38 00:00:00 18:44:41 19:02:41 19:52:03 00:09:19 distance
3,907 ELBERON ST 2021-01-10 12:16:21 12:17:53 12:25:44 00:00:00 12:47:24 13:05:24 15:29:37 00:09:23 multiple calls
11963 VIA EL MIRO 2021-01-31 15:37:37 15:39:21 15:47:03 00:00:00 16:05:03 16:15:47 16:52:02 00:09:26 multiple calls
3,170 BEACHVIEW DR 2021-01-08 15:31:22 15:31:57 15:40:51 16:13:23 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:29 distance
6,361 COLT RD 2021-01-16 15:01:53 15:02:47 15:11:27 00:00:00 15:21:42 15:41:07 16:28:20 00:09:34 distance
3677 TERRANEA WY 2021-01-09 19:43:19 19:44:54 19:53:15 00:00:00 20:13:28 20:36:19 21:13:58 00:09:56 distance
1169 ROCKINGHORSE RD 2021-01-03 16:02:25 16:02:46 16:12:37 16:31:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:12 multiple calls
6,285 NANTASKET DR 2021-01-16 11:41:26 11:42:27 11:51:40 11:57:57 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:14 distance
2,943 ELLA RD 2021-01-08 02:03:41 02:04:38 02:14:14 00:00:00 02:35:11 02:44:41 03:14:08 00:10:33 multiple calls
7690 BEAUVAIS RD 2021-01-19 23:38:17 23:40:49 23:48:56 00:00:00 00:08:30 00:21:25 00:44:42 00:10:39 distance
2624 W SUANA DRIVE 2021-01-07 08:53:07 08:53:55 09:04:01 00:00:00 09:13:56 09:17:36 09:42:58 00:10:54 distance
11,461 SEA COVE DR 2021-01-30 08:50:49 08:53:30 09:01:45 00:00:00 09:24:10 09:41:39 10:28:12 00:10:56 distance
4,043 VIA DEL CIELO 2021-01-10 19:13:12 19:17:14 19:24:10 19:50:55 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:58 distance
9734 S WESTERN AV 2021-01-25 17:28:45 17:31:55 17:39:44 00:00:00 17:51:47 18:00:16 19:02:24 00:10:59 multiple calls
2,139 RUE DE LA PIERRE 2021-01-06 03:27:28 03:29:42 03:38:31 00:00:00 03:58:43 04:15:40 04:32:10 00:11:03 distance
7,051 VIA LORADO 2021-01-18 10:02:48 10:05:04 10:14:01 00:00:00 10:33:46 10:44:29 11:13:28 00:11:13 distance
1090 HIGHMORE AV 2021-01-03 12:57:53 12:59:15 13:09:06 00:00:00 13:22:05 13:26:55 14:12:30 00:11:13 multiple calls
11104 MIRALESTE PLAZA 2021-01-29 10:24:50 10:25:36 10:36:06 00:00:00 10:45:48 11:00:57 12:15:46 00:11:16 multiple calls
7325 VIA RIVERA 2021-01-19 00:05:53 00:08:24 00:17:12 00:00:00 00:31:10 00:43:34 01:10:23 00:11:19 distance
7475 LIMETREE LN 2021-01-19 12:30:33 12:32:27 12:41:55 00:00:00 12:53:21 13:11:44 13:35:16 00:11:22 distance
7,119 PALOS VERDES DR W 2021-01-18 12:40:07 12:41:36 12:51:30 13:27:12 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:23 distance
993 W CRESTRIDGE RD 2021-01-03 08:49:40 08:50:22 09:01:04 00:00:00 09:09:09 09:14:12 12:04:06 00:11:24 multiple calls
5,671 PALOS VERDES DR S & BARKENTINE RD 2021-01-14 20:43:52 20:45:08 20:55:35 00:00:00 21:17:29 21:17:44 21:40:41 00:11:43 multiple calls
11,462 COVECREST DR 2021-01-30 08:55:26 08:56:12 09:07:10 00:00:00 09:19:00 09:41:44 10:28:29 00:11:44 multiple calls
3419 VIA BARON 2021-01-09 07:42:10 07:43:53 07:54:01 00:00:00 08:12:41 08:28:10 08:57:49 00:11:51 distance
6828 ADMIRABLE DR 2021-01-17 18:39:51 18:40:40 18:51:42 19:04:12 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:51 distance
10,811 BERNICE DR 2021-01-28 15:25:53 15:26:31 15:37:44 15:43:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:51 multiple calls
5882 MENDON DR 2021-01-15 12:03:05 12:04:03 12:15:15 00:00:00 12:36:26 12:48:05 15:13:09 00:12:10 multiple calls
863 CLIPPER RD 2021-01-02 23:04:38 23:06:30 23:16:53 00:00:00 23:29:32 00:08:05 00:08:11 00:12:15 distance
7,967 GOYA DR 2021-01-20 18:02:56 18:04:07 18:15:18 18:28:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:22 multiple calls
9748 PALOS VERDES DR S 2021-01-25 18:20:43 18:23:07 18:33:06 00:00:00 18:49:25 18:57:47 19:44:55 00:12:23 distance
1,606 WINDPORT DR 2021-01-04 17:33:27 17:33:58 17:45:51 17:49:31 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:24 multiple calls
9803 SEA RAVEN DR 2021-01-25 21:46:01 21:48:00 21:58:39 00:00:00 22:13:45 22:35:56 00:03:53 00:12:38 distance
4,783 HAWTHORNE BLVD & PALOS VERDESDR W 2021-01-12 16:02:17 16:05:33 16:15:01 16:15:40 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:44 multiple calls
7673 VISTA MESA DR 2021-01-19 22:32:44 22:34:47 22:45:31 22:58:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:47 distance
7,741 VIA RIVERA 2021-01-20 05:55:28 05:58:39 06:08:17 06:18:47 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:49 distance
9010 S WESTERN AV 2021-01-23 18:46:09 18:46:58 18:59:06 00:00:00 19:11:28 19:24:12 20:03:12 00:12:57 multiple calls
10233 SEAGATE DR 2021-01-27 04:01:40 04:03:59 04:14:58 04:32:27 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:13:18 distance
3511 TERRANEA WY 2021-01-09 12:03:24 12:03:45 12:17:03 12:25:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:13:39 multiple calls
Rancho Palos Verdes January 2021
682
10,908 BERNICE DR 2021-01-28 19:29:04 19:32:00 19:42:52 00:00:00 19:52:54 20:03:53 20:42:50 00:13:48 multiple calls
5853 VIA CAMBRON 2021-01-15 10:38:57 10:40:20 10:53:00 00:00:00 11:04:05 11:19:41 12:02:57 00:14:03 multiple calls
3,974 PALO VISTA DR 2021-01-10 15:21:38 15:21:50 15:35:47 00:00:00 15:48:47 16:02:49 16:28:20 00:14:09 multiple calls
21 DIANORA DR 2021-01-01 01:00:16 01:01:20 01:14:32 01:33:35 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:14:16 distance
1240 OCEAN TERRACE DR 2021-01-03 19:18:45 19:20:39 19:33:06 20:30:47 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:14:21 multiple calls
7,716 PALOS VERDES DR S & NARCISSA DR 2021-01-20 01:30:12 01:33:01 01:44:45 01:50:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:14:33 distance
991 RUE DE LA PIERRE 2021-01-03 08:45:43 08:50:31 09:00:21 00:00:00 09:16:17 09:29:28 09:49:43 00:14:38 multiple calls
2,164 MIRALESTE DR 2021-01-06 06:00:28 06:01:20 06:15:07 00:00:00 06:29:25 06:36:50 07:05:35 00:14:39 multiple calls
1831 HIGHTIDE DR 2021-01-05 09:49:35 09:51:11 10:04:16 00:00:00 10:10:19 10:31:56 11:10:44 00:14:41 multiple calls
11,568 CREST RD 2021-01-30 14:59:24 15:00:16 15:14:39 00:00:00 15:33:12 15:49:24 16:43:24 00:15:15 multiple calls
6751 PALOS VERDES DR S & SCHOONER DR 2021-01-17 15:11:05 15:11:45 15:26:26 00:00:00 15:54:47 16:34:42 16:50:32 00:15:21 distance
540 CALLE AVENTURA & PALOS VERDESDR E 2021-01-02 08:49:44 08:50:43 09:05:39 00:00:00 09:15:32 09:30:07 10:13:46 00:15:55 multiple calls
3,903 VIA BORICA 2021-01-10 11:46:59 11:48:58 12:03:01 00:00:00 12:27:15 12:44:44 14:58:13 00:16:02 multiple calls
6754 NEWRIDGE DR 2021-01-17 15:16:09 15:16:58 15:32:41 00:00:00 15:49:05 15:56:54 17:20:32 00:16:32 multiple calls
739 GANADO DR 2021-01-02 17:22:53 17:24:36 17:40:01 17:47:26 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:17:08 multiple calls
1,489 OCEAN TRAILS DR 2021-01-04 12:53:07 12:53:32 13:11:31 00:00:00 13:20:15 13:38:26 14:52:55 00:18:24 multiple calls
5098 OCEAN GROVE DR 2021-01-13 12:12:16 12:14:15 12:31:15 00:00:00 12:41:15 12:51:48 13:03:58 00:18:59 multiple calls
1809 RUE LA FLEUR 2021-01-05 08:54:13 08:54:37 09:14:09 00:00:00 09:21:29 09:35:58 10:26:59 00:19:56 multiple calls
6836 DIAMONTE LN 2021-01-17 18:57:27 18:58:10 19:17:46 00:00:00 19:21:17 19:40:25 20:35:37 00:20:19 multiple calls
683
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rancho Palos Verdes
January 2021
1-2 3-9 10-16 17-23 24-30 31
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
15 61 45 51 56 8 23645
10 43 34 36 46 7 176-18
5 18 11 15 10 1 60
Total Compliance:74.6%
Total Late
Date Period
22
10 43
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
1 50
46 176
9
7
100123
36
12
34
3 16 9
684
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
13646 W CHANDELEUR DR 2021-02-05 05:36:49 05:40:25 05:45:56 00:00:00 06:01:16 06:10:23 06:30:40 00:09:07 Distance
12314 GANADO DR 2021-02-01 14:33:27 14:33:51 14:42:37 00:00:00 15:01:43 15:23:57 16:29:46 00:09:10 Distance
17,771 S WESTERN AV 2021-02-16 17:33:07 17:34:26 00:00:00 17:42:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:12 Multiple Calls
13779 HAWKSMOOR DR 2021-02-05 13:34:54 13:35:57 13:44:10 00:00:00 13:57:14 14:19:43 14:52:00 00:09:16 Distance
12,762 HYTE RD 2021-02-02 18:43:10 18:44:27 18:52:31 00:00:00 19:02:17 19:13:06 20:00:21 00:09:21 Multiple Calls
13133 BEACHVIEW DR 2021-02-03 17:47:16 17:48:53 17:56:40 00:00:00 18:15:14 18:34:15 18:59:25 00:09:24 Multiple Calls
15140 SADDLE RD 2021-02-09 06:29:19 06:31:15 06:38:54 00:00:00 06:54:07 07:09:20 07:24:02 00:09:35 Distance
15858 NANTASKET DR 2021-02-11 09:12:44 09:15:27 09:22:23 00:00:00 09:33:22 09:55:41 10:27:09 00:09:39 Distance
16517 BEACHVIEW DR 2021-02-13 08:59:15 09:03:13 09:08:54 00:00:00 09:49:05 10:04:34 11:21:09 00:09:39 Distance
21,123 VIA CAMBRON 2021-02-26 08:16:15 08:17:56 08:25:55 00:00:00 08:45:26 08:59:18 09:49:31 00:09:40 Distance
13157 ROTHROCK DR 2021-02-03 19:08:59 19:11:51 19:18:42 00:00:00 19:34:15 19:43:51 20:08:08 00:09:43 Multiple Calls
21,710 PALOS VERDES DR S 2021-02-27 19:25:37 19:27:59 00:00:00 19:35:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:45 Distance
13931 MIRALESTE DR 2021-02-05 20:59:21 21:01:10 21:09:09 00:00:00 21:18:54 21:31:31 21:59:20 00:09:48 Distance
14,051 PALOS VERDES DR W & HAWTHORNEBLVD 2021-02-06 06:18:24 06:21:30 06:28:31 06:36:54 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:07 Distance
17,468 NANTASKET DR 2021-02-15 19:19:50 19:22:01 19:29:58 00:00:00 19:51:13 20:08:13 21:25:03 00:10:08 Distance
21,434 CAMINO PORVENIR 2021-02-27 01:40:53 01:43:34 01:51:09 02:26:38 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:16 Distance
15989 S WESTERN AV 2021-02-11 16:31:14 16:32:47 16:41:34 00:00:00 16:59:28 17:06:33 18:56:31 00:10:20 Multiple Calls
17,944 PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-02-17 08:46:34 08:48:45 08:56:57 00:00:00 09:00:21 09:14:33 09:31:18 00:10:23 Distance
17,466 WILDBRIAR DR 2021-02-15 19:19:08 19:22:29 19:29:37 00:00:00 19:48:27 19:57:01 20:54:20 00:10:29 Multiple Calls
21,165 S WESTERN AV 2021-02-26 10:31:43 10:32:37 10:42:22 10:45:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:39 Multiple Calls
16040 REDONDELA DR 2021-02-11 18:49:40 18:50:01 19:00:33 00:00:00 19:09:57 19:23:53 21:00:10 00:10:53 Multiple Calls
14,330 GUNTER RD 2021-02-06 20:07:05 20:07:53 20:18:00 20:35:51 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:55 Error
13,350 ADMIRABLE DR 2021-02-04 11:16:33 11:17:37 11:27:35 00:00:00 11:40:00 11:55:53 12:57:44 00:11:02 Distance
13,491 CRESTWOOD ST 2021-02-04 17:46:07 17:46:39 17:57:10 00:00:00 18:12:06 18:16:06 19:01:28 00:11:03 Multiple Calls
15385 LA VISTA VERDE DR 2021-02-09 19:44:05 19:46:21 19:55:13 00:00:00 20:12:23 20:29:19 20:49:22 00:11:08 Distance
16017 AVENIDA DE MAGNOLIA 2021-02-11 17:57:24 17:58:25 18:08:40 00:00:00 18:39:05 18:51:38 20:17:05 00:11:16 Distance
17,740 FORRESTAL DR 2021-02-16 15:28:33 15:29:55 15:39:55 00:00:00 16:01:08 16:09:03 16:55:31 00:11:22 Distance
13158 SWEETBAY RD 2021-02-03 19:10:20 19:11:53 19:21:43 00:00:00 19:37:06 19:58:45 21:04:36 00:11:23 Distance
17,835 PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-02-16 21:40:02 21:43:01 21:51:31 00:00:00 22:20:43 22:31:02 23:12:44 00:11:29 Multiple Calls
14,022 TERRANEA WY 2021-02-06 02:44:52 02:47:15 02:56:35 00:00:00 03:38:42 03:55:04 04:24:54 00:11:43 Distance
18,159 PALOS VERDES DR S & NARCISSA DR 2021-02-17 20:06:21 20:07:50 20:18:08 20:18:32 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:47 Distance
21,136 GENERAL ST 2021-02-26 09:24:35 09:25:37 09:36:23 09:44:56 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:48 Multiple Calls
16745 VIGILANCE DR 2021-02-13 20:49:16 20:51:09 21:01:21 21:20:48 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:05 Distance
19,625 LA ROTONDA DR 2021-02-22 04:12:41 04:15:05 04:25:31 00:00:00 04:52:00 05:15:55 05:34:24 00:12:50 Distance
16,142 SEAGLEN DR 2021-02-12 04:35:55 04:37:56 04:49:04 00:00:00 04:58:56 05:16:43 05:49:08 00:13:09 Distance
16,800 CADDINGTON DR 2021-02-14 00:10:36 00:13:10 00:23:46 00:00:00 00:31:51 00:40:46 00:56:34 00:13:10 Multiple Calls
17,604 PALOS VERDES DR S 2021-02-16 07:58:16 08:01:40 08:11:53 00:00:00 08:39:13 09:02:46 09:34:25 00:13:37 Distance
16,172 LA ROTONDA DR 2021-02-12 07:49:38 07:52:25 08:03:33 08:14:49 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:13:55 Distance
17,233 FRUIT TREE RD 2021-02-15 06:55:45 07:04:15 07:09:41 00:00:00 07:27:40 07:44:33 08:08:34 00:13:56 Multiple Calls
18,349 GRANDPOINT LN 2021-02-18 11:35:59 11:38:30 11:50:14 12:00:47 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:14:15 Multiple Calls
18,910 SEACLIFF DR 2021-02-20 01:54:32 01:58:34 02:09:05 00:00:00 02:30:07 02:38:21 03:05:23 00:14:33 Distance
12154 SEAGATE DR 2021-02-01 04:18:57 04:21:35 04:34:07 00:00:00 04:55:03 05:12:18 05:30:31 00:15:10 Distance
12330 DIANORA DR 2021-02-01 15:30:04 15:31:23 15:46:06 15:53:37 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:16:02 Multiple Calls
Rancho Palos Verdes February 2021
685
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rancho Palos Verdes
February 2021
1-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
45 42 54 48 10 0 19954
30 32 42 42 10 0 156-10
15 10 12 6 0 0 43
Total Compliance:78.4%
Total Late
Date Period
02
30 32
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
41
10 156
0
2000
42
6
42
13 10 12
686
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
27,804 CALLE AVENTURA 2021-03-17 11:34:24 11:34:56 11:43:35 00:00:00 11:55:23 12:11:35 12:40:54 00:09:11 Multiple Calls
29812 MOUNT ROSE RD 2021-03-22 14:13:22 14:13:49 14:22:36 00:00:00 14:40:17 14:51:17 15:28:08 00:09:14 Multiple Calls
33,091 AVENIDA FELICIANO 2021-03-31 15:15:24 15:15:51 15:24:44 00:00:00 15:34:09 16:04:20 16:45:41 00:09:20 Multiple Calls
31,300 GRANDPOINT LN 2021-03-26 19:04:59 19:05:56 19:14:20 00:00:00 19:27:58 19:47:25 20:58:17 00:09:21 Multiple Calls
24,681 ENROSE AV 2021-03-08 08:22:20 08:23:35 08:31:51 00:00:00 08:47:55 08:52:10 09:09:25 00:09:31 Multiple Calls
24,163 PALOS VERDES DR S & TRUMP NATIONAL DR 2021-03-06 17:04:58 17:06:02 00:00:00 17:14:32 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:34 Extended Distance
32,220 HAWTHORNE BLVD 2021-03-29 09:26:22 09:26:58 09:36:05 00:00:00 09:48:00 09:58:58 10:25:14 00:09:43 Multiple Calls
31,986 COASTSITE DR 2021-03-28 16:46:57 16:47:41 16:56:42 00:00:00 17:24:26 17:41:31 18:14:31 00:09:45 Extended Distance
29745 CAYUSE LN 2021-03-22 11:18:26 11:18:57 11:28:13 00:00:00 11:39:45 11:54:46 12:39:56 00:09:47 Extended Distance
31,519 S WESTERN AV 2021-03-27 11:37:20 11:39:35 11:47:07 00:00:00 11:56:09 11:59:57 12:31:30 00:09:47 Multiple Calls
30,480 REDONDELA DR 2021-03-24 11:27:13 11:27:23 11:37:09 11:38:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:56 Crew Error
30,061 PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-03-23 08:47:48 08:49:11 08:57:45 09:11:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:57 Extended Distance
23,146 LA ROTONDA DR 2021-03-03 21:50:45 21:51:52 22:00:48 22:17:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:03 Extended Distance
27,239 BERRY HILL DR 2021-03-15 18:59:56 19:01:33 19:10:00 00:00:00 19:27:59 19:44:48 20:19:10 00:10:04 Extended Distance
32,823 PALOS VERDES DR W & HAWTHORNEBLVD 2021-03-30 20:55:27 20:56:55 21:05:34 00:00:00 21:15:41 21:29:18 22:31:21 00:10:07 Extended Distance
27,311 SANTA RENA DR 2021-03-16 00:59:21 00:59:59 01:09:32 00:00:00 01:19:19 01:25:54 01:40:30 00:10:11 Multiple Calls
23,791 SEAGLEN DR 2021-03-05 16:49:57 16:50:46 17:00:13 00:00:00 17:22:35 17:36:29 18:03:49 00:10:16 Extended Distance
25,524 CREST RD & PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-03-10 17:10:21 17:11:15 17:20:37 00:00:00 17:30:59 17:42:03 18:18:48 00:10:16 Extended Distance
32,876 VIA CAMBRON 2021-03-31 00:27:08 00:29:02 00:37:34 00:00:00 00:51:41 01:06:33 01:20:33 00:10:26 Extended Distance
22,699 S WESTERN AV 2021-03-02 15:51:04 15:51:50 00:00:00 16:01:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:26 Extended Distance
33,250 CALZADA DR 2021-03-31 22:38:25 22:39:46 22:48:51 00:00:00 23:03:03 23:08:56 23:32:56 00:10:26 Multiple Calls
32,431 HOMEWORTH DR 2021-03-29 19:23:35 19:24:21 19:34:06 00:00:00 19:43:46 20:08:19 20:48:34 00:10:31 Multiple Calls
30,137 CALLE QUIETA 2021-03-23 12:08:35 12:08:54 12:19:15 00:00:00 12:31:51 12:43:08 13:19:32 00:10:40 Multiple Calls
31,437 VIA CAMBRON 2021-03-27 06:16:38 06:19:21 06:27:23 00:00:00 06:41:06 07:05:54 07:16:34 00:10:45 Extended Distance
24,580 TARAPACA RD 2021-03-07 21:45:22 21:47:22 21:56:15 00:00:00 22:07:02 22:13:08 23:06:55 00:10:53 Extended Distance
31,223 MENOMINEE PL 2021-03-26 15:18:29 15:19:06 00:00:00 15:29:41 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:12 Multiple Calls
32,593 REDONDELA DR 2021-03-30 09:05:23 09:06:39 09:16:38 00:00:00 09:24:52 09:32:51 10:02:05 00:11:15 Multiple Calls
26,472 VISTA MADERA 2021-03-13 13:33:28 13:34:35 13:44:44 00:00:00 13:53:17 14:07:27 14:39:15 00:11:16 Multiple Calls
26,359 VIA CAMBRON 2021-03-13 06:19:50 06:22:27 06:31:12 00:00:00 06:43:25 06:57:17 07:14:57 00:11:22 Extended Distance
27,984 BARKENTINE RD & ARROWROOT LN 2021-03-17 19:06:47 19:08:47 19:18:09 00:00:00 19:27:45 19:43:43 20:15:40 00:11:22 Extended Distance
26,366 DAUNTLESS DR 2021-03-13 07:11:32 07:12:15 07:22:59 07:26:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:27 Extended Distance
28,569 NARCISSA DR 2021-03-19 10:38:12 10:39:13 10:49:40 11:09:48 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:28 Extended Distance
29,266 VIA VELARDO 2021-03-21 05:04:45 05:07:12 05:16:15 05:21:40 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:30 Extended Distance
25,900 COASTSITE DR 2021-03-11 19:27:46 19:29:32 19:39:20 00:00:00 20:02:45 20:23:18 20:54:34 00:11:34 Extended Distance
28,207 OCEAN TRAILS DR 2021-03-18 11:16:12 11:17:32 11:27:46 11:48:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:11:34 Extended Distance
32,199 PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-03-29 08:41:24 08:42:41 08:53:10 00:00:00 09:08:13 09:22:35 10:10:55 00:11:46 Extended Distance
29875 S WESTERN AV 2021-03-22 17:35:51 17:38:27 17:47:51 00:00:00 18:01:31 18:01:43 19:11:16 00:12:00 Multiple Calls
24,438 CINNAMON LN 2021-03-07 12:41:27 12:42:30 12:53:37 00:00:00 13:21:09 13:34:13 13:55:07 00:12:10 Extended Distance
31,274 PASEO DE LA LUZ 2021-03-26 17:50:06 17:52:17 18:02:21 00:00:00 18:14:47 18:31:17 19:44:50 00:12:15 Extended Distance
23,422 PALOS VERDES DR S 2021-03-04 16:15:18 16:17:38 16:27:39 16:33:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:21 Extended Distance
32,169 PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-03-29 06:00:06 06:01:55 06:12:30 00:00:00 06:29:26 06:42:47 07:11:15 00:12:24 Extended Distance
26,086 S WESTERN AV 2021-03-12 10:38:23 10:39:16 10:51:01 10:54:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:38 Multiple Calls
29635 VIA BARON 2021-03-22 03:27:33 03:30:03 03:40:16 00:00:00 04:01:08 04:14:04 04:29:22 00:12:43 Extended Distance
22,186 NARCISSA DR 2021-03-01 07:52:07 07:54:00 08:04:51 00:00:00 08:16:57 08:31:49 09:08:05 00:12:44 Extended Distance
Rancho Palos Verdes March 2021
687
27,804 CALLE AVENTURA 2021-03-17 11:34:24 11:34:56 11:43:35 00:00:00 11:55:23 12:11:35 12:40:54 00:09:11 Multiple Calls
22,262 SADDLE RD 2021-03-01 12:19:36 12:21:07 12:32:22 00:00:00 12:46:07 13:06:12 13:38:41 00:12:46 Extended Distance
28,307 AVENIDA APRENDA 2021-03-18 15:31:24 15:31:54 15:44:11 15:44:53 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:12:47 Multiple Calls
31,402 DIAMONTE LN 2021-03-27 02:01:31 02:04:49 02:14:22 00:00:00 02:27:52 02:43:12 03:05:20 00:12:51 Extended Distance
31,802 PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-03-28 05:55:16 05:58:03 06:08:27 00:00:00 06:25:11 06:33:33 06:58:05 00:13:11 Extended Distance
29966 S WESTERN AV 2021-03-22 23:08:12 23:10:25 23:21:35 00:00:00 23:39:11 23:40:40 00:03:44 00:13:23 Multiple Calls
28,092 VISTA PACIFICA 2021-03-18 01:57:07 01:59:32 02:10:41 03:22:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:13:34 Extended Distance
24,407 CALLE AVENTURA 2021-03-07 11:04:37 11:05:29 11:19:34 00:00:00 11:36:38 11:50:14 12:15:22 00:14:57 Extended Distance
30,525 SEA RAVEN DR 2021-03-24 13:26:13 13:27:06 13:41:12 00:00:00 14:04:47 14:26:39 15:35:44 00:14:59 Extended Distance
27,914 VIA RIVERA 2021-03-17 15:45:47 15:46:44 16:01:28 00:00:00 16:19:34 16:40:15 17:39:04 00:15:41 Multiple Calls
24,188 LA VISTA VERDE DR 2021-03-06 18:44:54 18:46:32 19:02:04 19:29:53 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:17:10 Extended Distance
688
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rancho Palos Verdes
March 2021
1-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28-31
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
43 45 38 64 37 0 22738
35 35 29 48 26 0 173-10
8 10 9 16 11 0 54
Total Compliance:76.2%
Total Late
Date Period
01
35 35
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
52
26 173
11
2010
48
16
29
7 10 8
689
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
6774 PALOS VERDES DR N & BRANDING IRON LN 2021-01-17 16:04:07 16:04:49 16:13:31 16:19:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:24 Multiple Calls
3626 PLEASANT HILL DR 2021-01-09 17:46:36 17:47:02 17:56:25 00:00:00 18:12:06 18:17:43 18:51:51 00:09:49 Multiple Calls
3,134 WILLOW WOOD RD 2021-01-08 14:00:56 14:04:15 14:11:12 00:00:00 14:19:53 14:31:20 15:32:44 00:10:16 Multiple Calls
8,018 HITCHING POST DR 2021-01-20 20:52:02 20:52:55 21:02:21 00:00:00 21:19:10 21:28:24 22:47:57 00:10:19 Multiple Calls
4,829 ROCKBLUFF DR 2021-01-12 18:07:47 18:08:45 18:20:30 00:00:00 18:34:57 18:57:24 20:16:19 00:12:43 Multiple Calls
Rolling Hills Estates January 2021
690
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rolling Hills Estates
January 2021
1-2 3-9 10-16 17-23 24-30 31
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
1 10 8 15 11 1 468
1 8 7 13 11 1 41-2
0 2 1 2 0 0 5
Total Compliance:89.1%
Total Late
Date Period
00
1 8
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
0 5
11 41
0
1
00000
13
2
7
0 2 1
691
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
20,089 GAUCHO DR 2021-02-23 10:13:12 10:13:56 10:22:29 00:00:00 10:50:56 11:03:13 11:28:48 00:09:17 Multiple Calls
Rolling Hills Estates February 2021
692
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rolling Hills Estates
February 2021
1-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
9 6 6 18 3 0 426
9 6 6 17 3 0 410
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total Compliance:97.6%
17
1
6
0 0 0
0000
1
3 41
0
Total Late
Date Period
00
9 6
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
693
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
32,667 CRENSHAW BLVD & PALOS VERDES DR N 2021-03-30 13:11:58 13:13:11 13:22:30 00:00:00 13:31:08 13:44:14 14:33:43 00:10:32 Error
Rolling Hills Estates March 2021
694
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rolling Hills Estates
March 2021
1-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28-31
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
13 11 5 15 8 0 525
13 11 5 15 7 0 510
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total Compliance:98.1%
Total Late
Date Period
00
13 11
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
1
7 51
1
0000
15
0
5
0 0 0
695
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
8919 REATA LN 2021-01-23 14:08:00 14:09:02 14:17:28 14:28:23 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:28 Distance
Rolling Hills January 2021
696
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rolling Hills
January 2021
1-2 3-9 10-16 17-23 24-30 31
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
1 1 1 2 1 0 61
1 1 1 1 1 0 50
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total Compliance:83.3%
Total Late
Date Period
00
1 1
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
0 1
1 5
0
0
00000
1
1
1
0 0 0
697
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
Rolling Hills February 2021
698
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rolling Hills
February 2021
1-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
3 2 0 2 0 0 70
3 2 0 2 0 0 70
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Compliance:100.0%
Total Late
Date Period
00
3 2
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
0
0 7
0
0000
2
0
0
0 0 0
699
Run #PU Address Date Call Start Enroute AtScene Cancel Transport Destination Available Response Notes
23,442 EASTFIELD DR 2021-03-04 16:52:53 16:53:53 17:02:37 17:45:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:09:44 Extended Distance
23,746 PALOS VERDES DR E 2021-03-05 14:42:01 14:42:45 14:52:03 00:00:00 15:07:56 15:18:05 16:02:36 00:10:02 Multiple Calls
30,831 EASTFIELD DR 2021-03-25 12:57:35 12:59:43 13:08:30 00:00:00 13:18:23 13:36:40 14:22:44 00:10:55 Extended Distance
24,298 POPPY TR 2021-03-07 00:40:19 00:42:45 00:52:40 00:00:00 01:34:43 01:34:49 02:36:14 00:12:21 Extended Distance
Rolling Hills March 2021
700
Westmed/McCormick Ambulance
Rolling Hills
March 2021
1-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28-31
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 Week 6 Total
4 4 1 2 3 0 141
2 3 1 1 3 0 10-1
2 1 0 1 0 0 4
Total Compliance:71.4%
1
1
1
2 1 0
0000
4
3 10
0
Total Late
Date Period
00
2 3
Response Period
0:00 to 8:59
9:00 to 14:59
15:00 +
Total Responses
Total On Time
701
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
INSTALLATION OF CITY SEALS ON SHERIFF VEHICLES
MAY 13, 2021
7-A
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW
Agenda Item No. 7-A
Meeting Date: 5-13-21 MEMORANDUM
TO: REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY MANAGERS
DATE: MAY 13, 2021
SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF CITY SEAL DECALS ON SHERIFF
VEHICLES
PREPARED BY: McKenzie Bright, Rancho Palos Verdes Administrative Analyst
RECOMMENDATIONS
1)Review potential options to consider installing joint city seals on Sheriff’s vehicles
and provide direction on the Committee’s preferred option; and
2)Direct Staff to return at the August 12, 2021 RCLC meeting with design approval
from the Sheriff’s Department and an update on the installation process.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Cities that contract with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department have the option to install
a decal of the city seal or logo on the rear passenger doors of many Sheriff’s vehicles.
In 2017, under Sheriff McDonnell, the Department stepped away from having city logos
alongside the Sheriff logo. However, Sheriff Villanueva indicated at the 33rd Annual
Contract City Managers’ Educational Seminar in March 2021 that he would like to see
city decals on every Sheriff vehicle.
In order to enhance visibility of the Sheriff’s deputies serving the cities of Rancho Palos
Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates, the RCLC may consider installing decals
on contracted vehicles. The benefit of having these logos, is to have a visible indication
that the Lomita Sheriff’s Station is serving the three cities on the Peninsula.
702
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
INSTALLATION OF CITY SEALS ON SHERIFF VEHICLES
MAY 13, 2021
7-A
However, as the Sheriff’s Department uses mutual aid, every vehicle on patrol on the
Peninsula may not belong to the Lomita Sheriff’s Station. A vehicle with a Peninsula
cities decal may be called to respond in other cities, or vehicles with other cities’ logos
may be called to assist on the Peninsula.
The image below illustrates a current example of an installed city logo.
The Sheriff’s Department can install city decals on any of the patrol cars assigned to the
Peninsula, at no cost to the cities.
Staff has prepared some options for combined-city decals. The first two options are of
the three cities on the Peninsula only, the third includes the City of Lomita. If the
Committee would like to move forward with the third option, Staff will work with the City
of Lomita to assess their interest. Having a four-city logo may maximize the potential for
having a vehicle with a logo responding to calls on the Peninsula.
Option 1: Clustered Peninsula Cities
Alternate text to consider: Proudly Serving Peninsula Cities
703
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
INSTALLATION OF CITY SEALS ON SHERIFF VEHICLES
MAY 13, 2021
7-A
Option 2: Evenly Spaced Peninsula Cities
Option 3: Cities of the Lomita Station Service Area
Below illustrates a mockup of each of the options on a Sheriff’s vehicle.
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
704
REGIONAL CONTRACT LAW COMMITTEE
INSTALLATION OF CITY SEALS ON SHERIFF VEHICLES
MAY 13, 2021
7-A
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the RCLC review and provide direction on installing city seals on
Sheriff vehicles. If the Committee would like to move forward with installing decals,
Staff will receive approval for the chosen design from the Sheriff’s Department and will
return at the August 13, 2021 RCLC meeting with an update on the installation process.
705
Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD'S RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S REQUEST TO
REDUCE THE MONITORING FREQUENCY TO MEET THE MACHADO
LAKE TRASH TMDL.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
On June 8, 2021, the City of Rolling Hills received a letter from the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board approving the City's request to revise its monitoring and reporting plan for
Machado Lake Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and
Offshore Debris TMDL.
DISCUSSION:
On June 17, 2019, the City of Rolling Hills submitted a letter to the Water Quality Board requesting to
reduce the frequency of Trash Monitoring and Reporting Plan (TMRP) within the TMDL areas down to
once every five years and immediately after the first major storm event of the year. The City's TMRP
submittals over the past 10 years have consistently shown zero trash discharge rate from the City. The
Water Board agreed to lower the frequency of reporting down to once per year and after the first major
storm event of the year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Rolling_Hills_Response_TMRP_FINAL.pdf
706
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
June 3, 2021
Elaine Jeng
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO REVISE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS’ MONITORING AND
REPORTING PLAN FOR MACHADO LAKE TRASH TMDL AND SANTA MONICA BAY
NEARSHORE AND OFFSHORE DEBRIS TMDL
Dear Elaine Jeng:
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Water Board)
adopted the Machado Lake Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) under Resolution
No. R4-2007-006 on June 7, 2007. This TMDL was subsequently approved by the State
Water Resources Control Board on December 4, 2007, the Office of Administrative Law
on February 8, 2008, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency on
February 27, 2008.
The Los Angeles Water Board adopted the Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore
Debris TMDL under Resolution No. R10-2010-010 on November 4, 2010. This TMDL was
then approved by the State Water Resources Control Board on December 6, 2011, the
Office of Administrative Law on March 15, 2012, and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency on March 20, 2012.
The City of Rolling Hills (City) has been implementing a Trash Monitoring and Reporting
Plan (TMRP) required for compliance with the Machado Lake Trash TMDL and the Santa
Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL. The TMRP for the Machado Lake
Trash TMDL was submitted on August 29, 2008 and approved by the Executive Officer
of the Los Angeles Water Board on December 9, 2008. A revised TMRP was submitted
by the City on December 7, 2011 and approved by the Executive Officer on March 5,
2012. The revision reduced the frequency of monitoring events from quarterly and
immediately following the first major storm event of the year, to twice a year and
immediately following the first major storm event of the year beginning April 2012.
707
Elaine Jeng, City of Rolling Hills - 2 -
The Regional Board is in receipt of the City’s letter dated June 17, 2019, requesting that
the frequency of monitoring events be further reduced from twice a year and immediately
following the first major storm event of the year to once every 5 years.
In the City’s TMRP annual reports for both the Machado Lake Trash TMDL and the Santa
Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL submitted over the past 10 years, the
annual trash discharge rates were zero or close to zero since 2011, indicating that the
City has reduced its trash generation by 100% or nearly 100% through its existing
minimum frequency of collection and assessment/best management practice
(MFAC/BMP) program.
Based on the information provided in the City’s TMRP annual reports, the Los Angeles
Water Board finds that reducing the frequency of monitoring in the Machado Lake and
Santa Monica Bay watersheds is warranted. In order to ensure that trash does not
accumulate in deleterious amounts between collection events, the City of Rolling Hills
shall monitor once a year immediately following the first major storm of the year.
The Los Angeles Water Board appreciates the efforts put forth by the City to improve
water quality and protect the beneficial uses of Machado Lake and Santa Monica Bay.
However, continued regular annual monitoring is important and necessary to ensure that
the effectiveness of the MFAC/BMP program is not compromised and that the low trash
discharge condition remains unchanged over time.
If you have any questions, please contact Los Angeles Water Board staff Alexander
Prescott at (213) 576-6804 or alexander.prescott@waterboards.ca.gov
Sincerely,
Renee Purdy
Executive Officer
cc: Meredith Elguira, Planning & Community Services Director, City of Rolling Hills
Kathleen McGowan, McGowan Consulting LLC
708
Agenda Item No.: 11.B
Mtg. Date: 06/14/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CALRECYCLE'S AB 939 2016-2019 JURISDICTION REVIEW UPDATE.
DATE:June 14, 2021
BACKGROUND:
On May 27, 2021, the City of Rolling Hills received notification that the City is meeting and
implementing the requirements of AB 939. CalRecycle has finalized its 2016-2019 Jurisdiction Review
and found that the City is in compliance with its Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and
Household Hazardous Waste Element (HWWE) programs.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
2016-19 Jurisdiction Review Item G.5.pdf
709
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 4025, Sacramento, CA 95812
www.CalRecycle.ca.gov (916) 322-4027
California Environmental Protection Agency Gavin Newsom California Governor
Jared Blumenfeld Secretary for Environmental Protection
Department of Rachel Machi Wagoner Resources Recycling and Recovery CalRecycle Director
May 27, 2021
Dear Stakeholder:
We are writing to inform you that CalRecycle’s 2016-2019 Jurisdiction Review has been
finalized. CalRecycle has found that the Jurisdiction is meeting the requirements of AB 939
and is implementing its Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household
Hazardous Waste Element (HWWE), Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR) and/or
Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (MORe) programs. Note: If a Jurisdiction has
received a rural exemption related to its MORe program, that program element was not
considered as part of this review.
The Request for Approval with the review findings can be found at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/PublicNotices/Details/4412.
We commend the Jurisdiction for continuing to dedicate resources to meeting the requirements
of AB 939. Your efforts are helping to conserve natural resources, strengthen the State’s
economy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the Jurisdiction should be well-
positioned to implement new requirements under SB 1383 that go into effect January 1, 2022.
If you have any questions, please contact your LAMD representative
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Contacts/.
Sincerely,
Cara Morgan, Branch Chief
Local Assistance and Market Development
710