Amendment to the Housing Element of the Gen Plan F-98RESOLUTION NO. 6_60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 1991 HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 65588(a), the City of Rolling Hills has reviewed the
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City and has
determined that it is appropriate to revise that Element to
reflect the results of this review.
SECTION 2. The City prepared a draft revised Housing Element
and submitted it to the state Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for review on November 5, 1991 pursuant to
Government Code Section 65585(b). HCD's comments on the draft
were received by the City in the form of a letter dated December
20, 1991.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352,copies
of the revised draft have been provided to the Cities of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, the County of Los
Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation
Commission.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000
et seq. ("CEQA"), 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 the
adoption of the revised 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.
SECTION 5. A duly noticed public hearing before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed negative declaration and the
revised Housing Element was held on November 19, 1991 at which
time public comments on the negative declaration and revised
Housing Element were received by the Commission. A duly notice
public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed
negative declaration and the revised Housing Element was held on
December 23, 1991 at which time further public comments were
received by the Council.
SECTION 6.
a644.mgc
Based upon the facts contained in this
resolution, those contained in the staff reports and other
components of the legislative record, those contained in the
proposed negative declaration and revised Housing Element, and
the public comments received by the Planning Commission and City
Council, and the written recommendation of the Planning
Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65354, the City
Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) The City Council considered the proposed negative
declaration together with comments upon it received in the public
review process and finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the adoption of the revised Housing Element will have a
significant effect on the environment.
(b) The City has reviewed the Housing Element
Guidelines adopted by HCD pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health
and Safety Code and the findings contained in HCD's comment
letter of December 20, 1991. The City Council has revised the
draft in response to some of those comments and finds that it is
not necessary to make changes in response to other comments for
the reasons stated by the City's consultant in a letter to the
City Manager dated December 23, 1991 which is incorporated
herein as if set out in full.
(c) The revised Housing Element is in full compliance
with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65580 -
65589.8 as demonstrated by the analysis set forth by the
consultant's letter of December 23, 1991 and in the element
itself.
(d) The revised Housing Element is consistent with the
other elements of the General Plan because the revised Housing
Element uses the land use designations of the Land Use Element
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 revised Housing Element are appropriate for the City of
Rolling Hills and will contribute to the attainment of the state
housing goal.
(f) The adoption of the revised Housing Element will
aid the City's efforts to assist in the development of housing
for all members of the community.
(g) For the foregoing reasons, the adoption of the
revised Housing Element is in the public interest.
SECTION 7. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills
hereby adopts the proposed negative declaration and approves the
revised draft Housing Element, as amended by the suggested
a644.mgc
changes stated in the consultant's letter of December 23, 1991,
as the 1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute
copies of the 1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City of Rolling Hills as provided in Section 65357 of the
California Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23d day of December 1991.
ATTEST.:
Cit Clerk
B. AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY
OP ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE BETWEEN
COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES, INC. AND THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS.
City Manager Nealis advised that the City entered into a
contractual relationship with Cotton/Beland/Associates prior to
1991 for services to update the_ City's_ General Planandand Zoning
Ordinance documents. All elements of the General Plan have been
completed and adopted, and the Zoning Ordinance now needs to be
brought up to date. The proposed amendment provides that this be
accomplished at a cost not to exceed $8,850. It is expected that
the final document will be available in late July or early August.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the amendment.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson moved adoption of the Amendment to the
Professional Services Agreement, Councilmember Heinsheimer seconded
and the motion passed without objection.
C\ -cam Co L3 VAN
City 0/ Rollin
C�
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 .
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
May 15, 1992
Ms. Rebecca Hoepcke
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third Street, Room 430
P.O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS' ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT
Dear Ms. Hoepcke:
In response to the letter from Deputy Director Cook, dated May 4, 1992, we have
attached a copy of Resolution No. 660: A Resolution of the City of Rolling Hills
adopting the 1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills
and a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Also attached is a letter from the City's consultant to the, City Manager, dated
December 23, 1991. which is incorporated in the Resolution as if set out in full.
When you have reviewed these documents. kindly let us know if our Housing
Element now complies with state law.
LOLA M. UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
cc: Ms. Karen Warner, AICP
Mr. Michael G. Colantuono
•
RESOLUTION NO. (LGQ
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 1991 HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 65588(a), the City of Rolling Hills has reviewed the
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City and has
determined that it is appropriate to revise that Element to
reflect the results of this review.
SECTION 2. The City prepared a draft revised Housing Element
and submitted it to the state Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for review on November 5, 1991 pursuant to
Government Code Section 65585(b). HCD's comments on the draft
were received by the City in the form of a letter dated December
20, 1991.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352, copies
of the revised draft have been provided to the Cities of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, the County of Los
Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation
Commission.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000
et seq. ("CEQA"), 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 the
adoption of the revised 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.
SECTION 5. A duly noticed public hearing before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed negative declaration and the
revised Housing Element was held on November 19, 1991 at which
time public comments on the negative declaration and revised
Housing Element were received by the Commission. A duly notice
public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed
negative declaration and the revised Housing Element was held on
December 23, 1991 at which time further public comments were
received by the Council.
SECTION 6.
a644.mgc
Based upon the facts contained in this
resolution, those contained in the staff reports and other
components of the legislative record, those contained in the
proposed negative declaration and revised Housing Element, and
the public comments received by the Planning Commission and City
Council, and the written recommendation of the Planning
Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65354, the City
Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) The City Council considered the proposed negative
declaration together with comments upon it received in the public
review process and finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the adoption of the revised Housing Element will have a
significant effect on the environment.
(b) The City has reviewed the Housing Element
Guidelines adopted by HCD pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health
and Safety Code and the findings contained in HCD's comment
letter of December 20, 1991. The City Council has revised the
draft in response to some of those comments and finds that it is
not necessary to make changes in response to other comments for
the reasons stated by the City's consultant in a letter to the
City Manager dated December 23, 1991 which is incorporated
herein as if set out in. full.
(c) The revised Housing Element is in full compliance
with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65580 -
65589.8 as demonstrated by the analysis set forth by the
consultant's letter of December 23, 1991 and in the element
itself.
(d) The revised Housing Element is consistent with the
other elements of the General Plan because the revised Housing
Element uses the land use designations of the Land Use Element
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 revised Housing Element are appropriate for the City of
Rolling Hills and will contribute to the attainment of the state
housing goal.
(f) The adoption of the revised Housing Element will
aid the City's efforts to assist in the development of housing
for all members of the community.
(g) For the foregoing reasons, the adoption of the
revised Housing Element is in the public interest.
SECTION 7. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills
hereby adopts the proposed negative declaration and approves the
revised draft Housing Element, as amended by the suggested
a644.mgc
changes stated in the consultant's letter of December 23, 1991,
as the 1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute
copies of the 1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City of Rolling Hills as provided in Section 65357 of the
California Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23d day of December 1991.
ATTEST:
Cit Clerk
COTTON/BELANI)/ASSOCIATES, INC.
tUKBAN A\t) FNVIRU'`MLN1AI PLA'`NINE•.C-O\St,LTA%1S
December 23, 1991
tbd
Mr. Craig Ncalis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT
Dear Mr. Ncalis:
1 have reviewed the State Department of Housing and Co ununity
191draft Development's (HCD) comment letter on the October 23, Rolling
Hills housing Element; I have included a copy of the State's letter as an
appendix for your reference.
The State's few comments almost wholly pertain to the issue of adequate zoning
for the nine low and moderate income housing units identified as the City's
regional need. In my opinion, the Housing Element well documents the
overriding constraints to providing multi -family development in thc City. I have
prepared the following "response to comments" to clearly identify how each of
the State's comments pertaining to affordable housing development are already
fully addressed in the Element. I do however suggest a program be added to the
element to address thc State's concerns regarding implementation of fair housing
policies, and have included proposed wording.
HCD Comment: "The land inventory still does not include land zoned for
multi -family housing or demonstrate how existing zoning allows the development
of housing for low and moderate income households. In our opinion, in order to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need for low -and
moderate -income households, sites should bee a d at two h mum
higher
densities.
The only
two zones listed in the element provide for o
densities."
Response: As described on pages 27 - 29 of the Housing Element, tiiitually all
the land in Rolling Hills is subject to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) established in 1936. These CC&Rs set forth two classifications of
property and restrict the use of property in 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 for commercial, office or
747 CAS1 C;REEN STRfl1 SUIIC 400• r4SAULKA, CALIFOKN1A 91101
($IA) Ju4-0101 FAX (81813'J4 Our
1,19 sourli vutcAN AVENUE St11TE Ins • ENCINITA' . LAI lfoilNIA 92n:4
(419) 911.4194 FAX (614, 9;2!)043
Mr. Craig Nealis
December 23, 1991
Page 2
industrial activity. Modifying the City's zoning to allow for increased residential
densities would not alter the development limitations dictated by the CC&Rs.
Hence, the City's zoning standards arc not an effective constraint to housing
supply.
In addition to the CC&Rs, several environmental and infrastructure limitations
preclude multi -family development in Rolling Hills; these factors arc discussed on
pages 34-35 of the Element. Soils and geologic conditions place great constraints
on development in Rolling Hills. The City has experienced major landslides due
to soil saturation and instability, and numerous active landslides continue to
render significant areas of the City unsafe for _development. New homes in
Rolling Hills must utilize septic tanks and leach fields for disposal of sanitary
waste due to the lack of sanitary sewers in most of the City. Past experience
suggests substantial care and restraint must be exercised in the expansion of any
existing systems or the addition of new systems to avoid possible ground
instability due to saturation of upper soil layers. This situation and existing
infrastructure constraints act to limit densities in the City.
HCD Comment: "llic element's programs do not address the City's need for
low -and moderate -income housing. Additional programs should be included
which clearly indicate the actions Rolling Hills will take to implement the
programs and which describe how the City will utilize its land use controls,
regulatory concessions and incentives, and appropriatefederal and state financing
programs to facilitate the development of low -and moderate -income housing."
Response: The Implementing Programs section of the revised draft Housing
Element (pages 46-51) is substantially expanded to include a comprehensive list
of programs the City intends to implement to address its housing needs.
Programs arc included which utilize land use controls, regulatory concessions and
incentives, and federal financing programs to facilitate the development of low
and moderate income housing. Such programs include: Congregate Housing for
Seniors, an Assessment Fee Program, Facilitate New Construction, Density Bonus
Program, Neighborhood Sponsored Sewer Districts, and Housing Repair and
Temporary Shelter on Landslide Sites.
As described on pages 32-33 and in Appendix A of the Element, Rolling Hills is
not eligible to receive funding under most State and Federal housing assistance
programs. The absence of an "in -need" population or deteriorated housing in
Rolling Hills renders the City ineligible for most types of governmental housing
assistance. In addition, high rental values in the City preclude the use of I IUD
rental assistance programs. The City will :ontinue to contribute what federal
housing monies it does receive through the CDBG program to nearby
Mr. Craig Ncalis
December 23, 1991
Page 3
jurisdictions where land is less expensive to be explicitly used for the construction
of affordable senior citizen housing.
HCD Comment: 'The element contains a density bonus program which appears
to be inconsistent with State law because, among othcr things, the element does
not include actions to mitigate the impact of the density restrictions of existing
CC&Rs."
Response: No provision of the State density bonus law (Section 65915-65918 of
the Government Code) requires a jurisdiction to mitigate the impacts of
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the ability of that jurisdiction
to grant a density bonus. It is not clear that the City has any legal authority to
modify the development limitations imposed by the CC&Rs. The only relevant
case law of which we arc aware involved courts which refused to enforce CC&Rs
which imposed occupancy limitations based race and ethnicity. If theoretically
there were a way for the City to modify the CC&Rs, there would be a substantial
cost associated with both the litigation required to receive a court ruling, and rights.thc
necessary compensation to property owners for the taking of their propery for such
As noted on page 34 of the Element, the City lacks thc resources to pay
legal fees or property owner compensation, or to otherwise subsidize housing
costs.
HCD Comment: "The element should include program actions to address, and
when appropriate and legally possible remove governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income groups
(Section 65583(c)(4)). For example, current zoning does not allow multifamily
development. Land use policies are described in the element but specific
program actions to mitigate their impact onlow-and moderate -income housing
opportunities are not included.
Response: As described on page 29 of the Housing Element, development in
Rolling Hills is controlled through both City enforced housing adpri v lotely .
increasing CC&Rs. City zoningdoes not in itself constrain
Reducing zoning standards or densities would not modify thc
development limitations dictated by the CC&Rs, which in effect control density.
Thus, as demonstrated on pages 28-34 of the Element, there arc no actual
governmental constraints to housing supply which it is appropriate and legally
possible for the City to remove.
The Housing Element does contain program actions to .facilitate thc development
of low and moderate income housing, including Congregate Housing for Seniors
and Density Bonus programs. In addition, we suggest the following be added to
Mr. Craig Ncalis
December 23, 1991
Page 4
the third paragraph on page 28 after the sentence which ends "split-level
residences to allow greater height.":
'These height limitations reflect the requirements of the CC&R's
and therefore do not themselves constrain housing supply."
HCD Comment: "Include a program action to_ promote housing opportunities -for
all persons (Section 65583(c)(5)). In our opinion, a fair housing program should
include an information dissemination component to guarantee full utilization of
the housing discrimination referral program. For example, the City could
publicize the complaint referral agency through the local media, schools, libraries,
the post offlce, tgoals to address the abovnter, or e areas but does not advocacyh housing udeuspecis. fce
element includes g
program actions to accomplish stated goals and policies."
Response: We suggest the following program be added to page 51 of the
Housing Element to implement the City's fair housing policy:
"Fair Housing Program
As a participating City in the Urban County Community
Development Block Grant Program, Rolling Hills cooperates with
the Fair Housing Congress of Southern California through the Long
Beach Fair Housing Foundation to enforce fair housing laws. 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.
Quantified Objective: Provide informational brochures at the public
counter and local library, and place period:c advertisements in the
local newspaper.
Funding Source: CDBG, City budgets.
Mr. Craig Ncalis
December 23, 1991
Page S
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: One Year?
We look forward to adoption of the housing Element.
Sincerely,
4ad&-Md . u
Karen A. Warncr AICP
MS84.02/c
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
F-1 s'
PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800THIRD STREET, Room 430
P.O BOX 952053
SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053
(916) 323-3176 FAX (916) 323-6625
May 4, 1992
Mr. Craig R. Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
MAY 0 6 1992
CITY rr ROLLING HILLS
Dear Mr. Nealis:
Re: Review of the City of Rolling Hills, Adopted Housing
Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Rolling Hills' adopted
housing element, received for our review on January 9, 1992. We
have reviewed the adopted element pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(h).
Our December 20, 1991 review letter indicated that the
City's -draft element needed certain revisions to comply with
state housing element law. We note that the City has expanded
the fair housing program to make information available through
the library, public counters, and in the media.
However, we are disappointed to see that the City has not
addressed our other comments and, in particular, has failed to
identify sites to accommodate its regional share of housing need.
Beyond the fair housing program, the adopted element appears to
be essentially unchanged with respect to our previous comments,
and, therefore still requires revisions to bring the element into
compliance with state housing element law (Article 10.6 of the
Government Code). Our December 20, 1991 review letter (enclosed)
describes our recommended revisions.
In addition, Section 65585 (f)(2) of Article 10.6 of the
Government Code requires that, where a draft element does not
substantially comply with the requirements of this article and
the legislative body adopts the draft element without changes,
the legislative body shall include in its resolution of adoption
written findings which explain the reasons the legislative body
believes that the draft element substantially complies with the
requirements of this article despite the findings of the
department. Resolution 660 dated December 23, 1991 adopting the
draft element does not adopt findings as required by the law.
•
Mr. Craig R. Nealis
Page 2
For your information, Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991 made
changes to housing element law that impact the City's housing
element. The legislation became effective January 1, 1992.
Rolling Hills should incorporate the appropriate revisions into
its current element. The City should pay particular attention to
the new requirement relating to the identification of adequate
sites which now requires that:
"where the inventory of sites ... does not identify
adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of
all household income levels ... 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.
For purposes of this paragraph, the phrase "use by
right" shall mean the use does not require a
conditional use permit, except when the proposed
project is a mixed -use project involving both
commercial and residential uses. Use by right for all
rental multifamily residential housing shall be
provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section
65589.5."
A copy of the amended housing element law with the changes
underlined is also enclosed.
We hope that the City will consider our review comments and
revise the element to comply with state law. If you have any
questions about our comments or would like assistance in the
revision of your housing element, please contact Rebecca Hoepcke
of our staff at (916) 327-4076.
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the organizations
and persons listed below.
Sincerely,
koht
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Enclosures
• •
Mr. Craig R. Nealis
Page 3
cc: Karen Warner, Cotton/Beland/Associates
Gary Colyear
Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley
Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach
David Booher, California Housing Council
Maya Dunne, City of Irvine
Karen Warner, Cotton/Beland/Associates
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
r i
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
PETE WILSON. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 THIRD STREET, Room 430
P.O. BOX 952053
SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053
(916) 323-3176 FAX (916) 323-6625
December 20, 1991
Mr. Terrence Belanger
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. Belanger:
j '( 0 61992
CITY .OF ROLLING HILLS
RE: Review of City of Rolling Hills' Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Rolling Hills' draft housing
element, received for our review on November 6, 1991. As you
know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report
our findings to the locality (Government Code 65585(b)).
Our review was facilitated by telephone conversations with
the City's consultant, Karen Warner, including one on
December 18, 1991. This letter summarizes the results of that
conversation.
The Rolling Hills element amendment responds to some of the
issues in our December 12, 1989 review letter. In our opinion,
however, there are several areas which require revisions to bring
the element into compliance with state housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular the element
still does not include adequate sites to accommodate low- and
moderate -income households in the City. The element should:
1. Identify adequate sites available for the construction
of housing to meet the City's identified needs (Section
655583 (c) (1)) . The sites identified for potential
residential development should be able to accommodate
housing which will meet the projected need by income
level.
The land inventory still does not include land zoned
for multifamily housing or demonstrate how existing
zoning allows the development of housing for low- and
moderate -income households. In our opinion, in order
to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing
need for low- and moderate -income households, sites
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 3
We understand. that the City has made a decision to not
address housing needs through modification of current land use
policies and programs, but has made a commitment to continue
assisting low- and moderate -income households through existing
arrangements with the City of Lomita. However, the City is still
responsible for accommodating its regional share of identified
need in the City.
We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have
any questions about our comments, please contact William Andrews
of our staff at (916) 323-7271. We look forward to receiving a
copy of the adopted element pursuant to Government Code Section
65585(h).
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Housing Policy Development
cc: Karen Warner, Cotton Beland and Associates
Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley
Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach
David Booher, California Housing Council
Maya Dunne, City of Irvine
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry
Association
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 3
We understand that the City has made a decision to not
address housing needs through modification of current land use
policies and programs, but has made a commitment to continue
assisting low- and moderate -income households through existing
arrangements with the City of Lomita. However, the City is still
responsible for accommodating its regional share of identified
need in the City.
We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have
any questions about our comments, please contact William Andrews
of our staff at (916) 323-7271. We look forward to receiving a
copy of the adopted element pursuant to Government Code Section
65585(h).
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Housing Policy Development
cc: Karen Warner, Cotton Beland and Associates
Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley
Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach
David Booher, California Housing Council
Maya Dunne, City of Irvine
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry
Association
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
(As of January 1,1992)
Article 10.6. Housing Elements
65580. 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 California family 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.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65581. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
article:
(a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their
responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state
housing goal.
(b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and
implement housing elements which, along with federal and state
programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal.
(c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of
determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the
attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination
is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing
needs.
(d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with other
local governments in order to address regional housing needs.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65582. As used in this article:
(a) "Community," "locality ," "local government," or
"jurisdiction," means a city, city and county, or county.
(b) "Council of governments" means a single or multicounty
council created by a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 6500) of Division 1 of Title 1.
(c) "Department" means the Department of Housing and Community
• •
Development.
(d) "Housing element" or "element" means the housing element
of the community's general plan, as required pursuant to this
article and subdivision (c) of Section 65302.
(e) "Low- and moderate -income households" means persons and
families of low or moderate incomes as defined by section 50093 of
the Health and Safety Code.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143., Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch.
1140. Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441.)
65583. The housing element shall consist of an identification and
analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of
goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for
the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The
housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing,
including rental housing, factory -built housing, and mobilehomes,
and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected
needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall
contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of
resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.
The assessment and inventory shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and
documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's
existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These
existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of
the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.
(2) An analysis and documentation of household
characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to
pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing
stock condition.
(3) An inventory of land suitable for residential
development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for
redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and
public facilities and services to these sites.
(4) An analysis of potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or 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.
(5) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including the availability of
financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.
(6) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those
of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families
with female heads of households, and families and persons in need
of emergency shelter.
(7) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with
respect to residential development.
(8) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments
2
that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the
next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage
prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. "Assisted
housing developments," for the purpose of this section, shall mean
multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance
under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section
65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local
redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block
Grant Program, or local in -lieu fees. "Assisted housing
developments" shall also include multifamily rental units that were
developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used
to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65916.
(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development
by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance
received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use
and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be
lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year
during the 10 -year period. For purposes of state and federally
funded projects,the analysis required by this subparagraph need
only contain information available on a statewide basis.
(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing
new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to
replace the units that could change from low-income use, and an
estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments.
This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately
for each five-year period and does not have to contain a project by
project cost estimate.
(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit
corporations known to the local government which have legal and
managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing
developments.
(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all
federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs which can
be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted
housing developments,: identified in this paragraph, including, but
not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program
funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of
the community, and administrative fees received by a housing
authority operating within the community. In considering the use
of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall
identify the amounts of funds under each available program which
have not been legally obligated for other purposes and which could
be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.
(b) (1) A statement of the community's goals, quantified
objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation,
improvement, and development of housing.
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified
pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the
community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the
general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with
Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified
objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The
3
quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing
units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated,
and conserved over a five-year time period.
(c) A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of
actions 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, provision of regulatory concessions and
incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state
financing and subsidy programs when available and the utilization
of moneys in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund of an agency if
the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant
to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with
Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code). In order to make
adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments
of the community, the program shall do all of the following:
(1) 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 multifamily rental housing, factory -built
housing, mobilehomes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing
in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in
subdivision (b). 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. For
purposes of this paragraph, the phrase "use by right" shall mean
the use does not require a conditional use permit, except when the
proposed project is a mixed -use project involving both commercial
and residential uses. Use by right for all rental multifamily
residential housing shall be provided in accordance with
subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.
(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the
needs of low- and moderate -income households.
(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible,
remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing.
(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing
affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to
mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private
action.
(5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless
of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin,
or color.
(6) (A) Preserve for lower income households the assisted
housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of
subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted
4
• •
housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all
available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs
identified in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), except where a
community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding
sources are not available. The program may include strategies that
involve local regulation and technical assistance.
(B) The program shall include an identification of the
agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the
various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved
with other general plan elements and community goals. 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.
(d) The analysis and program for preserving assisted housing
developments required by the amendments to this section enacted by
the Statutes of 1989 shall be adopted as an amendment to the
housing element by July 1, 1992.
(e) Failure of the department to review and report its
findings pursuant to Section 65585 to the local government between
July 1, 1992, and the next periodic review and revision required by
Section 65588, concerning the housing element amendment required by
the amendments to this section by the Statutes of 1989, shall not
be used as a basis for allocation or denial of any housing
assistance administered pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section
50400) of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691, § 3, eff. Sept 30, 1984;
Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 1383, § 2; Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch.
1140, § 2; Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1451, § 1.5; Amended by
Stats. 1991, Ch. 730 (A.B. 1929), § 1; Amended by Stats. 1991, Ch.
889 (S.B. 1019), § 2.)
Note: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691, also reads:
SEC. 1. The Legislature finds and declares that because of
economic, physical, and mental conditions that are beyond their
control, thousands of individuals and families in California are
homeless. Churches, local governments, and nonprofit organizations
providing assistance to the homeless have been overwhelmed by a new
class of homeless: families with children, individuals with
employable skills, and formerly middle-class families and
individuals with long work histories.
The programs provided bt the state, local, and federal
governments, and by private institutions, have been unable to meet
existing needs and further action is necessary. The Legislature
finds and declares that two levels of housing assistance are
needed: an emergency fund to supplement temporary shelter programs,
and a fund to facilitate the preservation of existing housing and
the creation of new housing units affordable to very low income
households. It is in the public interest for the State of
California to provide this assistance.
The Legislature further finds and declares that there is a
need for more information on the numbers of homeless and the causes
5
•
of homelessness, and for systematic exploration of more
comprehensive solutions to the problem. Both local and state
government have a role to play in identifying, understanding, and
devising solutions to the problem of homelessness.
Note: Stats. 1986, Ch. 1383, also reads:
SEC. 3. The amendments to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of
Section 65583 of the Government Code made by the act adding this
section during the 1986 Regular Session of the Legislature shall
require an identification of sites for emergency shelters and
transitional housing by January 1, 1988, or by the next periodic
review of a housing element pursuant to Section 65588 of the
Government Code, whichever is later, in order to give local
governments adequate time to plan for, and to assist in the
development of, housing for homeless persons, if it is determined
that there is a need for emergency shelter pursuant to paragraph
(6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 of the Government Code.
Note: Stats. 1991, Ch. 889, also reads:
SEC. 5. The additional requirements and duties created by
Sections 1, 2, and 4 of this act shall be applicable upon the next
amendment or periodic review of the housing element by the
legislative body.
65584. (a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the
share of a city or county of the regional housing needs includes
that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels
within the area significantly affected by a general plan of the
city or county. The distribution of regional housing needs shall,
based upon available data, take into consideration market demand
for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable
sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of
housing need, the loss of units contained in assisted housing
developments, as defined in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of
Section 65583, that changed to non -low-income use through mortgage
prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use
restrictions, and the housing needs of farmworkers. The
distribution shall seek to reduce the concentration of lower income
households in cities or counties which already have
disproportionately high proportions of lower income households.
Based upon data provided by the Department of Finance, in
consultation with each council of government, the Department of
Housing and Community Development shall determine the regional
share of the statewide housing need at least two years prior to the
second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant
to Section 65588. Based upon data provided by the department
relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of
governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need
for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this
determination, the department shall ensure that this determination
is consistent with the statewide housing need. The department may
revise the determination of the council of governments if necessary
6
• •
to obtain this consistency. The appropriate council of governments
shall determine the share for each city or county consistent with
the criteria of this subdivision and with the advice of the
department subject to the procedure established pursuant to
subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and
at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to
Section 65588. The council of governments shall submit to the
department information regarding the assumptions and methodology to
be used in allocating the regional housing need. As part of the
allocation of the regional housing need, the council of
governments, or the department pursuant to subdivision (b), shall
provide each city and county with data describing the assumptions
and methodology used in calculating its share of the regional
housing need. The department shall submit to each council of
governments information regarding the assumptions and methodology
to be used in allocating the regional share of the statewide
housing need. As part of its determination of the regional share
of the statewide housing need, the department shall provide each
council of governments with data describing the assumptions and
methodology used in calculating its share of the statewide housing
need. The councils of governments shall provide each city and
county with the department's information.
(b) For areas with no council of governments, the department
shall determine housing market areas and define the regional
housing need for cities and counties within these areas pursuant to
the provisions for the distribution of regional housing needs in
subdivision (a). Where the department determines that a city or
county possesses the capability and resources and has agreed to
accept the responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for
the identification and determination of housing market areas and
regional housing needs, the department shall delegate this
responsibility to the cities and counties within these areas.
(c) (1) Within 90 days following a determination of a council
of governments pursuant to subdivision (a), or the department's
determination pursuant to subdivision (b), a city or county may
propose to revise the determination of its share of the regional
housing need in accordance with the considerations set forth in
subdivision (a). The proposed revised share shall be based upon
available data and accepted planning methodology, and supported by
adequate documentation.
(2) Within 60 days after the time period for the revision by
the city or county, the council of governments or the department,
as the case may be, shall accept the proposed revision, modify its
earlier determination, or indicate, based upon available data and
accepted planning methodology, why the proposed revision is
inconsistent with the regional housing need.
(A) If the council of governments or the department, as the
case may be, does not accept the proposed revision, then the city
or county shall have the right to request a public hearing to
review the determination within 30 days.
(B) The city or county shall be notified within 30 days by
certified mail, return receipt requested, of at least one public
7
hearing regarding the determination.
(C) The date of the hearing shall be at least 30 days from the
date of the notification.
(D) Before making its final determination, the council of
governments or the department, as the case may be, shall consider
comments, recommendations, available data, accepted planning
methodology, and local geological and topographic restraints on the
production of housing.
(3) If the council of governments or the department accepts
the proposed revision or modifies its earlier determination, the
city or county shall use that share. If the council of governments
or the department grant a revised allocation pursuant to paragraph
(1), the council of governments or the department shall ensure that
the current total housing need is maintained. If the council of
governments or department indicates that the proposed revision is
inconsistent with the regional housing need, the city or county
shall use the share which was originally determined by the council
of governments or the department.
(4) The determination of the council of governments or the
department, as the case may be, shall be subject to judicial review
pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure..
(5) The council of governments or the department shall reduce
the share of regional housing needs of a county if all of the
following conditions are met:
(A) One or more cities within the county agree to increase its
share its share or their shares in an amount which will make up for
the reduction. -
(B) The transfer of shares shall only occur between a county
and cities within that county.
(C) The county's share of low-income and very low income
housing shall be reduced only in proportion to the amount by which
the county's share of moderate- and above moderate -income housing
is reduced.
(D) The council of governments or the department, whichever
assigned the county's share, shall have authority over the approval
of the proposed reduction, taking into consideration the criteria
of subdivision (a) of Section 65584.
(6) The housing element shall contain an analysis of the
factors and circumstances, with all supporting data, justifying the
revision. All materials and data used to justify any revision
shall be made available upon request by any interested party within
seven days upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction unless
the costs are waived due to economic hardship.
(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any ordinance,
policy, or standard of a city or county which directly limits, by
number, the building permits which may be issued for residential
construction, or which limits for a set period of time the number
of buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes,
shall not be a justification for a determination or a reduction in
the share of a city or county of the regional housing need.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any city or county which
imposes a moratorium on residential construction for a set period
8
• •
of time in order to preserve and protect the public health and
safety. If a moratorium is in effect, the city or county shall,
prior to a revision pursuant to subdivision (c), adopt findings
which specifically describe the threat to the public health and
safety and the reasons why construction of the number of units
specified as its share of the regional housing need would prevent
the mitigation of that threat.
(e) Any authority to review and revise the share of a city or
county of the regional housing need granted under this section
shall not constitute authority to revise, approve, or disapprove
the manner in which the share of the city or county of the regional
housing need is implemented through its housing program.
(f) A fee may be charged interested parties for any additional
costs caused by theamendments made to subdivision (c) by Chapter
1684 of the Statutes of 1984 reducing from 45 to seven days the
time within which materials and data shall be made available to
interested parties.
(g) Determinations made by the department, a council of
governments, or a city or county pursuant to this section are
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1684, Amended Stats. 1989, Ch.
1451. Amended Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441)
65585. (a) In preparation of its housing element, each city and
county shall consider the guidelines adopted by the department
pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code. Those
guidelines shall be advisory to each city or county in the
preparation of its housing element.
(b) At least 90 days prior to adoption of its housing element,
or at least 45 days prior to the adoption of an amendment to this
element, the planning agency shall submit a draft element or draft
amendment to the department. The department shall review .the
draft and report its written findings to the planning agency within
90 days of its receipt of the draft in the case of an adoption or
within 45 days of its receipt in the case of a draft amendment.
(c) In the preparation of its findings, the department may
consult with any public agency, group, or person. The department
shall receive and consider any written comments from any public
agency, group, or person regarding the draft or adopted element or
amendment under review.
(d) In its written findings, the department shall determine
whether the draft element or draft amendment substantially complies
with the requirements of this article.
(e) Prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft
amendment, the legislative body shall consider the findings made by
the department. If the department's findings are not available
within the time limits set by this section, the legislative body
may act without them.
(f) If the department finds that the draft element or draft
amendment does not substantially comply with the requirements of
9
• •
this article, the legislative body shall take one of the following
actions:
(1) Change the draft element or draft amendment to
substantially comply with the requirements of this article.
(2) Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without
changes. The legislative body shall include in its resolution of
adoption written findings which explain the reasons the legislative
body believes that the draft element or draft amendment
substantially complies with the requirements of this article
despite the findings of the department.
(g) Promptly following the adoption of its element or
amendment, the planning agency shall submit a copy to the
department.
(h) The department shall, within 120 days, review adopted
housing elements or amendments and report its findings to the
planning agency.
(Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1250 [effective January 1, 1984];
Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009, Amended Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441)
65586. Local governments shall conform their housing elements to
the provisions of this article on or before October 1, 1981.
Jurisdictions with housing elements adopted before October 1, 1981,
in conformity with the housing element guidelines adopted by the
Department of Housing and Community Development on December 7,
1977, and located in Subchapter 3 (commencing with Section 6300) of
Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Title 25 of the California Administrative
Code [repealed in 1982], shall be deemed in compliance with this
article as of its effective date. A locality with a housing
element found to be adequate by the department before October 1,
1981, shall be deemed in conformity with these guidelines.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65587. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall bring its
housing element, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 65302,
into conformity with the requirements of this article on or before
October 1, 1981, and the deadlines set by section 65588. Except as
specifically provided in subdivision (b) of Section 65361, the
Director of Planning and Research shall not grant an extension of
time from these requirements.
(b) Any action brought by any interested party to review the
conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing
element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought
pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the
court's review of compliance with the'provisions of this article
shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or
revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of
this article.
(c) If a court finds that an action of a city, county, or city
and county, which is required to be consistent with its general
plan, does not comply with its housing element, the city, county,
or city and county shall bring its action into compliance within 60
days. However the court shall retain jurisdiction through out the
10
• •
period for compliance to enforce its decision. Upon the court's
determination that the 60 -day period for compliance would place an
undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county, the court
may extend the time period for compliance by an addition 60 days.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009. Amended Stats. 1990, Ch.
1441)
Note: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009, also reads:
SEC. 44. It is the intent of the Legislature that the term
"substantially complies," as used in subdivision (b) of Section
65587, be given the same interpretation as was given that term by
the court in Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal. App. 3d. 334,
348, [176 Cal. Rptr. 620, 629].
65587.1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that local policies
and programs which increase housing opportunities through a
tax-exempt revenue bond program or through a requirement that the
approval of a housing related project be tied to the provision of
assistance for housing are consistent with the intent of this
article. The Legislature further finds and declares that actions
which have the effect of impeding or halting such policies and
programs or the direct production of housing run contrary to the
goals of increased housing opportunities and balanced commercial
and residential development embodied in this article.
(b) Not withstanding any other provision of law, neither a
mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of Section
52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code nor a local approval, made
prior to May 1, 1983, of a housing related project shall be
invalidated due to the failure or alleged failure of a city and
county to comply with this article, subdivision (c) of Section
65302 of the Government Code, or any regulations or guidelines
adopted pursuant thereto, or any other provision of law require
consistency with the housing element of a local general plan. For
purposes of this section, a "housing related project" means (a) a
residential project or (b) a nonresidential project, the local
approval of which was conditioned upon the nonresidential developer
(1) developing or rehabilitating or causing to be developed or
rehabilitated housing units, or (2) providing funds for the
development or rehabilitation of housing units, or (3) investing in
a mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of
Section 52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, under a formula or
guidelines adopted by the planning commission or local governing
body of the city and county. For purposes of this section, "housing
related project" shall not include a project, the construction or
development of which requires either the demolition or conversion
of low- or moderate -rental residential units and local approval of
which does not provide for the replacement of such units and for
the maintenance in such units of rents affordable for low- and
moderate -income persons for a period of not less than 20 years.
(Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 312. Effective June 28, 1982.)
11
65588. (a) Each local government shall review its housing element
as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
(1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and
policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing
goal.
(2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of
the community's housing goals and objectives.
(3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in
implementation of the housing element.
(b) The housing element shall be revised as appropriate, but
not less than every five years, to reflect the results of this
periodic review.
In order to facilitate effective review by the department of
housing elements, local governments following shall prepare and
adopt the first two revisions of their housing elements no later
than the dates specified in the following schedule, notwithstanding
the date of adoption of the housing elements in existence on the
effective date of the act which amended this section during the
1983-84 session of the Legislature.
(1) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the
Southern California Association of Governments: July 1, 1984, for
the first revision and July 1, 1989, for the second revision.
(2) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the
Association of Bay Area Governments: January 1, 1985, for the first
revision, and July 1, 1990, for the second revision.
• (3) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the
San Diego Association of Governments, the Council of Fresno County
Governments, the Kern County Council of Governments, the Sacramento
Council of Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments: July 1, 1985, for the first revision, and July 1,
1991, for the second revision.
(4) All other local governments: January 1, 1986, for the
first revision, and July 1, 1992, for the second revision.
(5) Subsequent revisions shall be completed not less often
than at five-year intervals following the second revision. -
(c) The review and revision of housing elements required by
this section shall take into account any low- or moderate -income
housing which has been provided or required pursuant t� Section
65590.
(d) The review pursuant to subdivision (c) shall include, but
need not be limited to, the following:
(1) The number of new housing units approved for construction
within the coastal zone after January 1, 1992.
(2) The number of housing units for persons and families of
low income or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code, required to be provided in new housing
developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles
of the coastal zone pursuant to Section 65590.
(3) The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied
by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, that have been
authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982, in
12
the Coastal zone.
(4) The number of residential dwelling units for persons and
families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of
the Health and Safety Code, that have been required for replacement
or authorized to be converted or demolished as identified in
paragraph (3). The location of the replacement units, either
onsite, elsewhere within the locality's jurisdiction within the
coastal zone, or within three miles of the coastal zone within the
locality's jurisdiction, shall be designated in the review.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 208. Effective June 20, 1984)
65588.5. A copy of the report required by subdivision (b) of
Section 65400 shall be submitted to the Department of Housing and
Community Development within 30 days after receipt by the
legislative body.
(Added by Stats. 1991, Ch. 889 (S.B. 1019), § 3.)
[For your information, Section 65400 is included at the end of this
document]
65589. (a) Nothing in this article shall require a city, county, or
city and county to do any of the following:
(1) Expend local revenues for the construction of housing,
housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition.
(2) Disapprove any residential development which is consistent
with the general plan.
(b) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant
of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a
local government to impose rent controls or restrictions on the
sale of property.
(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant
of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a
local government with respect to measures that may be undertaken or
required by a local government to be undertaken to implement the
housing element of the local general plan.
(d) The provisions of this article shall be construed
consistent with, and in promotion of, the statewide goal of a
sufficient supply of decent housing to meet the needs of all
Californians.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65589.3. In any action filed on or after January 1, 1991, taken to
challenge the validity of a housing element, there shall be a
rebuttable presumption of the validity of the element or amendment.
if, pursuant to Section 65585, the department has found that the
element or amendment substantially complies with the requirements
of this article.
(Added by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441)
65589.5. (a) The Legislature finds all of the following:
(1) The Lack of affordable housing is a critical problem which
threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life
13
in California.
(2) California housing has become the most expensive in the
nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is
partially caused by activities and policies of many local
governments which limit the approval of affordable housing,
increase the cost of land for affordable housing, and require that
high fees and exactions be paid by producers of potentially
affordable housing.
(3) Among the consequences of these actions are discrimination
against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to
support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced
mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality
deterioration.
(4) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to
the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions which
result in disapproval of affordable housing projects, reduction in
density of affordable housing projects, and excessive standards for
affordable housing projects.
(b) It is the policy the state that a local government not
reject or make infeasible affordable housing developments which
contribute to meeting the housing need determined pursuant to this
article without a through analysis of the economic, social, and
environmental effects of the action and without meeting the
provisions of subdivision (c).
(c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and
unnecessary development of agriculture lands to urban uses
continues to have adverse effects on the availability of such lands
for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should
be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in
implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to
the maximum extent practicable, infilling existing urban areas.
(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development
project affordable to low- and moderate -income households or
condition approval in a manner which renders the project infeasible
for development for use of low- and moderate -income households
unless it finds, based upon substantial evidence, one of the
following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to
this article and the development project is not needed for the
jurisdiction to meet its share of the regional housing need of
low-income housing.
(2) The development project as proposed would have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and
there is no feasible method to satisfactory mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact without rendering the development
unaffordable to low- and moderate -income households.
(3) The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is
required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and
there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the
development unaffordable to low- and moderate -income households.
(4) Approval of the development project would increase the
14
• .
concentration of lower income households in a neighborhood that
already has a disproportionately high number of lower income
households and there is no feasible method of approving the
development at a different site, including those sites identified
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583,
without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and
moderate -income households.
(5) The development project is proposed on land zoned for
agricultural or resource preservation which is surrounded on at
least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resources
preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or
wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(6) The development project is inconsistent with the
jurisdiction's general plan land use designation as specified in
any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the
application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted
a housing element pursuant to this article.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the
local agency from complying with the provisions of the Congestion
Management Program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
65088) of Division 1 of. Title 7 of the Government Code or the
provisions of the California Coastal Act, Division 20 (commencing
with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. Neither shall
anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency
from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying
with the Environmental Quality Act, Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a
local agency from requiring the development project to comply with
development standards and policies appropriate to and consistent
with meeting the quantified objectives relative to the development
of housing, as required in the housing element pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 65583. Nor shall anything in this
section be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees
and other exactions otherwise authorized by law which are essential
to provide necessary public services and facilities to the
development project.
(g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities,
because the Legislature finds that the lack of affordable housing
is a critical statewide problem.
(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this
section:
(1) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2) "Affordable to low- and moderate -income households" means
at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, and the remaining units shall be sold or
rented to either lower income households or persons and =families of
moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and
15
•
•
Safety Code. Housing units targeted for lower income households
shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not
exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with
adjustments for household size made in accordance with adjustment
factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based.
Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income
shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not
exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with
adjustments for household size made in accordance with the
adjustment factors on which the moderate income eligibility limits
are based. "Area median income" shall mean are median income as
periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community
Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety
Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to
ensure continued availability of units for the lower income
households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision
for 30 years.
(3) "Neighborhood" means a planning area commonly identified
as such in a community's planning documents, and identified as a
neighborhood by the individuals residing and working within the
neighborhood. Documentation demonstrating that the area meets the
definition of neighborhood may include a map prepared for planning
purposes which lists the name and boundaries of the neighborhood.
(i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or
imposes restrictions, including a reduction of allowable densities
or the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or
structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the
time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943,
which have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or
affordability of a housing developmentaffordable to low- and
moderate -income households, and the denial of the development or
the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of
a court action which challenges the denial, then the burden of
proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its
decision is consistent with the findings as described in
subdivisions (c).
(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with
the applicable general plan, zoning, development policies in effect
at the time that the housing development project's application is
determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to
disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the
project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall
base its decision regarding the proposed housing development
project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on
the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific
adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project
is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1),
other than the disapproval of the housing development project or
16
the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed
at a lower density.
(Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1438, Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch.
1439)
65589.6. In any action taken to challenge the validity of a
decision by a city, county, or city and county to disapprove a
project or approve a project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density pursuant to Section 65589.5, the city,
county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof that its
decision has conformed to all of the conditions specified in
Section 65589.5.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1104.)
65589.7. The housing element adopted by the legislative body and
any amendments made to that element shall be delivered to all
special districts that provide water services at retail or sewer
services and to other private entities that provide water services
at retail or sewer services within the territory of the legislative
body. When allocating or making plans for the allocation of
available and future resources or services designated for
residential use, each special district providing water services at
retail or sewer services and other private entities providing water
services at retail or sewer services, shall grant a priority for
the provision of these available and future resources or services
to proposed housing developments which help meet the city's,
county's, or city and county's share of the regional housing need
for lower income households as identified in the housing element
adopted by the legislative body and any amendments made to that
element. This section is intended to neither enlarge nor diminish
the existing authority of a city, county or city and county in
adopting a housing element. Failure to deliver a housing element
adopted by the legislative body or amendments made to that element,
to a special district or private entity providing water services at
retail or sewer services shall not invalidate any action or
approval of a development project. The special districts which
provide water services at retail or sewer services related to
development, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 56426, are
included within this section.
As used in this section, "water services at retail" means
supplying water directly to the end user or consumer of that water,
and does not include sale by a water supplier to another water
supplier for resale.
(Added by Stats. 1991, Ch. 889 (S.B. 1019), § 4.)
NOTE: Stats. 1991, Ch. 889 (S.B. 1019), also reads:
SEC. 5. The additional requirements and duties created by
Sections 1, 2, and 4 of this act shall be applicable upon the next
amendment or periodic review of the housing element by the
legislative body.
17
•
65589.8. A local government which adopts a requirement in its
housing element that a housing development contain a fixed
percentage of affordable housing units, shall permit a developer to
satisfy all or portion or that requirement by constructing rental
housing at affordable monthly rents, as determined by local
government.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand or
contract the authority of a local government to adopt an ordinance,
charter amendment, or policy requiring that any housing development
contain a fixed percentage of affordable housing units.
(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 787.)
Health and Safety Code
50459. (a) The department may adopt, and from time to time revise,
guidelines for the preparation of housing elements required by
Section 65302 and Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(b) The department shall review housing elements and
amendments for substantial compliance with Article 10.6 (commencing
with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code and report its findings pursuant to Section 65585
of the Government Code.
(c) On or before December 31, 1991, and annually thereafter,
the department shall report to the Legislature on the status of
housing elements and the extent to which they comply with the
requirements od Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The
department shall also make this report available to any other
public agency, group, or person who requests a copy.
(d) The department may, in connection with any loan or grant
application submitted to the agency, require submission to the
department fore review of any housing element and any local housing
assistance plan adopted pursuant to the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383)[42 U.S.C.A. Section
5301 et. seq.]
(Added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 610, Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch.
101, Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 675, Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch.
1441.)
18
General Plan Law
65400. After the legislative body has adopted all or part of a
general plan, the planning agency shall do both of the following:
(a) Investigate and make recommendations to the legislative
body regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the
general plan or element of the general plan, so that it will serve
as an effective guide for orderly growth and development,
preservation and conservation of open -space land and natural
resources, and the efficient expenditure of public finds relating
to the subjects addressed in the general plan.
(b) Provide an annual report to the legislative body on the
status of the plan and progress in its implementation, including
the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs
determined pursuant to Section 65584.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 690, § 5.5; Stats. 1984, Ch.
1009, § 14; Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441 (S.B. 2274), § 2.)
19
r •City °Molting -JUL
F9 a
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
November 15, 1991
Mr. Allan Roberts, Chairman
Planning Commission
7 Southfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Chairman Roberts:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX (213) 377-7288
CONFIDENTIAL
Attached is a confidential correspondence from Michael
G. Colantuono relative to recently adopted legislation
which has a major impact on cities' housing elements. Mr.
Colantuono represents our City Attorney's office in housing
element matters.
As you will notice in the attached correspondence, Chapter
889 of the State of California laws of 1991 drastically
affects the California Government Codes to allow multi -family
housing without a local Conditional Use Permit process.
Chapter 889 applies to housing elements which are adopted
after January 1, 1992.
The City's revised Housing Element will be presented to
the Planning Commission for consideration at your regularly
scheduled meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 1991. We have
advertised for City Council review of the Housing Element
to take place on Monday, December 23, 1991.
We will, of course, discuss this further at the meeting
of November 19. Your review and confidential handling
of the attached correspondence is appreciated. Thank you
for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Craig R. Nealis
City Manager
copy: M. Jenkins
K.Ennis
City Council
L. Unger
/jc
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
November 15, 1991
Mr. Allan Roberts, Chairman
Planning Commission
7 Southfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Chairman Roberts:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX (213) 377-7288
CONFIDENTIAL .
Attached is a confidential correspondence from Michael
G. Colantuono relative to recently adopted legislation
which has a major impact on cities' housing elements. Mr.
Colantuono represents our City Attorney's office in housing
element matters.
As you will notice in the attached correspondence, Chapter
889 of the State of California laws of 1991 drastically
affects the California Government Codes to allow multi -family
housing without a local Conditional Use Permit process.
Chapter 889 applies to housing elements which are adopted
after January 1, 1992.
The City's revised Housing Element will be presented to
the Planning Commission for consideration at your regularly
scheduled meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 1991. We have
advertised for City Council review of the Housing Element
to take place on Monday, December 23, 1991.
We will, of course, discuss this further at the meeting
of November 19. Your review and confidential handling
of the attached correspondence is appreciated. Thank you
for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Craig R. Nealis,
City Manager
copy: M. Jenkins
K.Ennis
City Council
L. Unger
/jc
GLENN R. WATSON
ROBERT G. BEVERLY
HARRY L GERSHON
DOUGLAS W. ARGUE
MARK L LAMKEN
ARNOLD SIMON
RICHARD H. DINEL
ERWIN E. ADLER
DAROLD D. PIEPER
FRED A. FENSTER
THOMAS A. FREIBERG. JR.
ALLEN E. RENNETT
STEVEN L DORSEY
WILLIAM L STRAUSZ
ROBERT M. GOLDFRIED
ANTHONY 8. DREWRY
MITCHELL E. ABBOTT
TIMOTHY L NEUFELD
ROBERT F. DE METER
GREGORY W. STEPANICICH
ROCHELLE BROWNE
DONALD STERN
MICHAEL JENKINS
WILLIAM B. RUDELL
DAVID L COHEN
TERESA R. TRACY
QUINN M. BARROW
CAROL W. LYNCH
TERRY A. TRUMBULL
COLEMAN J. WALSH. JR_
JOHN A. BELCHER
JEFFREY A. RABIN
WILLIAM K. KRAMER
CURTIS L COLEMAN
STEVEN H. KAUFMANN
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
GREGORY M. KUNERT
AMANDA F. SU8SKIND
WILLIAM 8. MATSUMURA
SCOTT WEIBLE
DANIEL P. TORRES
THOMAS M. JIMBO
MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS
ROBERT C. CECCON
PAMELA A. ALBERS
SAYRE WEAVER
KEVIN G. ENNIS
ROBIN D. HARRIS
MICHAEL ESTRADA.
EFRAT M. COGAN
LAURENCE 8. WIENER
DAVID P. WAITE
CHRISTI HOGIN
STEVEN R. ORR
DEBORAH R. HAKMAN
SCOTT K. SHINTANI
MICHAEL G. COULNTUONO
JACK B. SHOU(OFF DAVID A. BUCHEN
8. TILDEN KIM
DARYL T. TESHIMA
CHRISTINA R. MELTZER
BIRGIT A. HUBER
3. ALAN RAY
JUUET F. IRELAND
RUBIN D. WEINER
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
November 5, 1991
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO
THE ATTORNEY-CUENT AND/OR THE
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS
HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBUCLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re: Recent Housing Element
Dear Mr. Nealis:
Legislation
N0\1P'^1✓g
NG �1tU.s
CM OF
RICHARos
THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469
(213) 826-8484
TELECOPIER (213) 626-0078
1910754
OUR FILE NUMBER
R6980-001
[By Telecopier
and U.S. Mail]
As I promised in our telephone conversation last week,
I write to apprise you of a recently adopted statute which
changes the law governing housing elements. The statute applies
to the adoption or amendment of a housing element after January
1, 1992. Thus, if the City is in a position to adopt the pending
revision of its housing element before the first of next year, it
may wish to do so.
If the City wishes to adopt its element before January
1, 1991, it will have to act promptly to meet the various notice
requirements. I have discussed these deadlines with Lola Ungar
and Karen Warner and it appears that a feasible, though tight,
hearing schedule can be developed. If the element is not
adopted before the first of the coming year, it must be revised
to comply with the legal requirements discussed below.
Senate Bill 1019, sponsored by Senator Leroy Greene,
was signed by the Governor on October 14, 1991 and was chaptered
as Chapter 889 of the Laws of 1991. It adds three new
requirements to the process of adopting a housing element.
First, and most importantly, the legislation amends
Government Section 65583(c)(1), which describes the requirements
for the housing program portion of an element, to add the
following language:
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSH(...,
C O N FF I D E N T I A L
Mr. Craig Nealis
November 5, 1991
Page 2
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
"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
procfram shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning
which permits owner -occupied and rental multifamily
residential use by right, including density and
development standards, which could accommodate and
facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and
low-income households. For purposes of this paragraph,
the phrase 'use by right' shall mean the use does not
require a conditional use permit, except when the
proposed project is a mixed -use project involving both
commercial and residential uses. Use by right for all
rental multifamily housing shall be provided in
accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5."
(Emphasis added.)
Government Code Section 65589.5(f) provides:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
a local agency from requiring the development project
to comply with development standards and policies
appropriate to and consistent with meeting the
quantified objectives relative to the development of
housing, as required in the housing element pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 65583. Nor shall anything
in this section be construed to prohibit a local agency
from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise
authorized by law which are essential to provide
necessary public services and facilities to the
development project." (Emphasis added.)
This apparently means that if the City's housing
element should conclude that the City lacks sufficient vacant
land to provide all the very low- and low-income units assigned
by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the element must
commit the City to permit multifamily housing and to allow such
housing without requiring a conditional use permit.
The October 23, 1991 Draft Housing Element now under
consideration concludes at page 38 that the 40 units required by
the RHNA can be accommodated on 59 available building sites in
the City. Accordingly, this draft does "identify adequate sites
to accommodate the need for groups of all household income
levels" and the first new requirement of Senate Bill 1019 may
not affect the proposed new element.
However, critics of the element could argue that these
sites are not "adequate" to meet the City's affordable housing
need because."the element provides insufficient guarantees that
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS.
CON IDENTIAL
Mr. Craig Nealis
November 5, 1991
Page 3
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
the nine affordable units required by the RHNA can in fact be
developed. If a court were to accept such a conclusion, the City
could be compelled to permit multifamily housing in the City.
This risk can be deferred until the 1994 revision of the housing
element by adopting the pending draft prior to the end of this
year.
The changes to the housing element law effected by
Senate Bill 1019 are significant for the future as well: if the
City is unable to identify adequate sites to accommodate the
housing required by the 1994 or later editions of the RHNA, it
may be compelled to permit multifamily housing in the City,
perhaps on the school site or on other land not subject to the
CC&R's of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Accordingly,
Senate Bill 1019 increases the importance of the 1994 RHNA.
When that document is released by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), the City will be well advised
to review it with care and to seek to persuade SCAG to assign a
RHNA goal to the City which can be accommodated on the available
land in the City.
The statute makes other, less consequential changes to
the housing element law. Government Code Section 65400(b) now
requires an annual report from the Planning Commission to the
City Council on the "status of the [general] plan and progress in
its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share
of regional housing needs determined pursuant to Section 65584."
This statute adopts a new section 65588.5 which requires such
reports to be filed with the state Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) within thirty days of their receipt
by the City Council. The statute does not specify any
consequence for a failure to file such a report with HCD.
The statute adds a section 65589.7 which provides that
adopted and amended housing elements "shall be delivered" to
public and private water suppliers and that those suppliers shall
give a priority to projects which "help meet [the locality's]
share of the regional housing need for lower income households as
identified in the housing element." The section states that
failure to deliver an element to a water provider "shall not
invalidate any action or approval of a development project."
Finally, the statute amends Government Code Section
65583(c)(4) to require an element's housing program to include
measures to "conserve and improve the condition of the existing
affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to
mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or
private action." Only the underscored phrase is added, and even
this does not appear to be mandatory.
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHH
C O 410
N r I D E N T I A L
Mr. Craig Nealis
November 5, 1991
Page 4
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBUCLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
I am informed by Ernie Silva, lobbyist for the League
of California Cities, that additional housing legislation will
likely be considered by the Legislature in the coming year. As
such bills may make further inroads into the City's discretion
with respect to land use regulation, the City may wish to contact
the League to ensure that its viewpoint is adequately
represented. It is my own sense that the viewpoint of small,
largely developed communities like Rolling Hills was not well
represented in the legislative discussions of Senate Bill 1019.
Please call me or Mike Jenkins if you have any
questions about the advice stated here.
Very truly yours,
M}chael G. Colantuono
cc: Michael Jenkins
Karen Warner
MGC:mgc
1910754
CONFIDENTIAL
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
MEMORANDUM
To: Chairman Roberts and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Michael G. Golaill" "_, A sistant City Attorney
DATE: November 15, 199]
SUBJECT: Adoption of the 1991 Housing Element
on November 19, 1991 the Commission will consider
amendments to the housing element of the general plan. The
purpose of this memo is to provide background and legal advice
with respect to this matter.
After the housing element was adopted in 1990, this
office determined that it could be strengthened against legal
challenge. On the basis of this advice, the City retained the
services of Cotton / Beland / Associates, Inc. to prepare an
amended element. The product of their efforts is before you this
evening.
This draft does not significantly change the policies
set forth in the prior element. Rather it adds additional data,
a few more housing programs, and greatly strengthens the analysis
of the constraints to housing supply which may make it impossible
for the City to supply all the affordable housing which has been
assigned to the city by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SLAG).
We conclude that this draft is significantly more
likely to withstand a legal challenge than its predecessor. In
addition, we believe this draft is as legally defensible as any
housing element which does not commit the city to developing, or
facilitating the construction of, affordable housing. However,
unless the City is willingto establish new planning goals and to
plan for the construction of the nine affordable units required
by the RHNA, there remains a risk that the element will be
invalidated if challenged.
Notably, the element provides essentially no discussion
of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District property
outside the gates of the City (the La Cresta School site). It is
our understanding that this site is not constrained by the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) of the Rolling
Hilts Community Association, and is accessible from public
streets, served by adequate utilities, and is not constrained by
topographical and geotechnical characteristics that would support
MGC:mgC
1410784
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL 19 SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
CONFIDENTIAL
RICI'ARDG. WATSON & GEr%S
MEMORANDUM
Chairman Roberts and Members of the Planning Commission
November 15, 1991
Page 2
a conclusion that the site is not suited for housing. Because
neither the consultant nor City staff could conceive of such a
justification for failing to plan for housing on this site, a
decision was made not to discuss it within the element. As the
element is now drafted, the only reference to the school site is
the statement at the bottom of page 36 of the October 23, 1991
draft that:
"Non-residential properties in Rolling Hills are
limited to public and institutional uses. None of
these uses are anticipated to be redeveloped within the
time frame of this element."
while this statement is literally true (since the District's
short-term intentions are not clear), the failure to plan for
housing on the school site may make the element vulnerable to
legal challenge.
It is not clear that the state Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD), which is now reviewing the draft
element, is aware.of the existence of the school site. Thus, HCD
may not comment on this issue. There remains a risk, however, of
a legal challenge to the housing element brought by a legal
advocacy group or by some other party --perhaps by the school
district itself in an effort to maximize the market value of. this
property. Such a suit could raise the element's failure to
provide for housing on the school site. If such a challenge is
brought, the element's silence as to the school site may be quite
difficult to defend.
Because of recent legislation, we recommend that the
element be adopted before year's end, if possible. On October
14, 1991, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 1019, which
imposes certain new requirements for housing elements. The
legislation applies to any housing element adopted or amended
after January 1, 1992. Principal among the provisions of the new
statute is a requirement that, if an element fails to identify
adequate sites for the provision of the housing required by the
RHNA, the program portion of the element must:
"provide for sufficient sites with zoning which permits
owner -occupied and rental multifamily residential use
by right, including density and development standards,
which could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility
of housing for very low and low-income households."
MGC:mgc
1910784
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
00 NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
IONRICHARDS, WATSON & GERS
MEMORANDUM
C O N F I D E N T I A li
Chairman Roberts and Members of the Planning Commission
November 15, 1991
Page 3
This would appear to require the City to amend its zoning
ordinance to permit multifamily housing in the City, if the
element does not identify adequate sites for the nine affordable
units and 31 market -rate units required by the RHNA.
The .draft element concludes at page 38 that the 40
units required by the RHNA can be accommodated on 59 available
building sites in the City. Accordingly, this draft does
"identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of
all household income levels" and the principal new requirement of
Senate Bill 1019 may not affect the proposed new element.
However, critics of the element could argue that these
sites are not "adequate" to meet the City's affordable housing
need because the element provides insufficient guarantees that -
the nine affordable units can in fact be developed. If a court
were to accept such a conclusion, the City could be compelled to
permit multifamily housing in the City. This risk can be
deferred until the 1994 revision of the housing element by
adopting the pending draft prior to the end of this vea_.
For this reason, we recommend the City adopt its new
element before the end of 1991 if it is possible to do so. On
the basis of this advice, staff has noticed a public hearing
before the City Council on this draft for December 23, 1991.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission forward the
element and the Commission's recommendations to the City Council
as soon as possible.
The State housing element law treats all cities alike,
even though the circumstances of cities differ dramatically.
Uniform application of rules which are suitable for Los Angeles,
Long Beach, or Hawthorne to cities like Rolling Hills and other
small, bedroom communities makes little sense. At present, state
law fails to recognize that not every city can accommodate a
diversity of uses. This quandary will require the development of
a long-term strategy wholly aside from the adoption of this
element. Accordingly, this element represents a beginning, and
not the end, of a process that we hope will lead to a more
satisfactory resolution of these complex social issues.
Please feel free to contact me, Michael Jenkins, or
Kevin Ennis if you have questions or comments about the advice
stated here. Kevin will be in attendance at the Commission's
MGC:mgc
1910784
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECOf1DS_
RICI LARDS, WATSON & GERS•
MEMORANDUM
C ONFIDENTIAL
1111
Chairman Roberts and Members of the Planning Commission
November 15, 1991
Page 4
meeting on November 19, 1991 and will be able to provide
additional advice at that time.
CC: Mayor Parnell and Members of the City Council
Craig Nealis
Lola Ungar
Michael Jenkins
Kevin Ennis
MGC:mgc
1910784 .
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RFCORDS.
OPEN AGENDA
Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, wished to speak on
two separate issues, beginning with a request for action by the
City Council.
He testified that in June of 1991 hesubmitted an application
for Site Plan Review. His application was not favorably received,
and in August of 1991 he sent a letter to Principal Planner Ungar
suggesting that the City of Rolling Hills was not dealing in good
faith. He said it was becoming clear that his application would
be continually delayed in order to prevent its review by the
Planning Commission. Mr. Colyear stated that since that time he
has been attempting to schedule the Site Plan Review application
for a hearing before the Planning Commission. On Friday, January
10, 1992, Mr. Colyear visited City Hall to confirm that his
application would be heard later that month, and was told by the
Principal Planner that the City Attorney had instructed her not to
schedule a hearing on the application until further notice. Mr.
Colyear asserted that this constitutes a denial of his right to
equal protection under the law and a violation of his
constitutional right to due process. He. contended it is
circumstantial proof of the City's malicious intent and will serve
to increase the damages sought in a pending lawsuit. His attorney
will be looking into the possibility of pursuing a conspiracy
theory against all parties involved in this action. He requested
that the City Council order the Planning Commission at its next
meeting to do whatever they choose to do with his six-month old
application for a Site Plan Review and send it to the City Council
at their very next meeting.
Second, Mr. Colyear again expressed his opinion that the
minutes of the December 23, 1991 Council meeting were incorrect in
stating that the comments of the State Department of Housing and
Community Development had been addressed in the latest draft
revised Housing Element. As a taxpayer he objected to the City's
payment of $100,000 to Cotton/Beland.
7
C, , y `Oo i csL /I/rJU7�S
I/13bg._
ITEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
e. Correspondence from Mountains Recreation and Conservation
Authority requesting support for the Los Angeles County Park, Beach
and Recreation Act of 1992.
Councilmember Leeuwenburgh requested that the Rolling Hills
City Council join with the other Peninsula cities in supporting
the placement of the Los Angeles County Park, Beach and Recreation
Act of 1992 on the June 1992 ballot.
Councilmember Leeuwenburgh moved approval of the request of
the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority and directed
staff to implement the process. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Heinsheimer and passed without objection.
Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, asked to make a
statement regarding the minutes of the December 23, 1991 City
Council meeting. He said the minutes reflected only a portion of
his testimony regarding the draft amendment to the Housing Element
of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan. Mr. Colyear requested
the addition of a sentence saying that he objected to the findings
which specify the adverse impacts of second units on public health,
safety and welfare.
2
-T`-c CO v a
t`l3I°f�
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN.
(a) RESOLUTION NO. 660: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 1991 HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
City Manager Nealis reported that the City's draft revised
Housing Element was submitted to the State Department of Housing
and Community Development for review, and appropriate changes were
made to the revised draft in response to the HCD comments. The
Planning Commission has recommended approval by the City Council.
Mayor Pernell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, asked several
questions relating to payments to Cotton/Beland Associates. Mayor
Pernell suggested that such questions be submitted in writing to
allow staff time to research and prepare answers, and reminded Mr.
Colyear that this public hearing was for comments on the draft
Housing Element.
Mr. Colyear raised several objections to the Land Use Controls
section of the draft Housing Element, specifically with reference
to the preclusion of second units on single-family lots. He
contended that the City of Rolling Hills is legally obligated to
permit its fair share of low and moderate income housing, and
stated that exclusionary zoning could lead to litigation by public
interest law firms. He urged the City Council not to take actions
which would zone out poor or less fortunate people.
No additional public testimony being offered, Mayor Pernell
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Heinsheimer moved approval of Resolution No. 660
adopting the revised draft Housing Element and incorporating the
changes contained in Cotton/Beland's letter of December 23, 1991.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Murdock and passed 4-0.
Co c L
hIN�,:,�� lala3 q1
•
40ag.). Deputy
.-
ORIGINAL REC'D
L.A. TONTYCLEX4 County Clerk FROM: City of Rolling Hills$$
County of Los Angeles 2 Portuguese Bend Road
JA 161992 111 North Hill Street Rolling Hills, CA 90274
I Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with
Section 21108 and 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
DD FEB 2 0 8992
City0 /OLLtfl O ✓�tLLd INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
CITY. OF 'MUM HILLS
` r . - 1\terrrt/ TttC=LTES"tni'elvrxHOAD
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills
Project Title
State Clearinghouse No.
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
Lola Ungar
Lead Agency
Contact Person
(310) 377-1521
Area Code/Phone
The entire City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: 1991 Revised Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
This is to advise that the Rolling Hills City Council has approved
the above described project on December 23, 1991 and has made the
following determinations regarding the above described project:
1. The project [ will X will not] have a significant effect
on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this
project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures [ were X were not] made a condition of
the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was X was not]
adopted for this project.
5. Findings [ X were were not] made pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA.
This document is being filed in duplicate. Please acknowledge the
filing date and return acknowledged copy in the enclosed, stamped,
self-addressed envelope.
Signature public Agency)
Date received for filing:
sRO 'xv ` 9 r3 �18- 9-92
•, EP Jr COTJ T - CDE K
FcM
3 a9
4-
b
ORIGINAL REC'D
L.A. COUNTY CLERK
JA x.61992
Deputy
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimus Impact Finding
Project Title/Location Name and Address of Project Proponent
(include county):
1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills, City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills, CA, County of Los
Angeles
Project Description:
1991 Revised Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills
Findings of Exemption (attach required findings):
The City Council finds that there is no evidence that the 1991
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills
willhave an effect on endangered or threatened species of plants
and animals.
The City Council finds that the 1991 Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Rolling Hills will not have an effect on
wetlands and that water courses will not be eliminated or
converted.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above
findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing
record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an
adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2
of the Fish and Game Code.
'I S NOTICE WAS POSTtii
JAI
mom . 7 1992 8 1992.
EPU/$Y BOUNTY CLERK
LOLA UNGAR
(Chief Planning Official)
Title: Principal Planner
Lead Agency:City of Rolling Hills
Date January 2,.1992
%TATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY
ARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE H RECEIPT
DFG 72,5a��
Lead Agency:
01330
Date: [ V 6 —9(
County/State Agency of Filing: Document No.:
roject Title:/9D
roject Applicant Name:
Project Applicant Address:( Kf d&/c L /4' i (W. 9(f ?y
Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency School District Other Special Distfict
State Agency 0 Private Entity 0
��® 4-t wL 4-R Nab)
Ake-gL�' Phone Number:
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
( ) Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $
( ) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $
( ) Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $
( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $
County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ 5-/ a
Project that is exempt from fees
ignature and title of person receiving payment: I.
FIRST COPY -PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/FASB THIRD COPY -LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING
TOTAL RECEIVED $r ) i)
- .CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
1991 Howsing Element
DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT ��
C1iy Rolling JUL
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
ORIGINAL RECD
L.A. COt Y CLERKX County Clerk
County of Los Angeles
JA 161992
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles. CA 90012
IJCNuLL
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF_ 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX (213077-7288
FROM: City of Rolling i ls
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination_ in compliance
Section 21108 and 21152 of the.Public Resources
with
Code.
1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills
Project Title
_-- Lola Ungar
State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency
(If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person
(310) 377-1521
Area Code/Phone
The entire City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: 1991 Revised Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
This is to advise that the Rolling Hills City Council has approved
the above described project on December 23, 1991 and has made the
following -determinations regarding the above described project:
1. The project [ will X will not] have a significant effect
on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this
project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
_X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures [ were Y were notl made a condition of
the approval of the project.
4. A statement orOverriding Considerations [ was X was not]
adopted for this project.
5. Findings [ X were were not] made pursuant to the -
provisions of CEQA.
This document is being filed -in duplicate. Please acknowledge the
filing date and return acknowledged copy in the enclosed, stamped,
self-addressed envelope.
Signature '(.Public Agency)
Date received for filing:
Principal Planner
Title
ANAL REC'D
L.A. COUNTY CLERK
Deputy
(,AL TFORNIA DEP PTMFNT nP' FIS ANT) GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEF EYEMPTION
De Minimus Impact Finding
Project Title/Location Name and Address of Project Proponent
(include county):
1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills, City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills, CA, County of Los
Angeles
Project Description:
1991 Revised Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills
Findings of Exemption (attach required findings):
The City Council finds that there is no evidence that the 1991
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills
will have an effect on endangered or threatened species of plants
and animals.
The City Council finds that the 1991 Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Rolling Hills will not have an effect on
wetlands and that water courses will not be eliminated or
converted.
'Certification:
I hereby certify that the lead acencv has rade the above
findincs of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearine
record the Dro, ect will not individual 1 y or c .....'_ ativel ha7e a__
adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2
of the r4- 1 and rlf=me Code.
LOLA UNGAR
(Chief Planning Official)
Title: Principal Planner
Lead Acency: City ^f Pol 1 inc
Date January 2,.1992
t14 11c
•City 0/leo/ling -AIL
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 1243-91
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN
DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1991
Comments were received from the State Department of Housing and Community
Development on Thursday relating to the attached Draft Amendment to the Housing
Element of the General Plan. Cotton Belland Associates' representative Karen Warner is
preparing a detailed memorandum responding to the HCD comments. A copy of this
memorandum, as well as a completed Resolution, will be presented to the City Council
Monday evening.
CN:ds
1
GODFREY PERNELL
Mayor
GORDANA SWANSON
Mayor Pro Tem
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Councilwoman
JODY MURDOCK
Councilwoman
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
TO:
FROM:
•
City
•
opeo tine _fa
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN
DAIL: DECEMBER 23. 1991
Attached is the Draft Amendment to the Housing Element of the City of Rolling Hills
General Plan. The amendment has been prepared to comply with state laws in
requirements and consists of minor changes that did not change the direction or intent of
the housing element.
Members of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission considered this document at their
regular meeting held Tuesday, November 19, 1991. At that meeting, the Draft Amendment
was recommended for approval by the City Council. A copy of the Planning Commission
Resolution recommending City Council approval is included with the Staff Report.
The subject document will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly,
in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act, a negative declaration has been
prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the subject document, take public testimony,
if any, and adopt the attached amendment.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 1991 HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 3. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 65588(a), the City of Rolling Hills has reviewed the
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City and has
determined that it is appropriate to revise that Element to
reflect the results of this review.
SECTION 2. The City prepared a draft revised Housing Element
and submitted it to the state Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for review on November 5, 1991 pursuant to
Government Code Section 65585(b). HCD's comments on the draft in
the form of a letter dated 1991 were received by the
City on , 1991.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352, copies
of the revised draft have been provided to the Cities of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, the County of Los
Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation
Commission.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000
et seq. ("CEQA"), 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 the
adoption of the revised 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.
SECTION 5. A duly noticed public hearings before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed negative declaration and the
revised Housing Element was held on November 19, 1991 at which
time public comments on the negative declaration and revised
Housing Element were received by the Commission. A duly notice
public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed
negative declaration and the revised Housing Element was held on
December 23, 1991 at which time further public comments were
received by the Council.
Vatson LA44 1_-1c
• •
SECTION 6. Based upon the facts contained in this
resolution, those contained in the staff'reports and other
components of the legislative record, those contained in the
proposed negative declaration and revised Housing Element, and
the public comments received by the Planning Commission and City
Council, and the written recommendation of the Planning
Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65354, the City
Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) The City Council considered the proposed negative
declaration together with comments upon it received in the public
review process and finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the adoption of the revised Housing Element will have a
significant effect on the environment.
(b) City staff and the City Council have reviewed the
Housing Element Guidelines adopted by HCD pursuant to Section
50459 of the Health and Safety Code and the findings contained in
HCD's comment letter of , 1991. The City Council has
determined that it is not necessary to revise the draft in
response to those comments for the reasons stated by the City's
consultant in a memorandum to this Council dated , 1991
which is incorporated herein as if set out in full.
(c) The revised Housing Element is in full compliance
with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65580 -
65589.8 as demonstrated by the analysis set forth by the
memorandum of the City's consultant dated , 1991.
(d) The revised Housing Element is consistent with the
other elements of the General Plan because the revised Housing
Element uses the land use designations of the Land Use Element
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 revised Housing Element are appropriate for the City of.
Rolling Hills and will contribute to the attainment of the state
housing goal.
(f) The adoption of the revised Housing Element will
aid the City's efforts to assist in the development of housing
for all members of the community.
(g) For the foregoing reasons, the adoption of the
revised Housing Element is in the public interest.
SECTION 7. The City council of the City of Rolling Hills
hereby adopts the proposed negative declaration and approves the.
revised draft Housing Element as the 1991 Housing Element of the
General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
a644.n c
ciZUTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby dAsected to distribute
copies of the •1 Housing Element of the neral Plan of the
City of Rolling Hills as provided in Section 65357 of the
California Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
6644.mgc
•
Fcl
COTTON/BELAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
URBAN AND EN\'II:ON MENTAL PLANNING' CONSULTANTS
December 23, 1991
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ROLLING IIILT_,S HOUSING ELEMENT
Dear Mr. Nealis:
I have reviewed the State Department of Housing and Community
Development's (IUD) comment letter an the October 23, 1991 draft Rolling
Hills Housing Element; 1 have included a copy of the Statc's letter as an
appendix for your reference.
The State's few comments almost wholly pertain to the issue of adequate zoning
for the nine low and moderate income housing units identified as the City's
regional need. In my opinion, the Housing Element well documents the
overriding constraints to providing multi -family development in the City. I have
prepared the following "response to conunents" to clearly identify how each of
the State's comments pertaining to affordable housing development are already
fully addressed in the Element. I do however suggest a program be added to the
element to address the State's concerns regarding implementation of fair housing
policies, and have included proposed wording.
IICJ Comment: "The land inventory still does not include land zoned for
multi -family housing or demonstrate how existing zoning allows the development
of housing for low and moderate income households. In our opinion, in order to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need for low -and
moderate -income households, sites should be zoned at higher. densities. The only
two zones listed in the element provide for one and two acre. minimum
densities."
Response: As described on pages 27 - 29 of the Housing Element, virtually all
the land in Rolling Hills is subject to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) established in 1936. These CC&Rs set forth two classifications of
property and restrict the use of property in 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 for commercial, office or
-1i EAST GREE!' STREET SUITE•1ff • PASADENA. '-\Ll OR 1A gt10.1
;h IA! 304-010_ fAX.81813Qift J:'
Mr. Craig Ncalis
December 23, 1991
Page 2
industrial activity. Modifying the City's zoning to allow for increased residential
densities would not alter the development limitations dictated by the CC&Rs.
I-lence, the City's zoning standards are not an effective constraint to housing
supply.
In addition to the CC&Rs, several environmental and infrastructure limitations
preclude multi -family development in Rolling bills; these factors arc discussed on
pages 34-35 of the Element. Soils and geologic conditions place great constraints
on development in Rolling Hills. The City has experienced major landslides due
to soil saturation and instability, and numerous active landslides continue to
render significant areas of the City unsafe for development. New homes in
Rolling Hills must utilize septic tanks and leach fields for disposal of sanitary
waste due to the lack of sanitary sewers in most of the City. Past experience
suggests substantial care and restraint must be exercised in the expansion of any
existing systems or the addition of new systems to avoid possible ground
instability due to saturation of upper soil layers. This situation and existing
infrastructure constraints act to limit densities in the City.
IICD Comment: "The element's programs do not address the City's need for
low -and moderate -income housing. Additional programs should be included
which clearly indicate the actions Rolling Hills will take to implement the
programs and which describe how the City will utilize its land use controls,
regulatory concessions and incentives, and appropriate federal and state financing
programs to facilitate the development of low -and moderate -income housing."
Response: The Implementing Programs section of the revised draft Housing
Element (pages 46-51) is substantially expanded to include a comprehensive list
of programs the City intends to implement to address its housing needs.
Programs are included which utilize. Land use controls, regulatory concessions and
incentives, and federal financing programs to facilitate the development of low
and moderate income housing. Such programs include: Congregate Housing for
Seniors, an Assessment Fee Program, Facilitate New Construction, Density Bonus
Program, Neighborhood Sponsored Sewer Districts, and 'lousing Repair and
Temporary Shelter on Landslide Sites.
As described on pages 32-33 and in Appendix A of the Element, Rolling Hills is
not eligible to receive funding under most State and Federal housing assistance
programs. The absence of an "in -need" population or deteriorated housing in
Rolling Hills renders the City ineligible for most types of governmental housing
assistance. In addition, high rental values in the City preclude the use of HUD
rental assistance programs. The City will continue to contribute what federal
housing monies it does receive through the CT)RG program to nearby
Mr. Craig Nealis
December 23, 1991
Page 3
jurisdictions where land is less expensive to be explicitly used for the construction
of affordable senior citizen housing.
1ICD Comment: "The element contains a density bonus program which appears
to be inconsistent with State law because, among other things, the element does
not include actions to mitigate the impact of the density restrictions of existing
CC&Rs."
Response:. No provision of the State density honus law (Section 65915-65918 of
the Government Code) requires a jurisdiction to mitigate the impacts of
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the ability of that jurisdiction
to grant a density bonus. It is not clear that the City has any legal authority to
modify the development limitations imposed by the CC&Rs. The only relevant
case law of which we are aware involved courts which refused to enforce CC&Rs
which imposed occupancy limitations based race and ethnicity. If theoretically
there were a way for the City to modify the CC&Rs, there would be a substantial
cost associated with both the litigation required to receive a court ruling, and the
necessary compensation to property owners for the caking of their property rights.
As noted on page 34 of the Element, the City lacks the resources to pay for such
legal fees or property owner compensation, or to•otherwisc subsidize housing
costs.
1-ICX) Comment: "The element should include program actions to address, and
when appropriate and legally possible remove'govcrnmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income groups
(Section 65583(c)(4)). For example, current zoning does not allow multifamily
development. Land use policies are described in the element but specific
program actions to mitigate their impact on low -and moderate -income housing
opportunities are not included."
Response: As described on page 29 of the Housing Element, development in
Rolling Hills is controlled through both City enforced zoning and privately
enforced Ce&—Rs. City zoning does not in itself constrain housing development.
Reducing coning standards or increasing densities would not modify the
development limitations dictated by the CC&Rs, which in effect control density.
Thus, as demonstrated on pages 28-34 of the Element, there are no actual
governmental constraints to housing supply which it is appropriate and legally
possiblefor the City to remove.
The Housing Element does contain program actions to facilitate the development
of low and moderate income housing, including Congregate Housing for Seniors
and Density Bonus programs. In addition, we suggest the following be added to
Mr. Craig Nealis
December 23, 1991
Page 4
the third paragraph on page 28 after the sentence which ends "split-level
residences to allow greater height.":
"These height limitations reflect the requirements of the CC&R's
and therefore do not themselves constrain housing supply."
IICD Comment: "Include a. program action to promote housing opportunities for
all persons (Section 65583(c)(5)). In our opinion, a fair housing program should
include an information dissemination component to guarantee full utilization of
the housing discrimination referral program. For example, the City could
publicize the complaint referral agency through the local media, schools, libraries,
the post office, the community center, or through housing advocacy groups. The
element includes goals to address the above areas but does not include specific
program actions to accomplish stated goals and policies."
Response: We suggest the following program be added to page 51 of the
Housing Element to implement the City's fair housing policy:
"Fair Housing Program
As a participating City in the Urban County Community
Development Block Grant Program, Rolling Hills cooperates with
the Fair Housing Congress of Southern California through the Long
Beach Fair Housing Foundation to enforce fair housing laws. 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.
Quantified Objective: Provide informational brochures at the public
counter and local library, and place periodic advertisements in the
local newspaper.
Funding Source: CDBG, City budgets.
Mr. Craig Nealis
December 23, 1991
Page 5
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: One Year."
We look forward to adoption of the Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Karen A. Warner, MCP
M584.02/c
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 THIRD STREET. Room 430
P.U. BOX 952053
SACRAMENTO. CA 9x2.52.2053
(916) 32—;76 FAX (916) 323-662.5
December 20, 1991
Mr. Terrence Belanger
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Rend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
PETE WILSON, t,overnor
Dear Mr. Belanger:
RE: Review of City of Rolling Hills' Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Rolling Hills' draft housing
element, received for our review on November 6, 1991. As you
know, we are required to review draft housing .elements and report
our findings to the locality (Government Code 65585(b)).
Our review was facilitated by telephone conversations with
the City's consultant, Karen Warner, including one on
December 13, 1991. This letter summarizes the results of that
conversation.
The Rolling Hills element amendment responds to some of the
issues in our December 12; 1989 review letter. In our -opinion,
however, there arc:several areas which require revisions to bring
the element into compliance with state housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular the element
still does not include adequate sites to accommodate low- and
moderate -income households in the City. The element should:
1'. Identify adequate sites available for the construction
of housing to meet the City's identified needs (Section
655583 (c)(1)). The sites identified for potential
residential development should be able to accommodate
housing which will meet the projected need by income
level.
The land inventory still does no: include land zoned
for multifamily housing or demonstrate how existing
zoning allows the development of housing for low- and
moderate -income households. In our opinion, in order
to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing
need for low- and moderate --income households, sites
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 2
should be zoned at higher densities. The only two
zones listed in the element provide for one and two
acre minimum densities.
2. Include additional programs to assist in the
development of housing for low- and moderate -income
households (Section 65583(C)(2)). The element's
programs do not address the city's need for low-- and
moderate -income housing. Additional programs should be
included which clearly indicate the actions Rolling
Hills will take to implement the programs and which
describe how the City will utilize its land use
controls, regulatory concessions and incentives, and
appropriate federal and state financing programs to
facilitate the development of low- and moderate -income
housing.
The element contains a density bonus program which
appears to be inconsistent with State law because,
among other things, the element does not include
actions to mitigate the impact of the density
restrictions of existing CC&Rs.
3. The element should include program actions to address
and, when appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement_, and development of .housing for all income
levels (Section 65583(c)(4)). For, example, current
zoning does not allow multifamily development. Land
use policies are described in the element but specific
program actions to mitigate their impact on low- and
moderate -income housing opportunities are not included.
4. Include a program action to promote housing
opportunities for all persons (Section 65583(c)(5)).
In our opinion, a fair housing program should include
an information dissemination component to guarantee
full utilization of the housing discrimination referral
program. For example, the City could publicize the
::ompiaint referral agency through the local media,
schools, libraries, the post office, the community
center, or through housing advocacy groups. The
element includes goals to address the above areas but
does not include specific program actions to accomplish
stated goals and policies.
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 3
We understand that the city has made' a decision to not
address housing needs through modification of current land use
policies and programs, but has made a commitment to continue
assisting low- and moderate -income households through existing
arrangements with the City of Lomita. However, the City is still
responsible for accommodating its regional share of identified
need in the City.
We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have
any questions about our comments, please contact William Andrews
of our staff at (916) 323-7271. We look forward to receiving a.
copy of the adopted element pursuant to Government Code Section
65585(h).
In accordance with request, pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Cook
Deputy Director
Housing Policy Development
cc: Karen Warner, Cotten Reland and Associates
Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law
western Center on Law & Poverty
Fair Housing Council of the San F'ernando Valley
Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Ana Marie whitaker, California State University Pomona
Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach
David Booher, California Housing Council
Maya Dunne, City of Irvine
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelsan, Deputy Attorney.Generai
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
'Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry
Association
Rob wiener,- California Coalitiror. for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
1
COTTONISELAND/ASSQGIATES, INC.
URBAN AND F.NVIRONMLN1 AI PLANNING C.ONSULTAN 1 5
December 23, 1991
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT
rd5c-I
Dear Mr. Nealis:
I have reviewed the State Department of Housing and Community
draft Rolling
Development's (HCD) comment letter on the October 23, 91
Hills lIousing Element; I have included a copy of the State's letter as an
appendix for your reference.
The State's few comments almost wholly pertain to the issue of adequate zoning
for the nine low and moderate income housing units identified as the City's
regional need. In my opinion, the Housing Element well documents the
overriding constraints to providing multi -family development in the City. I have
prepared the following response to comments" to clearly identify how each of
the State's comments pertaining to affordable housing development are already
fully addressed in the Element. do �owev implementation, of ram be faidred to the
ho sing
element to address the State's regarding
policies, and have included proposed wording.
HCD Comment: "The land inventory still does not include land zoned for
multi -family housing or demonstrate how existing zoning allows the development
of housing for low and moderate income households. In our opinion, in order to
acconunodatc the City's share of the regional housing need for low -and
moderate -income households, sites should be zoned at higher densities. The only
two zones listed in the element provide for one and two acre minimum
densities."
Response: As described on pages 27 - 29 of the Housing Element, virtually all
the land in Rolling Hills is subject to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) established in 1936. These CC&Rs set forth two classifications of
property and restrict the use of property in 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 for commercial, office or
747 CAS1 CREFN STRFF I SUI I ( 400 • PASADLNA, CALIFOKNI \ 91101
(818) :Su4.01(2 FAX (8181 304 0402
(,I9 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE SUITE 20S • ENCINITAS. CAI IroRNIA 920:4
{( 19) 914-4194 FAX (h19194_'{4043
! •
Mr. Craig Nealis
December 23, 1991
Page 2
industrial activity. Modifying the City's zoning to allow for increased residential
densities would not alter the development limitations dictated by the CC&Rs.
Hence, the City's zoning standards are not an effective constraint to housing
supply.
In addition to the CC&Rs, several environmental and infrastructure limitations
preclude multi -family development in Rolling Hills; these factors arc discussed on
pages 34-35 of the Element. Soils and geologic conditions place great constraints
on development in Rolling Hills. The City has experienced major landslides due
to soil saturation and instability, and numerous active landslides continue to
render significant areas of the City unsafe for development. New homes in
Rolling Hills must utilize septic tanks and leach fields for disposal of sanitary
waste due to the lack of sanitary sewers in most of the City. Past experience
suggests substantial care and restraint must be exercised in the expansion of any
existing systems or the addition of new systems to avoid possible ground
instability due to saturation of upper soil layers. This situation and existing
infrastructure constraints act to limit densities in the City.
HCD Comment: 'The element's programs do not address the City's need for
low -and moderate -income housing. Additional programs should be included
which clearly indicate the actions Rolling Hills will take to implement the
programs and which describe how the City will utilize its land use controls,
regulatory concessions and incentives, and appropriate federal and state financing
programs to facilitate the development of low -and moderate -income housing."
Response: The Implementing Programs section of the revised draft Housing
Element (pages 46-51) is substantially expanded to include a comprehensive list
of programs the City intends to implement to address its housing needs.
Programs are included which utilize land use controls, regulatory concessions and
incentives, and federal financing programs to facilitate the development of low
and moderate income housing. Such programs include: Congregate Mousing for
Seniors, an Assessment Fee Program, Facilitate New Construction, Density Bonus
Program, Neighborhood Sponsored Sewer Districts, and Housing Repair and
Temporary Shelter on Landslide Sites.
As described on pages 32-33 and in Appendix A of the Element, Rolling Hills is
not eligible to receive funding under most State and Federal housing assistance
programs. The absence of an "in -need" population or deteriorated housing in
Rolling Hills renders the City ineligible for most types of governmental housing
assistance. In addition, high rental values in.the City preclude the use of IILD
rental assistance programs. The City will continue to contribute what federal
housing monies it does receive through the CDBG program to nearby
Mr. Craig Ncalis
December 23, 1991
Page 3
jurisdictions where land is less expensive to be explicitly used for the construction
of affordable senior citizen housing.
HCD Comment: "The element contains a density bonus program which appears
to be inconsistent with Stale law because, among other things, the element does
not include actions to mitigate the impact of the density restrictions of existing
CC&Rs."
Response: No provision of the State density bonus law (Section 65915-65918 of
the Government Code) requires ions sCC&Rs) ondiction to lthc ability o ate the Phat jurisdiction
of
Covenants, Conditions & Restrict
to grant a density bonus. It is not clear that the
eth ttCC&Rs has any The only releal vant
to
modify the development limitations imposed by
law of which we are aware involved courts which refused to enforce CC&Rs
which imposed occupancy limitations "baseld erace
there ouldIf tbe�a substantial
there were a way for the City to modify t the
cost associated with both the litigation required to receive a court ruling, and
necessary compensation to property owners for the taking of their property rights.
As noted on page 34 of the Element, the City lacks the resources to pay for such
legal fees or property owner compensation, or to otherwise subsidize housing
costs.
HCD Comment: 'The element should include program actions to address, and
when appropriate and legally possible remove governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income groups
(Section 65583(c)(4)). For example, current zoning does not allow multifamily
development. Land use policies are described in the element.but specific
program actions to mitigate their impact on low -and moderate -income housing
opportunities are not included.
Response: As described on page 29 of the Housing Element, development in
Rolling Hills is controlled through both City enforced zoning and privately
enforced CC&Rs. City zoning does not in itself constrain housing development.
Reducing zoning standards or increasing densities would not modify the
development limitations dictated by the CC&Rs, which in effect control density.
Thus, as demonstrated on pages 28-34 of the Element, there
'e rrcterc no actual
governmental constraints to housing supply which it is a rop and gall y
possible for the City to remove. The Housing Element does contain program actions to facilitate the development
of low and moderate income housing, including Congregate Housing for Seniors
and Density Bonus programs. In addition, we suggest the following be added to
Mr. Craig Ncalis
December 23, 1991
Page 4
the third paragraph on page 28 after the sentence which ends "split-level
residences to allow greater height.":
"These height limitations reflect the requirements of the CC&R's
and therefore do not themselves constrain housing supply."
HCD Comment: "Include a program action to promote housing opportunities for
all persons (Section 65583(c)(5)). In our opinion, a fair housing program should
include an information dissemination component to guarantee full utilization of
the housing discrimination referral program. For example, the City could
publicize the complaint referral agency through the local media, schools, libraries,
the post office, the community center, or through housing advocacy groups. The
element includes goals to address the above areas but does not include specific
program actions to accomplish stated goals. and policies."
Response: We suggest the following program be added to page 51 of the
Housing Element to implement the City's fair housing policy:
"Fair Housing Program
As a participating City in the Urban County Community
Development Block Grant Program, Rolling Hills cooperates with
the Fair Housing Congress of Southern California through the Long
Beach Fair Housing Foundation to enforce fair housing laws. 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.
Quantified Objective: Provide informational brochures at the public
counter and local library, and place periodic advertisements in the
local newspaper.
Funding Source: CDBG, City budgets.
Mr. Craig Ncalis
December 23, 1991
Page 5
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: One Year."
We look forward to adoption of the Housing Element.
Sincerely,
ieramAA, kdOck.A.A.A.ve--
Karen A. Warner, AICP
M584.02/c
9
TATIDN AND NOUSIN3 AGENCY
• PETE w1LSON, Governor
STATE Of G4L�fC�?A . BUS;N£SS, Ti�4 -_—
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSINGANDCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 THIRD STREET, Room 430
Y.O. BOX 952053
SACRAMENTO, CA 94252.2053
(916) 333176 FAX (916) 323.6625
December 20, 1991
Mr. Terrence Belanger
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. Belanger:
RE: Review of City of Rolling Hills' Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Rolling Hills' draft housing
element, received for our review on November 6, 1991. As you
know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report
our findings to the locality (Government Code 65585(b)).
Our review was facilitated by telephone conversations with
the City's consultant, Karen Warner, including one on
December 18, 1991. This letter summarizes the results of that
conversation.
The Rolling Hills element amendment responds to some of the
issues in our December 12, 1989 review letter. In our opinion,
however, there are several areas which require revisions to bring
the element into compliance with state housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular the element
still does not include adequate sites to accommodate low- and
moderate -income households in the City. The element should:
1. Identify adequate sites available for the construction
of housing to meet the City's identified needs (Section
655583 (c)(1)). The sites identified for potential
residential development should be able to accommodate
housing which will meet the projected need by income
level.
The land inventory still does not include land zoned
for multifamily housing or demonstrate how existing
zoning allows the development of housing for low- and
moderate -income households. In cur opinion, in order
to accommodate
the
moderatesincomefhouseroldsregional
siteshousing
need for low and
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 2
should be zoned at higher densities. The only two
zones listed in the element provide for one and two.
acre'minimum densities.
2. Include additional programs to assist in the
development of housing for low- and Tmohe element's
drat -income
households (Section 65583(c)(2)).
programs do not address the city's need for low- and
moderate -income housing. Additional programs should be
included which clearly indicate the actions Rolling
Hills will take to implement the programs and which
describe how the City will utilize its land use
controls, regulatory concessions and incentives, and
appropriate federal and state financing programs to
facilitate the development of low- and moderate -income
housing.
The element contains a density., bonus program which
appears to be inconsistent with State law because,
among other things, the element does not include
actions to mitigate the impact of the density
restrictions of existing CC&Rs.
3. The element should include program actions to address
and, when appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development ofFhousing
fofor alall
income
levels (Section 65583(c)(4)).
t
zoning does not allow multifamily development. Land
use policies are described in the element but specific
program actions to mitigate their impact on low- and
moderate -income housing opportunities are not included.
4. Include a program action to promote housing
opportunities for .all persons (Section 65583(c)(5)).
In our opinion, a fair housing program should include
an information dissemination component to guarantee
full utilization of the housing discrimination referral
program. For example, the City could publicize the
complaint referral agency through the local media,
schools, libraries, the post office, the community
center, or through housing advocacy groups. The
element includes goals to address the above areas but
does not include specific program actions to accomplish
stated goals and policies.
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 3
We understand that the City
difhas
cmade
aofecisionttoanonot
use
address housing needs through
policies and programs, but has made a commitment to continue
i
ng
assisting low- and moderate -income City
eof Lomita. Howeverththegh Citylis�stti_l
arrangements with the City of
responsible for accommodating its regional share of identified
need in the City. If you have
We hope our comments are helpfiease contactl to the yWilliam Andrews
any questions about our oomments`We_look forward to receiving a
of our staff at (916) 323-7271•
of the adopted element pursuant to Government Code section
c0 py
65585(h).
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Publics Records
s
er
Act,
we are forwarding copies of this letter to the p
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Housing Policy Development
cc: Karen Warner, Cotton Beland and Associates
Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer,
Attorney at Law
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valleys
Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Ang e
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach
David Booher, California Housing Council
Maya Dunne, City of Irvine
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and
Association
Richard Lyon, California Building Industry
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors Legal, Assistance Foundation
Marc Brawn, California Rural Leg Building Industry
Christine D. Reed, Orange County
Association
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
•
l2 fP,n9 Jhfh
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 12-13-91
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN
DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1991
Comments were received from the State Department of Housing and Community
Development on Thursday relating to the attached Draft Amendment to the Housing
Element of the General Plan. Cotton Belland Associates' representative Karen Warner is
preparing a detailed memorandum responding to the HCD comments. A copy of this
memorandum, as well as a completed Resolution, will be presented to the City Council
Monday evening.
CN:ds
GODFREY PERNELL
Mayor
GORDANA SWANSON
Mayor Pro Tern
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Councilwoman
JODY MURDOCK
Councilwoman
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
TO:
FROM:
•
aty
0/ Atli"
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX (213) 377-7288
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN
DATE: DECEMBER 23. 1991
Attached is the Draft Amendment to the Housing Element of the City of Rolling Hills
General Plan. The amendment has. been prepared to comply with state laws in
requirements and consists of minor changes that did not change the direction or intent of
the housing element.
Members of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission considered this document at their
regular meeting held Tuesday, November 19, 1991. At that meeting, the Draft Amendment
was recommended for approval by the City Council. A copy of the Planning Commission
Resolution recommending City Council approval is included with the Staff Report.
The subject document will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly,
in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act, a negative declaration has been
prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the subject document, take public testimony,
if any, and adopt the attached amendment.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE 1991 HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 65588(a), the City of Rolling Hills has reviewed the
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City and has
determined that it is appropriate to revise that Element to
reflect the results of this review.
SECTION 2. The City prepared a draft revised Housing Element
and submitted it to the state Department of Housing and Community
Development ("NCD") for review on November 5, 1991 pursuant to
Government Code Section 65585(b). HCD's comments on the draft in
the form of a letter dated 1991 were received by the
City on , 1991.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352, copies
of the revised draft have been provided to the Cities of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, the County of Los
Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation
Commission.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000
et seq. ("CEQA"), 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 the
adoption of the revised 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.
SECTION 5. A duly noticed public hearings before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed negative declaration and the
revised Housing Element was held on November 19, 1991 at which
time public comments on the negative declaration and revised
Housing Element were received by the Commission. A duly notice
public hearing before the city Council to consider the proposed
negative declaration and the revised Housing Element was held on
December 23, 1991 at which time further public comments were
received by the Council.
SECTION s. Based upon the facts contained in this
resolution, those contained in the staff reports and other
components of the legislative record, those contained in the
proposed negative declaration and revised Housing. Element, and
the public comments received by the Planning Commission and City
Council, and the written recommendation of the Planning
Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65354, the City
Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) The City Council considered the proposed negative
declaration together with comments upon it received in the public
review process and finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the adoption of the revised Housing Element will have a
significant effect on the environment.
(b) City staff and the City Council have reviewed the
Housing Element Guidelines adopted by HCD pursuant to Section
50459 of the Health and Safety Code and the findings contained in
HCD's comment letter of , 1991. The City Council has
determined that it is not necessary to revise the draft in
response to those comments for the reasons stated by the City's
consultant in a memorandum to this Council dated , 1991
which is incorporated herein as if set out in full.
(c) The revised Housing Element is in full compliance
with the requirements. of Government Code Sections 65580 -
65589.8 as demonstrated by the analysis set forth by the
memorandum of the City's consultant dated , 1991.
(d) The revised Housing Element is consistent with the
other elements of the General Plan because the revised Housing
Element uses the land use designations of the Land Use Element
and those designations in turnare 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 revised Housing Element are appropriate for the City of
Rolling Hills and will contribute to the attainment of the state
housing goal.
(f) The adoption of the revised Housing Element will
aid the City's efforts to assist in the development of housing
for all members of the community.
(g) For the foregoing reasons, the adoption of the
revised Housing Element is in the public interest.
SECTION 7. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills
hereby adopts the proposednegative declaration and approves the
revised draft Housing Element as the 1991 Housing Element of the
General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
a644:mgc
aak.:110 j S The City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute
copies of the 1991 Housing Element of the ^eneral Plan of the
City of Rolli Hills as provided in SectlPh 65357 of the
California Gov cnment Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1991.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
e644.mgc
•
Mayor
C1iyoMoPen9 Free
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
ORIGINAL RECD
LA. COUNTY CLERK
DE
BY —
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
0 5 1ng1
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX (213) 377-7288
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will hold
a Public Hearing on Monday, December 23, 1991, in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2
Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California commencing at 7:30 p.m. to consider the
following:
DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN
Following review of the Initial Study for the project, Staff has determined that this project
will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration
has been prepared.
Any person is welcome to review the subject document, prior to the public hearing at City
Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon,
and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (closed 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
If you challenge the approval or denial of this document in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Publish once in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News and the Rolling Hills
Herald Saturday November 9, 1991
9
G R. NEALIS, CITY CLERK
MIS N tl'ICL'W: `'U �D
FIZOIDEC 9,
92
CO,M1 O
ei4'
Q /?Of/tfl INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
GODFREY PERNELL
Mayor
GORDANA SWANSON
Mayor Pro Tem
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Councilwoman
JODY MURDOCK
Councilwoman
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
January. 6, 1992
Mr. Bill Andrews
State Department of Housing and Community Development
1800 Third Street, Room 430
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
Subject: Adopted Housing Element for City of Rolling Hills
Dear Mr. Andrews:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
We are pleased to submit to HCD the enclosed Rolling Hills Housing Element, adopted by
the City Council on December 23, 1991. We received HCD's comment letter on the draft,
and the City Council considered these comments prior to adoption.
We understand the State is now required to review the adopted housing element, and look
forward to receiving the State's final letter within the next 120 days.
Sincerely,
dti,k
Craig R. Nealis
City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRAA PORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING.AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 THIRD STREET, Room 430
P.O. BOX 952053
SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053
(916) 323-3176 FAX (916) 323-6625
December 20, 1991
Mr. Terrence Belanger
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hilis, CA 90274
Dear Mr. Belanger:
DEG 23 1991
RE: Review of City of Rolling Hilis' Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Rolling Hills' draft housing
element, received for our review onNovember6, 1991. As you
know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report
our findings to the locality (Government Code 65585(b)).
Our review was facilitated by telephone conversations with
the City's consultant, Karen Warner, including one on
December 18, 1991. This letter summarizes the results of that
conversation.
The Rolling Hills element amendment responds to some of the
issues in our December 12, 1989 review letter. In our opinion,
however, there are several areas. which require revisions to bring
the element into compliance with state housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular the element
still does not include adequate sites to accommodate low- and
moderate -income households in the City. The element should:
1. Identify adequate sites available for the construction
of housing to meet the City's identified needs (Section
655583 (c)(1)). The sites identified for potential
residential development should be able to accommodate
housing which will meet the projected need by income
level.
The land inventory still does not include land zoned
for multifamily housing or demonstrate how existing
zoning allows the development of housing for low- and
moderate -income households. In our opinion, in order
to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing
need for low- and moderate -income households, sites
• •
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 2
should be zoned at higher densities. The only two
zones listed in the element provide for one and two
acre minimum densities.
2. Include additional programs to assist in the
development of housing for low- and moderate -income
households (Section 65583(c)(2)). The element's
programs do not address the City's need for low- and
moderate -income housing. Additional programs should be
included which clearly indicate the actions Rolling
Hills will take to implement the programs and which
describe how the City will utilize its land use
controls, regulatory concessions and incentives, and
appropriate federal and state financing programs to
facilitate the development of low- and moderate -income
housing.
The element contains a density bonus program which
appears to be inconsistent with State law because,
among other things, the element does not include
actions to mitigate the impact of the density
restrictions of existing CC&Rs.
3. The element should include program actions to address
and, when appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing for all income
levels (Section 65583(c)(4)). For example, current
zoning does not allow multifamily development. Land
use policies are described in the element but specific
program actions to mitigate theirimpact on low- and
moderate -income housing opportunities are not included.
4. Include a program action to promote housing
opportunities for all persons (Section 65583(c)(5)).
In our opinion, a fair housing program should include
an information dissemination component to guarantee
full utilization of the housing discrimination referral
program. For example, the City could publicize the
complaint referral agency through the local media,
schools, libraries, the post office, the community
center, or through housing advocacy groups. The
element includes goals to address the above areas but
does not include specific program actions to accomplish
stated goals and policies.
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Page 3
We understand that the City has made a decision to not
address housing needs through modification of current land use
policies and programs, but has made a commitment to continue
assisting low- and moderate -income households through existing
arrangements with the City of Lomita. However, the City is still
responsible for accommodating its regional share of identified
need in the City.
We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have
any questions about our comments, please contact William Andrews
of our staff at .(9,16) 323-7271. We look forward to receiving a
copy of the adopted element pursuant to Government Code Section
65585(h).
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Housing Policy Development
cc: Karen Warner, Cotton Beland and Associates
Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley
Mark Johnson,• Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach
David Booher, California Housing Council
Maya Dunne, City of Irvine
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry
Association
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
1
RILE housing plan vio
By Marie tiketpaifry
STAFF WRITER
Rolling Hills' newly approved housing plan
antly violates California's affordable housing
taws. but the state has no way to force the
exclusive gated city to change the plan, state
18 officials said Monday.
ut `n The City Council approved the housing plan
4-0 last week to meet a state deadline for the
is establishment of such blueprints. The plan says
the city cannot encourage affordable housing be-
cause homeowners' association rules prohibit
more than one house per acre.
Stateofficials sent the city a letter Dec. 20
saying the city's plan violates affordable housing
taws, which require each city to encourage con-
struction of low- and moderate -income housing.
t, But the council approved the plan anyway.
a 72% of cities don't comply
ie
►0
t-
a
7
9
Rolling Hills is not the only housing -law viola-
- 72 percent of California's cities don't com-
ply with affordable -housing requirements, said
Paul Kranhold, spokesman for the Department
of Housing and Community Development,
But most cities include at least some way to
encourage affordable housing within their hous-
ing
plans, Kranhold said. Rolling Hills' claims
that it can never provide affordable housing
"could he considered an estrerae (violation)," he
added.
"Basically, what Rolling Hills has done is ahift
the burden of providing housing onto other cit-
ies," Kranhold said. "This sort of blatant disre-
gard for state law doesn't benefit anybody."
But state officials can do little about it, Kran-
hold said the affordable housing laws don't in-
clude penalties for disobeying them.
Gov. Pete Wilson, however, is now working on
a "growth management package" that may give
more teeth to the housing taws, Kranhold said,
but so fax no plan has been put forth.
Also, Rolling Hills has placed itself at risk of
being named in a lawsuit accusing the city of
discriminatory housing policies, state officials.
said. Groups such as the Legal Aid Foundation of
Los Angeles have pressed housing -discrimination
suits on behalf of clients in other cities.
Rolling Hills officials say that economically
and physically, it makes no sense to encourage
tes law
affordable housing in their city. The Palos
Verdes Peninsula is a bedroom community with
few job centers, and Raping Hills has no com-
mercial enterprises at all.
No public transportation
The city of 2,000 residents has all private
roads where no public transportation is allowed.
Land typically sells for $1 million an acre. And
the private homeowners' association, not the city,
has established rules preventing any multi -family
zoning, said City Attorney -Miichael Jenkins.
State officials said in their letter to the city
that City Hall should pressure the honieowrzers'
association to change those rules so that afford-
able multi -family housing could be built.
Rolling Hills and the other Peninsula cities
now give their federal block grant money to
Lomita for its affordable housing programs and.
other programs for low-income residents.
City Manager Craig Nealis said Rolling Hills.
plans to continue that commitment. Also, the
city is encouraging a drive by El Segundo to
allow affordable -housing planing on a regional
basis, rather than city -by -city. _
Trimming the trees
Founder
of human
relations
Pay Breeze
TUESDAY
December 31, 1991 ***
Dousing plan violates law; penalties. un4l
By Marie Montgomery
STAFF WHITER
Rullin� 1 sills' new housing plan fla-
grantly violates California's affordable
housing laws --- but state official4 say
they have no way to force the exclusive
gated city to change it.
The City Council approved the hous-
ing guidelines 4-0 last week to meet a
state deadline for establishing such
blueprints. The plan says the city can-
not encourage affordable housing be-
cause homeowners' association rules
prohibit more than one house per acre.
State officials sent the city a leller
Dec. 20, saying the plan violates afford-
able housing laws that require each city
to encourage construction of low- and
moderate -income housing. But the coun-
cil approved the plan anyway.
-Rolling Hills is not the only violator.
- About 72 percent of California's cities
don't comply with affordable -housing
,r
�id�Idf q
requirements, said :Paul Kranhold,
spokesman fur the Department of Hous-
ing and Community Development.
`Extreme' violation
But most cities include at least some
way to encourage affordable housing,
Kranhold said. Rolling Hills' claim that
it can never provide affordable housing
"could be considered an extreme (viola-
tion)," he added.
Only a handful of other cities, includ-
ing Hidden Hills in north Los Angeles
County, have stated in their housing
plans that they can't accommodate any
affordable housing.
"Basically, what Rolling Hills has
done is shift the burden of providing
housing onto other 'cities," Kranhold
said Monday. "This sort of blatant dis-
regard for,s(,ate law doesn't benefit any-
body."
Rut date officials can do little about
it. Kr:uahold said the affordable housing
laws don't include penalties'•
(1uv. i'ete Wilson, however, is working
on a "growth management package" that
may give more teeth to housing laws,,
Kranhold said.
Rolling Hills has placed itself at risk
of being named in a lawsuit accusing the.
city of discriminatory housing policies,
state officials said. Groups such'.as.the.
Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
have pressed housing -discrimination
suits on behalf of clients in other cities.
No commercial enterprises
Rolling Hills officials say that, eco-
nomically and physically, it makes no
sense to encourage affordable housing in
their city. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is
a bedroom community with few job cen-
ters, and Rolling Hills has no commer-
cial enterprises.`' '
The city of';'2;000'+( res
private roads "there no public: traiaspor•
tation is allowed.'Land.t ►
$1 million an acre. An
homeowners' association, not t
ha's .'established rules preventing any.ty
Imultifaniily. zoning,: said'City Attorn�
' Michael Jenkins.: • :r:a `�
State officials sugges
that City Hall pressure t
association to change the
able multifamily housing'' g�, " 1 tiib°�=
Rolling Hills and the dt'heeeninsulaf
cities now give their federal block grant
money to Lomita for its affordable hous-
ing programs and other programs for
low-income residents.
City Manager Craig Nealis said Roll-
ing Hills plans to continue that commit-
ment. Also, the city is encouraging a
drive by El Segundo to allow affordable -
housing , planning on a regional basis,
rather than city -by -city.
Metrofl$outh day
R.H. Proposal for.
Low -Cost Housing
Unable to create low-income
housing within its own boundaries,
Rolling Hills will have to rely on
neighboring cities to comply with
state fair -housing guidelines, City
Council members have decided.
Officials of the private, gated,
exclusively residential community
Monday approved a new housing
element for the city's General Plan
that points to city codes that allow
only one house per acre and do not
permit rentals. The city uses no
public funds to maintain roads or
parks.
City Atty. Michael Jenkins said
the city will continue to give what
public funds it does receive to
neighboring cities to build low-cost
housing. He argued that Rolling
Hills can best meet the housing
needs of low-income people by
cooperating with other communi-
ties.
"We think that [the housing
element] does the best the city can
with the constraints," he said. "It is
consistent with the idea of cooper-
ating with our neighbors."
Roo Motes Mimes
FRIDAY
DECEMBER 27.1991 B,CCt
�L�
'Cuy WIZ/ling �aee
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
January 6, 1992
Mr. Douglas Prichard
City Manager
Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
SUBJECT: 1991 ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT FOR
THE CITY OF ROT.T.TNO HTT.LP
Dear Mr. P rd:
Attached find the Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on
December 23, 1991. We received HCD's comment letter on the draft,
and the City Council considered these comments prior to adoption.
If you have auestiens, please fee'
(310) 377-1521.
Sincerely,
27,4
LOLA UNGARU
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
free tc,
�' ac} *e at
•
` !2 fli,.g JUL
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX (213) 377-7288
January 6, 1992
Ms. Michi Takahashi, Executive Assistant
Local Agency Formation Commission
383 Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street, 383
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: 1991 ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT FOR
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Dear Ms. Takahashi:
Attached find the Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on
December 23, 1991. We received HCD's comment letter on the draft,
and the City Council considered these comments prior to adoption.
If you have questions, p'_ease feel free to contact me at
(310) 377-1521.
Sincerely,
k24_ 1(r-7/—
LOLA UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
City
•
0/ leoffinl _Afro
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
January 6, 1992
Mr. Joe Carraras, Housing
Southern California Association of Governments
818 W. 7th Street, 4th floor
Los Angeles, CA'90017
SUBJECT: 1991 ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT 'FOR
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Dear Mr. Carraras:
Attached find the Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on
December 23, 1991. We received HCD's comment letter on the draft,
and the City Council considered these comments prior to adoption.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at
(310) 377-1521.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
•
City
•
0/ leoffiny
INCORPORATED' JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213, 377-7288
January 6, 1992
Mr. Paul Hussey
City Manager
Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
SUBJECT: 1991 ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT FOR
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Dear Mr. Benard:
Attached find the Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on
December 23, 1991. We received HCD's comment letter on the draft,
and the City Council considered these comments prior to adoption.
If you have questions, p'_ease feel free to contact me. at
(310) 377-1521.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGA
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
C144 0/k'0M 44/h
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NOTICE OF.DETERMINATION
TO: X County Clerk
County 'of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles. CA 90012
SUBJECT:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FROM: City of Roll; ,FAX l71s88
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance
Section 21108 and 21152 of the Public Resources
with
Code.
1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the. City of Rolling
Hills
Project Title
State Clearinghouse No.
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
Lola Tlna►ar
Lead Agency
Contact Person
(310) 377-1521
Area Code/Phone
The entire City of Rolling Hills: County of Los Angeles
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: 1991 Revised Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
This is to advise that the Rolling Hills City Council has approved
the above described project on December 23, 1991 and has made the
following determinations regarding the above •described project:
1. The project [ will X will not] have a significant effect
'on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this
pro-lect pursuant to the provisio_n_s of ^_EQA.
_X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures [ were Y were not] made a condition of
the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was X was not?
adopted for this project.
5. Findings [ X were were not] made pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA.
This document is being filed in duplicate. Please acknowledge the
filing date and return acknowledged copy 4n the enclosed, stamped,
self -addressed -envelope.
Signature public Agency)
Date received for filing:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT nF FI H ANn GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EYEMPTION
De Mi ni mus Impact Finding
Project Title/Location Name and Address of Project Proponent
(include county) :
1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills, City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills, CA, County of Los
Angeles
Project Description:
1991 Revised Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills
Findings of Exemption (attach required findings):
The City Council finds that there is no evidence that the 1991
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills
will have an effect on endangered or threatened species of plants
and animals.
The City Council finds that the 1991 Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Rolling Hills will not have an effect on
wetlands and that water courses will not be eliminated or
converted.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the lead • acencv has ^.jade the above.
findings of fact and that based upon_ the initial_ study and he=_r_ng
record the project will not individually or c:..-..._'_ative?
adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2
of the Fish and n=.,,e Code.
LOLA UNGAR
(Chief Planning Official)
Title: Principal Planner
Lead Acen_cy:C_ty of P.^'_1_n^ Hills
Date January 2,.1992
• it A
RESOLUTION NO. 9--Z
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL. OF THE 1991 HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS AND ADOPTTON OF AN ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 65588(a), the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling
Hills hasreviewed the Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City and has determined that it is appropriate to revise that
Element to reflect the results of this review.
SECTION 2. The City prepared a draft revised Housing Element
and submitted it to the state Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for review on October 30, 1989 pursuant to
Government Code Section 65585(b). HCD commented on the draft in
the form of a letter dated December 12, 1989. The City has
reviewed those comments and revised the draft in response to
those comments.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352, copies
of the revised draft have been provided to the Cities of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, the County of Los
Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation
Commission.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000
et seq. ("CEQA"), 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 the
adoption of the revised 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.
SECTION 5. A duly noticed public hearing before this
Planning Commission to consider the proposed negative declaration
and the revised Housing Element was held on November 19, 1991 at
which time public comments on the negative declaration and
revised Housing Element were received by the Commission.
SECTION 6. Based upon the facts contained in this
resolution, those contained in the staff reports and other
a643.mgc
1
components of the legislative record, those contained in the
proposed negative declaration and revised Housing Element, and
the public comments received by the Commission, the Planning
Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) The Planning Commission has considered the
proposed negative declaration, the public comments upon it, and
the other evidence before the Commission and finds that there is
no substantial evidence that the adoption of the revised Housing
Element will have a significant effect on the environment.
(b) City staff and the Planning Commission have
reviewed the Housing Element Guidelines adopted by HCD pursuant
to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code and the findings
contained in HCD's comment letter of December 12, 1989 and the
draft Housing Element has been changed to respond to those
findings.
(c) The revised Housing Element is in full compliance
with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65580 —
65589.8.
(d) The revised Housing Element is consistent with the
other elements of the General Plan because the revised Housing
Element uses the land use designations of the Land Use Element
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 revised Housing Element are appropriate for the City of
Rolling Hills and will contribute to the attainment of the state
housing goal.
(f) The adoption of the revised Housing Element will
aid the City's efforts to assist in the development of housing
for all members of the community.
(g) For the foregoing reasons, the adoption of the
revised Housing Element is in the public interest.
SECTION 7. The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling
Hills hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of
Rolling Hilts that the proposed negative declaration be .adopted
and that the revised draft Housing Element be approved as the
1991 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hilts. This resolution shall be transmitted to the City Council
643 .mgc
and shall constitute the_written recommendation required by
Section 65354 of the Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1991.
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
8643. Mg
• r
Ci4ojA/ Jh//J
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will hold
a Public Hearing on Monday, December 23, 1991, in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2
Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California commencing at 7:30 p.m. to consider the
following:
DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL PLAN
Following review of the Initial Study for the project, Staff has determined that this project
will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration
has been prepared.
Any person is welcome to review the subject document, prior to the public hearing at City
Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon,
and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (closed 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
If you challenge the approval or denial of this document in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Publish once in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News and the Rolling Hills
Herald Saturday November 9, 1991
G R. NEALIS, CITY CLERK
DATE:
City
o/ /2 Pfn9 Jh/h
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TELECOPY COVER SHEET
TIME SENT:
TO: ?\I — FROM: 1•\`l.
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING WILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377.1521
TELEPHONE: OPERATOR:
OUR FILE NO. YOUR FILE NO.
SUBJECT: 0-D NG (.; Vt1C- fL e_fo.) PSI NV
DOCUMENT TELECOPIED:
REMARKS:
TOTAL PAGES (including cover sheet) :
a
The City of Rolling Hillsuses a Savinfax Model 300 telecopier as its
primary telecopier. It is compatible with Group 1, 2 and 3 telecopy
machines. If you have difficulty receiving any pages, please telephone
our switchboard, at (213) 377-1521.
REPLY TO: City of Rolling Hills - Telecopier No. (213) 377-7288
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am a citizen of the United States. I. am over the age of eighteen
year and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address
is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
On the
I served the within
a copy of which is annexed&'hereto and made a part hereof, on the
person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof
day of _\ akl w , 191
- `e�vSi:JCr �t�NEN
enclosed in a sealed envelop with postage thereon fully prepaid,
in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed
as follows:
FAXED MAILED DELIVERED
Palos Verdes
Peninsula News
City Attorney City Manager
Council
Also posted in one public place
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed on the } -c-st
Hills, California.
day of
1991 at Rolling
DIANE SAWYER
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
F -9 T(
DRAFT
HOUSING ELEMENT
City of Rolling Hills
tbd
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
October 23, 1991
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
747 East Green Street, Suite 400
Pasadena, California 91101
#584.02
HOUSING ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
State Policy,. Authorization and Mandate 2
Purpose of Element 3
Relationship to Other Elements 3
Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions 6
Housing Needs Assessment 7
Demographic Trends 7
Household Characteristics 8
Housing Unit Characteristics 15
Housing Constraints 26
Market Constraints 26
Governmental Constraints 28
Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints 34
Housing Opportunities 36
Residential Land Inventory 36
Residential Development Potential Compared
With Future Housing Growth Needs 38
Summary of Housing Issues and Opportunities . 39
Housing Plan
Evaluation of Accomplishments Under
Existing Housing Element
Goals and Policies
Implementing Programs
Appendices
A - Federal and State Housing Programs and
Their Applicability in Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills Second Unit Ordinance
40
40
44
46
HOUSING ELEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pagc
H-1 State Housing Element Requirements 4
H-2 Age Characteristics of Population: 1980, 1989 9
H-3 Race and Ethnicity: 1980, 1989 10
H-4 Homeless Social Service Providers 16
H-5 Housing Trends: Rolling Hills and Surrounding
Areas, 1980-1989 17
H-6 Residential Recycling Activity 18
H-7 Age of Housing Stock: 1989 20
H-8 Single -Family Residential Sales 21
H-9 1989-1994 Household Needs by Income Group 23
H-10 Summary of Residential Development Fees 31
H-11 Time Requirements and Fees for Project Processing 33
H-12 Future Residential Development Potential 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
H-1 Site Inventory for Residential Development
Pagc
37
rr
HOUSING ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The City of Rolling Hills is an entirely residential community of
rural character with large lot parcels of one acre or more. The
City encompasses 2.98 square miles of land on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula. The land use pattern was established with the original
subdivision and sale of parcels, which began. in 1936. From its
inception, the emphasis in Rolling Hills has been to create and
maintain a distinctive rural residential character which preserves the
sense of openness created by the area's hilly topography. The
City's minimum lot size requirements are reflective of the
community's desire to maintain its rural setting, recognition of the
limitations presented by the varied topography and the lack of
urban infrastructure.
The City was established as a community of single-family homes on
large parcels and has continued as such for more than 50 years.
Today it is essentially a built -out community. All of the
developable property in the Ci yyis subject -to enforceable
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) which run with the
property in perpetuity and greatly restrict development within the
City. These restrictions have been in existence since 1936.
A large, geologically unstable open area exists in the City. It once
contained numerous homes, but many of these suffered irreparable
damage in a major slippage in the 1980s. Soils and geologic
conditions place great constraints on development within the City.
The City has experienced majorlandslides due to soil saturation
and instability. Since only a few homes on the periphery of the
City are served by a sewer system, most new homes must also
utilize septic tanks and leach fields for disposal of sanitary waste.
Past experience suggests substantial care and restraint must be
exercised in the expansion of any existing systems or the addition of.
new systems to avoid possible ground instability due to saturation of
the upper soil layers. This situation and existing infrastructure
constraints act to limit densities in the City. The City has acted to
restrict development in areas of past landslides and other areas
which studies indicate to be potentially unsafe.
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
While the Land Use Element is concerned with housing in a spatial
and density context, the Housing Element identifies housing
programs aimed at housing conservation, new construction, and
programs to address housing issues for special needs groups. This
Housing Element builds upon land use goals and policies which are
concerned with where new housing will be located and at what
density it will be constructed. The Element establishes policies that
will guide City officials in daily decision making and sets forth an
action program designed to enable the City to realize its housing
goals. The Rolling Hills Housing Element is an official municipal
response to legal requirements that housing policy be made part of
the planning process and has been prepared in accord with State
laws which govern the preparation of housing elements.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), prepared by
SCAG documents Rolling Hills as having an existing affordable
housing need forlower income households of zero. Rolling Hills'
future new construction need is for 40 dwelling units over the
1989-1994 time period, specified by the RHNA. The City's Land
Use Plan provides for the development of 59 additional dwelling
units, thereby providing a development capacity which is more than
adequate to accommodate the City's share of regional housing
needs.
State Policy, Authorization and Mandate
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a
decent home and a suitable living environment for every
Californian as the State's major housing goal. Recognizing that
local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this
goal, and to assure that local planning effectively implements
statewide housing policy, the Legislature added Article 10.6 to the.
Government Code in 1980 and incorporated into law the Housing
Element Guidelines promulgated by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD). The original
Housing Element Guidelines were adopted on June 17, 1971, and
revised guidelines were adopted on November 17, 1977.
The Government Code specifies the intent of the Legislature to
insure that counties and cities actively participate in attaining the
state housing goal, and sets forth specific components to be
contained n a housing element. These include the identification
and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources and
constraints;_ a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and
scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement and
development of housing; identification of adequate sites for
HOUSING ELEMENT
2 OCTOBER 23, 1991
housing; and adequate provision for the existing and projected
needs of all economic segments of the community.
State law requires Housing Elements to be updated at least every
five years. The City has prepared the following updated Housing
Element in compliance with the July 1, 1989 deadline for
jurisdictions within the SCAG region.
Purpose of Element
The purpose of the Housing Element is to, identify the City's
existing and projected housing needs, and to establish policies which
City officials will use in daily decision making in addressing these
needs. The goals of providing decent, safe, ; sanitary and affordable
housing to present and future residents of the City is a primary
focus of the Element. The Element also directs emphasis at
specific target groups requiring attention in the City, specifically the
elderly. The Housing Element serves as a flexible policy guideline
to defined problems which may arise in meeting housing needs.
Relationship to Other Elements
As. stated in the Land Use Element, a major purpose of the
updated General Plan is to achieve internal consistency among all
elements. Together these elements will provide the framework for
development of those facilities, services, and land uses necessary to
address the needs and desires of City residents.
By undertaking a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan,
background information and policy direction presented in one
element is also reflected within other Plan elements. For example,
residential development capacities established in the Land Use
Element and constraints to housing development identified in the
Safety Element are incorporated within the Housing Element. The
Housing Element is thus inter -related with the other General Plan
elements, and is entirely consistent with the policies and proposals
set forth by the Plan.
HOUSING ELEMENT
3 OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-1
STATE HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS
REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENT REFERENCE
A.
Housing Needs Assessment
1.
Analysis of population trends in Rolling Hills in relation
Household Needs Assessment -
to regional trends
Demographic Trends
2.
Projection and quantification of Rolling Hills' existing
Housing Needs Assessment -
and projected housing needs for all income groups
Household Characteristics
3.
Analysis and documentation of Rolling Hills' housing
characteristics including the following:
a. level of housing cost compared to ability to pay,
Housing Needs Assessment -
Household Characteristics
b. overcrowding;
Housing Needs Assessment -
Household Characteristics
c. housing stock condition.
Housing Needs Assessment -
Housing Unit Characteristics
4.
An inventory of land suitable for residential development
Housing Opportunities -
including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment
potential and an analysis of the relationship of zoning,
public facilities and services to these sites
Residential Land Inventory
5.
Analysis of existing and potential government
Housing Constraints -
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels
Governmental Constraints
6.
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental and
Housing Constraints- Market
market. constraints upon maintenance, improvement, or.
Constraints, Environmental
development of housing for all income levels
and Infrastructure
Constraints
7.
Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly,
large families, female -headed households, and homeless
Housing Needs Assessment -
Household Characteristics
8.
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with
Housing Needs Assessment -
respect to residential development
Housing Unit Characteristics
4
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-1 (continued)
REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENT REFERENCE
B.
Goals and Policies
1.
Identification of Rolling Hills' community goals relative
Housing Plan -
to maintenance, improvement and development of
housing
Goals and Policies
2.
Quantified objectives and policies relative to the
Housing Plan -
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
in Rolling Hills
Goals and Policies
C.
Implementation Program
An implementation program should do the following:
1.
Identify adequate sites which will be made available
Housing Plan -
through appropriate action with required public services
and facilities for a variety of housing types for all
income levels
Implementing Programs
2.
Program to assist in the development of adequate
Housing Plan -
housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate -income
households
Implementing Programs
3.
Identify and, when appropriate and possible, remove
Housing Plan -
governmental constraints to the maintenance, _
improvement, and development of housing in Rolling
Implementing Programs
Hills
4.
Conserve and improve the condition of the existing
Housing Plan -
affordable housing stock in Rolling Hills
Implementing Programs
5.
Promote housing opportunities for all persons
Housing Plan -
regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry,
national origin or color
Implementing Programs
5
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
r,
Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions
CC&Rs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) represent private
contractual obligations between homeowners and are usually
established at the time a subdivision or community is built.
Development in Rolling Hills is severely limited by CC&Rs that
apply to almost all of the property in the City. In some instances
the City zoning ordinance is less restrictive than the CC&Rs in
Rolling Hills. The City enforces the provisions of the zoning
ordinance. However, the provisions of . the CC&Rs are rigorously
enforced by the Roliling Hills Community Association.
HOUSING ELEMENT
6 OCTOBER 23, 1991.
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Demographic Trends
Population Growth
As of January 1, 1989, the City of Rolling Hills had a resident
population of 2,092 persons, making it the sixth smallest city in Los
Angeles County. With a 1970 population of 2,050 and a 1980
population of 2,049, Rolling Hills experienced only a two percent
net population increase over the past two decades. Some
population loss did, however, occur as a result of the six homes
which were severely damaged and four which were destroyed in the
Flying Triangle Landslide. Limited growth in the City's population
is indicative of the fact that the majority of Rolling Hills' residential
lots are built out, with a diminishing supply of parcels available for
development. Opportunities for new residents to move into Rolling
Hills have occurred through new housing construction,
redevelopment of the City's original housing stock, and changes in
ownership. This residential turnover can be evidenced in the
changing demographics and household characteristics of the City's
population.
Age Composition
The age distribution of Rolling Hilts residents in 1980 as reported
in the Census and in 1989 as estimated by Urban Decision Systems
is illustrated in Table H-2. The median age in Rolling Hills was
38.2 in 1980, as compared to 30.9 in the County, 29.9 in California,
and 30.0 in the United States. This higher median age in Rolling
Hills is reflective of the City's large middle -age and elderly
population, and potentially its higher priced housing stock deterring
first time homebuyers and young families with children. Estimates
of the City's age distribution for 1989 depict a continued trend
toward an aging population, with the median age increasing to 39.7
years, and nearly 40 percent of the population over 45 years of age.
Employment
The 1984 Industrial -Commercial Employment project reported a
total of 230 jobs in the City. Most of the employees in the City
were reported to be in the services industry, jobs primarily related
to domestic and landscape services. The jobs/housing relationship
in the City is obviously tiltedtowards housing, since most residents
HOUSING ELEMENT
7 OCTOBER 23, 1991
work in professional and business related activities located outside
the City. No significant change in the number of jobs in Rolling
Hills is expected since no new source of employment is expected in
the future.
Ethnicity
The ethnic make-up of Rolling Hills residents is presented in Table
H-3. As this table reveals, the majority of the City's residents in
1980 were White (93%). The proportion of Whites had decreased
to an estimated 87.9 percent in 1989, reflecting , the influx of other
ethnic groups. The second largest ethnic group in the City is
persons of Spanish/Hispanic origin, representing an estimated 12
percent of the City's 1989. population; this reflects a significant
increase from 1980 when Spanish/Hispanics represented 4.5 percent
of the population. It should be mentioned, however, that persons
of Spanish/Hispanic origin are now a self -designated category
separate from race (see note in Table H-3) Rolling Hills has also
experienced an influx of residents of the Asian/Pacific Islander
race. This group constitutes an estimated 8.6 percent of the City's
1989 population, as compared with 5 percent in 1980. Blacks,
American Indians, and "Other" ethnic groups are the least
represented, in total comprising an estimated 3.5 percent of the
population.
Household Characteristics
The characteristics of the population provide an essential
component toward the understanding of growth and change in a
community. In addition,_ information collected on the household
level provides a good base for the analysis of a community's
housing needs. The Census defines a household as all persons who
occupy a housing unit, which may include single persons living
alone, families related through marriage or blood, and unrelated
individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or
convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations
are not considered households.
Household Composition and Size
In 1980, there were 629 households in Rolling Hills. According to
the Department of Finance, the City had grown to 647 households
in 1989, representing a 2.7 percent increase during the nine year
period. While the net increase in households has been nominal,
actual residential turnover has been more substantial based on
recent trends in residential recycling. An August 1988 report
HOUSING ELEMENT
8 OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-2
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AGE CHARACTERISTICS OF POPULATION: 1980. 1989
1980 (a) 1989 (b)
Age
# of
% of
# of
% of
Range
Persons
Population
Persons
Population
0-5
100
4.9
117
5.6
6-13
293
14.3
247
11.8
14-17
221
10.8
163
7.8
18-20
95
4.6
69
3.3
21-24
85
4.1
107
5.1
25-34
122
6.0
144
6.9
35-44
335
16.3
424
20.3
45-54
383
18.7
398
19.0
55-64
268
13.1
249
11.9
65 +
147
7.2
174
8.3
TOTAL
2,049 _
100.0
2,092
100.0
FEMALE 1,044 50.9 1,060 50.7
MALE 1,005 49.1 - 1,032 49.3
Median Age 38.2 39.7
Source:
(a) U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census Report.
(b) Urban Decision Systems, Demographic Trends:
1980-89-94.
HOUSING ELEMENT
9 OCTOBER 3, 1991
TABLE H-3
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
RACE AND ETHNICITY: 1980. 1989
1980 (a) 1989 (b)
Race and
Ethnicity
# of
Persons
010 of
Population
# of
Persons
% of
Population
White
Black
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
1,906
27
6
102
8
93.0
1.3
.3
5.0
.4
1,838
46
11
180
17
87.9
2.2
.5
8.6
.8_
TOTAL
2,049
100.0
2,092
100.0
Spanish/Hispanic
92
4.5
251
12.0
Source: (a) State of California, Dept. of Finance, Controlled Population
Estimates for 1-1-89.
(b) Urban Decision Systems, Demographic Trends: 1980-89-94.
Note: In the 1980 Census, a large percentage of Spanish origin persons classified
themselves as Other rather than White, Black, Asian, or American Indian.
To bring this data in line with current Bureau of the Census practice,
Spanish/Hispanic respondents have been redistributed among the other
racial categories based on their overall proportion in the area being
analyzed, as well as being separated out as "Spanish/Hispanic." Therefore,
the population identified in the Spanish/Hispanic category is not counted
in the total.
10
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 3, 1991
prepared for the City by The Keith Companies entitled "Residential
Trends Analysis" documents 18 residential tear downs/rebuilds and
an additional 23 major remodeling projects between 1985 and 1988.
The 1989 Community Attitude Survey confirms an extensive level of
remodeling activity in Rolling Hills, with approximately 15 percent
of households responding indicating their residence had undergone
remodeling since 1985.
Families represent the City's predominant household type,
comprising approximately 90 percent of all households. In contrast,
families represent 72 percent of all households County -wide. This
high concentration of family households in Rolling Hills is reflective
of the City's land use pattern of large, single-family homes and lack
of multi -family rental properties. Correspondingly, average
household size is also significantly larger in Rolling Hills (3.2
persons per unit) than that evidenced County -wide (2.8 persons per
unit).
Overcrowding
The Census defines overcrowded households as units with greater
than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways
and porches. Overcrowding reflects the inability of households to
buy or rent housing which provides reasonable privacy for their
residents. According to the 1980 Census, the incidence of
overcrowding in Rolling Hills was minimal, with less than one
percent of all households defined as overcrowded, compared to
over 11 percent County -wide.
Income
Rolling Hills is a wealthy community with an estimated average
1989 household income of $193,438 and an estimated median
household income of S82,400 (Source: Urban Decision Systems).
SCAG estimated that in 1988 Rolling Hills had 46 lower income
households defined as households which earn less than 80 percent
of the County median income. Because no household is reported
to pay over 30 percent of its income on housing (see Housing
Affordability) and housing costs in the City are relatively very high,
this group is probably comprised of persons with high wealth
reserves and/or with high home equity reserves. This statistic may
also reflect live-in help employed by resident households.
11
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Housing Affordability
State and Federal standards for housing overpayment are based on
an income -to -housing cost ratio of 30 percent and above.
Households paying greater than this amount have less income left
over for another necessities such as food, clothing, utilities and
health care. Upper Income households are generally capable of
paying a larger proportion of their income for housing, and
therefore estimates of housing overpayment generally focus on
lower income groups.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment .(RHNA) prepared by
SCAG identifies housing overpayment for the City's lower income
households based on data from the 1980 Census. Lower income
households are defined as households whose total gross income is
less than 80 percent of the County median. According to the -
RHNA, 46 of Rolling Hills' 646 households in 1988 were classified
as lower income. However, none of these lower income households
were identified as "overpaying" for housing. This is likely due to
the fact that the City's lower income households are predominately
retired households on fixed incomes whose homes have already
been paid off.
Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population may have a more difficult time
finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances.
These "special needs" households include the elderly, handicapped
persons, large families, female -headed households, farmworkers,
and the homeless.
Elderly: The special needs of many elderly households result from
their lower, fixed incomes, physical disabilities, and dependence
needs. An estimated 174 elderly persons (65 years and older)
resided in Rolling Hills in 1989, representing 83 percent of the
population. The proportion of elderly can be expected ` to increase
as those persons between theages of 45 and 64 (31% of Rolling
Hills' population) grow older.
The housing needs of the City's elderly can be addressed through
shared living arrangements, equity conversion programs and
congregate housing.
Elderly persons in Rolling Hills appear not to require financial
assistance to obtain adequate housing. Home equity, accumulated
wealth, and passive income can be assumed to be available to
12
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
elderly persons in the City. The programs discussed in the final
section of the Element allow seniors to convert wealth to usable
income if required to assure adequate housing and care.
Handicapped: Physical handicaps can hinder access to housing
units of traditional design as well as potentially limit the ability to
earn adequate income. The 1980 Census contains data on persons
who have physical disabilities that are work and/or public
transportation related. According to the Census, there were 53
persons in Rolling Hills with a work disability, which was defined as
a physical condition that impeded a person's ability to work.
Another 18 persons had a public transportation disability, defined
as a physical condition that presented difficulty in the use of public
transportation. In aggregate, an estimated 3.5 percent of the City's
residents were physically handicapped in 1980, translating to an
estimated 73 handicapped residents in 1989. Some of these
persons, however, may have handicaps which do not entail special
housing needs. For example, the Census includes in its definition
of "disabled" persons those with emphysema and emotional
disorders, althoughneither of these disabilities affect housing needs.
The Community Attitude Survey identified 1.9 percent of the City's
households as having one or more members confined to a
wheelchair.
Income and wealth characteristics of Rolling Hills residents indicate
that handicapped persons in Rolling Hills can afford to modify their
housing to accommodate special needs. Handicapped elderly
persons can also obtain assistance through senior services programs,
including the congregate care, shared housing and equity conversion
programs adopted as part of this element.
Large -Families: Large families are identified as a group with
special housing needs based on the limited availability of
adequately sized, affordable housing units. An estimated 20
percent of the City's households have five or more members,
translating to 129 households. This high incidence of large
households is reflective of the City's large unit sizes (the median-
sized house in 1980 had eight rooms), many of which include
separate quarters for domestic help. While the City's large units
are by no means affordable to lower income households, it is
doubtful that the City has any large households which are lower
income.
Female -Headed -Households: Female -headed households are more
likely to need housing assistance due to an average pay scale for
women substantially below that for men. In 1980, 3.5 percent of
13
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Rolling Hills' households were headed by a woman, translating to
an estimated 23 households in. 1989. Approximately half of these
female households in Rolling Hills have dependent children.
Female -headed households in Rolling Hills are likely to be
divorced women with children, or widows; Housing Element
programs for large families and the elderly will address the needs
of these groups. The 1980 Census indicates that only two female -
headed households had incomes whichfell below the poverty level,
although actual household income may be under -reported due to
failure to report all childcare and alimony payments. The residents
of Rolling Hills are likely to have other resources, such as wealth
reserves with which to pay for housing and other necessities.
Farmworkers: The special housing needs of many farmworkers
stem from their low wages and the insecure nature of their
employment. Only 12 Rolling Hills' residents were employed in the
"farming, forestry and fishing" occupations in 1980. The demand
for housing generated by farmworkers in the City is thus estimated
to be extremely low if not non-existent.
Homeless: Throughout the country, homelessness has become an
increasing problem. Factors contributing to the rise in
homelessness include the general lack of affordable housing for low
and moderate income persons, increases in the number of persons
whose incomes fall below the poverty level, reductions in public
subsidy to the poor, and the de -institutionalization of the mentally
At present, the County of Los Angeles does not have specific data
on the number of homeless people surviving on a daily basis in the
metropolitan area. The number is believed to be between 35,000
and 50,000, leaving Los Angeles with the worst homeless problem
in the United States. Within the City of Rolling Hills, the homeless
problem is non-existent. None of the South Bay area social service
agencies or the Lomita Station of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs
office have any evidence that homeless persons exist within Rolling
Hills. Part of the reason for this is that no commercial or social
services exist in the City to attract homeless individuals or families.
Additionally, Rolling Hills' gated entries, wildlife and rugged terrain
provide an inhospitable environment for homeless. Income and
wealth characteristics of Rolling Hills residents indicate .that
residents have financial and other resources to draw on in the event
of emergencies that could otherwise precipitate a housing crisis.
While. the City of Rolling Hills currently does not have a homeless
population, the City will coordinate with and direct the
14
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23;1991
homeless to local social service providers if the need arises in the
future. As identified in Table H-4, homeless social service
providers that exist nearest to Rolling Hills are in Wilmington and
San Pedro. The Beacon Light Mission in Wilmington currently has
26 beds and is in the process of expanding to 40. The Mission is
open to adults but will also accept families. 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. Beacon Light
Mission has served the homeless population since 1946. St.
Joseph's Table associated with the Catholic Mission serves the
Wilmington area. St. Joseph's Table provides no overnight shelter
but provides food service to 130-150 people per day. Also serving
the Wilmington/San Pedro area is Rainbow Shelter, a facility for
battered women and children. Rainbow Shelter provides shelter for
up to 20 women and children and can refer potential clients to
other similar services in Long Beach, West Covina, Carson and
Hermosa Beach. Some area churches volunteer assistance to the
local services and occasionally provide assistance to their members.
Housing Unit Characteristics
Housing Growth
As a nearly built -out community, residential growth has begun to
slow in Rolling Hills as the supply of buildable land becomes
exhausted and various constraints prohibit redevelopment of
existing lots at higher densities. In 1980, the City's housing
inventory included 653 housing units. Nine years later, this
inventory had increased by only 30 units, for a total 1989 housing
stock of 683 dwelling units. Comparing the residential growth rate
in Rolling Hills with nearby jurisdictions (see Table H=5), the City's
4.5 percent increase in housing units during the 1980-1989 period
was comparable to the cities of Lomita and Palos Verdes Estates.
However, both Los Angeles City and the County as a whole
experienced a significantly higher rate of growth than Rolling Hills,
indicating that the level of growth occurring in Rolling Hills is
substantially below that occurring in the region.
15
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE 11-4
HOMELESS SOCIAL SERVI
AGENCY/PROVIDER
LOCATION •
SOCIAL SERVICE
SERVICE
CAPACITY
Beacon Light Mission
St. Joseph's Table/Catholic
Mission
Rainbow Shelter
525 Broad Avenue
Wilmington, Ca
Wilmington area
San Pedro
Provides shelter and meals to
men, women and families.
Provides meals to men,
women and families.
Provides shelter for battered
women and children. Offers
referrals to other social
service atencies when full.
26 beds, increasing to 40
150 bed capacity
20 bed capacity
ource: Cotton/Belan
HOUSING ELEMENT
16 OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-5
HOUSING TRENDS: ROLLING HILLS AND SURROUNDING AREAS
1980-1989
Number of Housing Units
Jurisdiction
Percent
1980 1989 Increase
Lomita 8,137 8,501 4.5%
Los Angeles City 1,190,901 1,283,889 7.8%
Palos Verdes Estates 4,880 5,095. 4.4%
Rancho Palos Verdes 12,281 15,356 25.0%
Rolling Hills 653 683 4.6%
Rolling Hills Estates 2,613 2,730 0.5%
Los Angeles County 2,855,555. 3,131,076 9.6%
Source: Department of Finance Controlled Population Estimates for 4-1-80
and 1-1-89..
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 housing
stock was built in the 1950s, and is 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 being replaced with much larger, expansive units
averaging 6,000 to 8,000 square feet in size. M presented in Table
H-6, in the four year period between 1985-1988, a total of 18 units
were demolished in the City and replaced with newly constructed
units. In addition, 23 homes underwent substantial
remodeling/additions. The Community Attitude Survey confirms an
extensive level of remodeling activity in Rolling Hills with
approximately 15 percent of households responding indicating their
residence had undergone remodeling since 1985. This ' trend of
residential recycling can be expected to continue and potentially
increase as less vacant land is available for development.
17
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-6
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING ACTIVITY
1985-1988
Number of Dwelling Units
Zone RAS-1 Zone RAS-2 Total
Tear Downs/Rebuilds .
11
7
18
Major Remodeling/Additions
15
8
23
TOTAL
26
15
41
Source: City of Rolling Hills Residential Trends Analysis, The Kei
Companies, August 1988.
Housing Type and Tenure
When Rolling Hills was originally laid out by A.E. Hanson in the
1930s, its 600 acres were divided into one and two -plus acre homesites.
With incorporation of the area in 1957, the City confirmed its
commitment to maintaining the area's rural character through
adoption of the following two residential zone districts: RA -S-1
(Residential Agriculture -Suburban Zone, one acre minimum) and RA -
S -2 (Residential Agriculture -Suburban Zone, two acre minimum).
These zone districts have provided for the development of an entirely
single-family residential community.
The tenure distribution of a community's housing stock (owner versus
renter) influences several aspects of a local housing market.
Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, ownership housing
evidencing a much lower turnover rate than rental housing. Housing
overpayment, while faced by many households regardless of tenure, is
far more prevalent among renters. Tenure preferences are primarily
related to households income, composition, and age of. householder.
As in any community with an exclusively single-family housing stock,
the vast majority of Rolling Hills' households are owner -occupied.
Approximately two percent of the City's households in 1980 were
renters, with this proportion increasing to an estimated 3.9 .percent
according to the 1989 Community Attitude Survey. This translates to
25 renter -occupied households in 1989.
18
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
There is no subsidized housing in Rolling Hills, as confirmed by
discussions with City and County staff, and through review of
"Inventory of Federally Subsidized Low -Income Rental Units at Risk
of Conversion" (California Housing Partnership Corporation), and the
"Use of Housing Revenue Bond Proceeds 1990" (California Debt
Advisory Commission). As a result, there is no housing at risk of
losing its subsidized status which must be considered for possible
preservation in the Housing Element.
Vacancy Rates
An evaluation of local vacancy rates, and whether they are higher or
lower than that necessary for normal. residential mobility and growth,
provides insight into the availability and condition of the local
housing market. For instance, if vacancy rates are so high that many
units stand unoccupied for prolonged periods of time, normal upkeep
may be deferred. Conversely, of vacancy rates are too low, pent-up
housing demand will have an inflationary impact on housing costs.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by SCAG
identifies an "ideal" mobility or vacancy rate of 2.04 percent for
Rolling Hills housing stock; this low target vacancy is reflective of the
City's single-family orientation. According to the RHNA, Rolling
Hills' actual residential vacancy rate was 1.8 percent in 1987. This
would indicate that while the City's housing market can be considered
tight, vacancies are not significantly below that which is considered
healthy by SCAG.
Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Often a good indicator of housing condition is the age of the a
community's housing stock. As indicated in Table H-7, the majority of
Rolling Hills' housing (74°7o) was constructed between 1940-1969.
Housing development maintained a steady pace in the 1970's, with an
additional 112 dwelling units, or 16 percent of the housing stock built
during this decade. Due to a diminishing supply of available land,
development in Rolling Hills has slowed significantly in the 1980's,
with only 34 new units constructed on vacant land between 1980-1989.
As illustrated in Table H-6, an additional 18 units were developed
between 1985-1988 through the demolition of existing structures, with
an additional 23 units which underwent major remodeling/additions.
19
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-7
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK: 1989
Year Built
Units
% of Total
1939 or earlier
34
5.0
1940-1949
96
14.1
1950-1959
275
40.3
1960-1969
132
19.3
1970-1974
53
7.8
1975-1978
39
5.7
1979 -March 1980
20
2.9
April 1980 -Jan. 1989
34
4.9
Totals V
683
100.0
Note:
Unit totals do not reflect residential structures which have been
demolished since the 1980 census.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census Report;
California Dept. of Finance, Controlled Population Estimates for
1-1-89.
The accepted standard for major housing rehabilitation needs is
after 30 years. With nearly 60 percent of Rolling Hills' housing
stock over 30 years old, continued housing maintenance is essential.
The fact that the 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. A
windshield survey conducted in the summer of 1989 confirms that,
unlike in many other communities, the housing stock in Rolling
Hills is in excellent condition. Approximately 94 percent of
households responding to the resident survey indicated their
residence was either in good condition, or needed only minor
repairs (paint, windows repairs, etc.).
Housing Costs
For -Sale Housing: Like the three other communities (Palos. Verdes
Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Rolling Hills Estates) which
comprise the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the 1980 census identifies the
median home value in Rolling Hills in its highest value category of
$200,000+; for comparison,the median sales price County -wide was
$87,400. According to Coldwell Banker's 1988 Sales Report and
Property Statistics Analysis for the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the
average selling price for a single-family home in 1988 was $629,000,
with prices ranging from a low of $245,000 to ahigh of $3,900,000.
20
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
These sales prices reflect the extremely high cost of land on the
Peninsula, combined with strong consumer demand for the
expansive luxury homes and coastal location offered.
As a private residential community which has managed to maintain
its rural ambiance amidst encroaching urbanization, single family
sales prices in Rolling Hills are among the highest on the
Peninsula. Table H-8 presents residential sales data for 1988 and
the first quarter of 1989 for Rolling Hills. The average single-
family sales price in 1988 was $1.1 million, and had increased to ,
nearly $1.4 million by the first quarter of 1989. Residential unit
sizes were relatively modest considering the high sales prices,
averaging 3,400 square feet in 1988 and 3,800 square feet in early
1989. Many of these smaller units will likely be either substantially
remodeled, or completely redeveloped with larger homes.
TABLE H-8
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SALES
•
Time Period
Sales
Volume
Average
Sq.Ft.
Average
Sales Price
Price
Range
Average
Days on
Market
Jan -Dec 1988
33
3,432
$ 1,100,666
S 620,000-
77
$1,800,000
Jan -March 1989
3
3,821
$1,383,333
$1,150,000-
35
$1,650,000
Source:
The Nelson Report: Sales Report and Property Statistics Analysis
for the Palos Verdes Peninsula, 1988 and Jan -March 1989, prepared
by Coldwell Banker.
Rental Housing: The vast majority of Rolling Hills' households are
owner -occupied, reflective of the City's exclusively single-family
housing stock which is derived from the covenants, conditions and
restrictions. Approximately two percent of the City's 1980
households were renters, with this proportion increasing to an
estimated three percent in 1989. Similar to housing values, the
1980 census identifies median contract rent in Rolling Hills in its
highest value category of $500+; for comparison, median contract
rent County -wide was $244.
21
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23; 1991
Share of Region's Housing. Needs
State law requires jurisdictions to provide for their share of regional
housing needs. The Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) has determined the 1989-1994 needs for the
City of Rolling Hills, and has estimated the number of households
which the City will be expected to accommodate during this period.
Future housing needs reflect the number of new units needed in a
jurisdiction based on households which are expected to reside
within the jurisdiction (future demand), plus an adequate supply of
vacant housing to assure mobility and new units to replace losses.
These needs were forecast by the 1988 Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), which considered on a regional and local
level: market demand for housing, employment opportunities,
availability of suitable sites for public facilities, commuting patterns,
type and tenure of housing need, and housing needs of farm
workers.
According to the model, housing to accommodate 40 households
would need to be added to the City's June 30, 1989 total
households by July 1994 to fulfill the City's share of regional
housing needs. Based on the distribution of regional income, this
total can be" further divided among HUD's four income groups to
identify the types of households to be provided for as follows:
22
HOUSING ELEMEIk
OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-9
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
1989-1994 HOUSEHOLD NEEDS BY INCOME GROUP
Very Low (0-50% County median income
2
(5.0%)
Low (50-80% County median income)
4
(10.0%)
Moderate (80-120010 County median
income)
3
(7.5%)
Upper (over 120% County median
income)
31
(17.5%)
Total Households
40
Source:
SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment, June 1988
Rolling Hills can accommodate 46 additional housing units, but
unique constraints within the City may inhibit its ability to meet the
needs of all income groups within the City boundaries. The City,
however, shall attempt to accommodate the needs of all income
groups through the actions described in the Housing Programs
section of this Element.
The Housing Element sets forth policies and programs to address
the future housing needs identified by the RHNA. As identified in
the Element's Five Year Action Plan, programs include linkage into
the local senior citizen shared housing program and the
contribution of CDBG funds towards the construction of congregate
housing for seniors, with the goal of addressing the City's future
need for nine very low, low and moderate income households. The
remaining need for 31 upper income households is accommodated
under the Land Use Plan, and will be provided for through market-
rate construction.
Energy Conservation
As residential energy costs continue to rise, increasing utility costs
reduce the affordability of housing. The City has many
opportunities to directly affect energy use within its jurisdiction. In
addition to required compliance with the Building Code and Title
24 of the California Administrative Code relating to energy
conservation, the City sets forth goals and policies which encourage
the conservation of non-renewable resources in concert with the use
of alternative energy sources to increase energy self-sufficiency. In
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
large part, energy savings and utility bill reductions can be realized
through the following energy design standards:
Glazing - Glazing on south facing exterior walls allows for
winter sun rays to warm the structure. Avoidance of this
technique on the west side of the unit prevents afternoon
sun rays from overheating the unit.
Landscaping - Strategically placed vegetation reduces the
amount of direct sunlight on the windows. The
incorporation of deciduous trees in the landscaping plans
along . the southern area of units reduces summer sun rays,
while allowing penetration of winter rays 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 saves on
energy costs. Natural gas is conserved with the use of flow
restrictors on all hot water faucets and shower heads.
Weatherization Techniques - Weatherization techniques such
as insulation, caulking, and weatherstripping can reduce
energy use for air-conditioning up to 55% and for heating as
much as 40%. 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 - Each household contains . a
different mixture of appliances. Regardless of the mix of
appliances present, appliances can be used in ways which
increase their energy efficiency. Unnecessary appliances can
be eliminated, 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 on the market.
Efficient Use of Lighting - Costs of lighting a home can be
reduced through purchase of light bulbs which produce the
24
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
APPENDIX A
Federal and State Housing Programs
and Their Applicability in Rolling Hills
FEDERAL AND STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS
AND THEIR APPLICABILITY IN ROLLING HILLS
Commend
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Section 8 Existing
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
Section 8 New Construction
Section 202
Section 106(b) - Seed Money Loans
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)
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.
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.
Provides funding for the construction of housing
affordable to lower -income persons. High land costs
and legal and environmental constraints preclude the
development of projects in Rolling Hilts that would
be eligible for such funding.
Provides funding for senior housing. High land
costs and legal and environmental constraints make
the development of projects that would be eligible for
such funding infeasible in Rolling Hills.
Provides interest free loans to non-profit housing
sponsors for preconstruction costs. Currently used
only in connection with Section 202 above.
Provides funding for a wide range of community
development activities. Rolling Hills maximizes its
use of these funds by using them to help fund senior
housing in areas where land is less expensive than in
the City, thereby allowing more people to be helped
through limited funds.
A-1
FEDERAL AND STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS
(continued)
PAID
STATE PROGRAMS
SB 99 -Redevelopment. Construction Loans
California Housing Finance Agency
(CHFA) -Direct Lending
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)
Home Ownership and Home Improvement
(HOHI) Program
California Self -Help Housing Program
Mobile Home Park Assistance
Emergency Shelter
Special User Housing Rehabilitation
Comment:
Authorizes issuance of bonds by redevelopment
agencies. Rolling Hills does not have a -
redevelopment agency, or any areas which could be
defined as blighted
Provides loans to housing sponsors for construction
or rehabilitation of housing projects containing over
five units. Program could be applied for by Rolling
Hills developers but projects of the five unit
minimum can not be built in the City because of
legal and environmental constraints.
Provides financing for rehabilitation and purchase of
housing by low and moderate income persons for
housing in areas that are in need of rehabilitation.
Absence of housing in need of rehabilitation
precludes use in Rolling Hills.
Provides grants and loans to assist Iow and
moderate income families build and rehabilitate their
own homes. High land costs and home values make
use of this program in Rolling Hills unlikely.
Provides financial and technical assistance to mobile
home park residents. No mobile homes exist in
Rolling Hills.
Provides grants for homeless shelters. No
population in need of homeless shelter exists in
Rolling Hills.
Program targeted towards substandard housing. No
substandard housing exists in Rolling Hills.
A-2
FEDERAL AND STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS
(continued)
Program Comments
Predevelopment Loans
Senior Citizen Shared Housing
Rental Housing Construction
Deferred Payment Rehabilitation Loans
Marks Foran Rehabilitation Loans
AB 1151 -Density Bonuses
AB 655 -Multi -Family Revenue Bonds
Provides predcvelopment loans for low income
housing projects. This source could be used by
nonprofit developers in the City. However, high land
costs, and environmental and legal constraints
render infeasible the development of eligible projects
in the City.
Provides grants to assist seniors to find shared
housing arrangements. Rolling Hills provides this
service using local funds.
Provides cash grants for the construction of housing
developments containing at least five units with 30
percent of the units affordable to lower income
households. Environmental and legal constraints on
the development of multi -family housing in the City
render this inapplicable.
Provides loans for the rehabilitation of low and
moderate income housing. Not applicable in Rolling
Hills because of absence of targeted housing.
Allows revenue bonds for housing rehabilitation.
The City does not have housing in need of
rehabilitation.
Requires local governments to offer density bonuses
or other incentives in exchange for the development
of low income housing. The City has not adopted its
own density bonus program but will follow state
requirements on a case -by -case basis.
Allows for participation in a County -wide bond
program for low income multi -family housing. Legal
and environmental constraints on multi -family
housing in Rolling Hills would make it very difficult
to build housing meeting the rent requirements of
this program.
A-3
most lumens per watt, avoidance of multi -bulb fixtures and
use of long life bulbs and clock timers on security buildings.
Load Management - The time of day when power is used
can be as important as how much power is used. Power
plants must have enough generating capacity to meet the
highest level of consumer demand for electricity. Peak
demands for electricity occur on summer afternoons.
Therefore, reducing use of appliances during these peak load
hours can reduce the need for new power plants just to meet
unusually high power demands.
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
I1OUSING CONSTRAINTS
Actual or potential constraints on the provision and cost of housing
affect the development of new housing and the maintenance of
existing units for all income levels. Market, governmental,
infrastructural, and environmental constraints to housing
development in Rolling Hills are discussed in the following section.
Market Constraints •
The extremely high costof purchasing or renting housing is the
primary constraint to providing adequate housing opportunities in
Rolling Hills. High land costs, construction costs, labor costs, and
market financing constraints all contribute to the increasing cost of
housing in Rolling Hills.
Land
Land costs include the cost of raw land, site improvements, and all
costs associated with obtaining government approvals. Like the
entire Palos Verdes Peninsula, land costs are extremely high in
Rolling Hills. A review of vacant parcels which sold in Rolling
Hills during the 1987-1989 period reveals a price range of between
$375,000 and $835,000 for parcels which could accommodate a
single unit. In addition to raw land costs, site improvements
contribute to the cost of land as most of the remaining vacant
parcels in the City have severe topographic or geologic constraints,
and would necessitate significant grading to accommodate
development. Thus, land costs alone produce a situation where
housing is not within the financial means of lower income
households.. The extremely high land costs would make the
construction of lower income housing in the City almost impossible
without governmental assistance.
Construction Costs
A major cost associated with building a new house is the cost of
building materials, which can comprise up to 50 percent of the sales
price of a new home. In areas like Rolling Hills where land
represents a larger proportion of overall housing costs, construction
costs correspondingly comprise a lesser proportion of total housing
costs. Overall construction costs rose over 30 percent between 1980
and 1988, with the rising cost of energy a significant contributor.
26
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
According to the Construction Industry Research Board,
construction costs for wood frame, single-family construction of
average to good quality range from S45 to $60 per square foot.
Construction costs for custom homes and units with extra amenities
of excellent construction quality range from $85 to $95 per foot.
Based on the high level of amenity associated with new construction
in Rolling Hills, construction costs usually exceed even this $85-$95
range.
Labor Costs
Labor is the third most expensive component in building a house,
constituting an estimated 17 percent of the costs of constructing a
single-family dwelling. The cost of union labor in the construction
trades has increased steadily since April 1974. The cost of non-
union labor, however, has not experienced such significant
increases. Because of increased construction activity, the demand
for skilled labor has increased so drastically that an increasing
number of non-union employees are being hired in addition to
unionized employees, thereby lessening labor costs.
Financing
While interest rates have fallen more than nine percent from their
near 20 percent high in the early 1980s, they still have a substantial
impact on housing costs which is felt by renters, purchasers and
developers. An additional obstacle for the first time homebuyer is
the downpayment required by lending institutions of between
10-20%.
The average sales price of a single-family home in Rolling Hills in
1988 was $1.1 million. A $990,000 mortgage amortized over 30
years at an interest rate of 10.5% would result in monthly house
payments of $9,055, well beyond the financial means of low and
moderate income households:
Contractual Constraints
Virtually all of the land in Rolling Hills is subject to the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) established in 1936 by the
Palos Verdes Corporation. These 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 for commercial,
office or industrial activity. The CC&Rs establish minimum parcel
and dwelling unit sizes, and require approval by the Rolling Hills
27
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Community Association Architecture Committee of all new
development.
Governmental. Constraints
Housing affordability is affected by factors in both the private and
public sectors. Actions by the City can have an impact on the price
and availability of housing in the City. Land use controls, site
improvement requirements, building codes, fees and other local
programs intended to improve the overall quality of housing may
serve as a constraint to housing development.
Land Use Controls
Land Use Controls are established by the City's Land Use Element,
Zoning Ordinance, and Community Association Building
Regulations. The Rolling Hills Land Use Element provides for two
residential categories: Residential Estate one acre minimum (RA -
S -1) and Residential Estate - two acre minimum (RA -S-2).
Building coverage is limited to twenty percent of the net lot area,
and building height is restricted to one-story,_ although subterranean—
parking and split-level residences in effect allow greater height.' A h � ``
minimum of two covered parking spaces are required for each r,M, „; .-;_
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
Hilts, and the fact that the private streets are too narrow to permit
on -street parking. The City has implemented in its Zoning
Ordinance standards to allow the development of mobile homes in
its residential zones.
The City defines a "second unit" as a detached or attached dwelling
unit which provides complete, independent living facilities for one
or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
cooking, and sanitation, on the same parcel as the primary
residential structure. As provided for under State law, the City of
Rolling Hills has adopted an ordinance which prohibits second units
on single-family lots; a copy of this ordinance is contained in the
Appendix to the Housing Element. The ordinance makes the
following findings which specify the adverse impacts on public
health, safety and welfare which would result from allowing second
units, and which justify their preclusion in Rolling Hills:
Lack of Sewers - Development of second units could
potentially double the amount of sewage effluent
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
currently entering the soil, thereby exacerbating soil
stability problems.
Geologic Setting - Numerous active landslides in
Rolling Hills greatly diminish development potential
and call for caution in increasing densities.
Rural Design and Community Roadway Character -
The current capacity, design, and topographic
constraints of the City roadways indicate increased
residential densities would compromise traffic safety.
Fire Flow Requirements - The introduction of second
units in Rolling Hills would change the infrastructure
requirements on water pressure in the City, and as
the City has no funds to revamp the water system, fire
fighting capabilities would be compromised due to
reduction in water pressure.
The existing zoning standards maintain the rural character of the
area and respond to unique physical, health, and safety aspects of
the City. Because Rolling Hills is limited to large lot residential
land uses, opportunities for affordable housing are limited.
However, the Land Use Plan provides a development capacity
which is more than adequate to meet the City' future five-year
share of regional housing needs, defined as 40 units by the RHNA.
Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both City
enforced zoning and privately enforced CC&Rs. City zoning does
not in itself constrain housing development. Reducing zoning
standards or increasing densities would not modify the development
limitations dictated by the CC&Rs, which control density. City
zoning standards are considered to be appropriate given the
topographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints in the City.
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.
Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share
system, based on the magnitude of the residence's impact or on the
extent of the benefit which will be derived.
29
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
The Rolling Hills jurisdiction is a private, suburban community,
with the majority of its necessary infrastructure, such as streets,
electrical and water facilities, already in place. As such, the cost of
land improvements is less than in rural areas, but significantly
higher than those found in urbanized jurisdictions. Table H-10
presents a list of development fees (September 1989) associated
with the construction of a single-family residence in Rolling Hills.
Fees have been set at a level necessary to meet the City's costs and
high level of amenity.
Permit and plan review fees charged in the City are based on the
actual costs incurred by the City. Review and permit processing in
Rolling Hills .may be more time consuming than in other
communities because of the concern with geologic and structural
stability, the customized character of Rolling Hills homes, and
individual permit processing for each residential unit. To reduce
development fees below the costs actually incurred by the City
would represent a subsidy, which is not within the financial means
of the City. However, if an affordable housing development is
proposed in the City and the City's permitting and review fees
present an obstacle to that development, the City will consider
waiving. those fees as a means of facilitating such development.
Building Codes and Enforcement
The Los Angeles County Building Code governs standards for
construction in Rolling Hills. These codes are considered to be the
minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
However, as the remaining vacant land in Rolling Hills is
characterized by steep topography and in some cases geologic
instability, the necessary enforcement of building codes to address
these constraints can significantly add to the cost of housing.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The evaluation and review process required by City procedures
contributes to the cost of housing in that holding costs incurred by
developers are ultimately manifested in the unit's selling price. The
review process in Rolling Hills is governed by two levels of
decision -making bodies: the City Council and Planning
Commission.
30
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
TABLE H-10
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEES
(November 1989)
Type of Fee
Cost
Building Permit
2-1/2 times the amount set in the
County Building Code.
Plan Check Fees
Based upon building valuation.
Assessed by County of Los Angeles.
Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical
County assessment based upon the
Permits
number of fixtures, outlets, switches,
and panels. City fee is 2-1/2 times
the amount set forth by the County.
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
$1.50 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.
Sources:
City of Rolling Hills;
County of Los Angeles, Dept. of Building & Safety;
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District;
California Water Service Company.
31
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Table H-11 provides an overview of the time requirements and fees
associated with processing residential applications in Rolling Hills..
All applications ranging from non -city initiated code amendments to
site plan review must be submitted to the City's Planning
Department. After Planning staff reviews the applications for
completeness, all submittals then appear before the Planning
Commission which serves as the decision -making body on planning
procedures. All appeals to decisions are heard and decided by the
City Council. Since the City of Rolling Hills is .largely built out, the
majority of procedural submittals are for rebuilt single-family
dwellings and additions to existing structures.
In addition to submitting applications to the City for building
permits and site plan review, the developer must also submit plans
to the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department for
building and grading plan checks. Applications for City and County
procedures can be submitted concurrently. Approximately two to
three months are required to complete project processing, a
comparable review period for single-family development in most
other southern California jurisdictions. Processing times for City
permits do not represent a significant constraint on development.
In addition, .the City currently contracts with consultants for
planning services, and could expand consultant responsibility to
include project processing should the need arise in the future.
Absence of Government Funding
Development of affordable housing in Rolling Hills .would require
extraordinary financial assistance to develop. Assuming the other
constraints previously discussed could be eliminated, potential
sources of such assistance and the applicability, to Rolling Hills
must be examined. A summary of existing state and federal
housing assistance programs and the availability for use in Rolling
Hills is provided as an appendix to the Housing Element.
The availability of Federal and State funding sources is 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 in need populations and deteriorated housing in Rolling
Hills renders the City ineligible for many types of assistance. In
addition, high rental values in the City 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 are
32
. HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
• TABLE H-11
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
TIME REQUIREMENTS AND FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROCESSING
Request Fee
Non -City Initiated Code Amendment $2,500
Zone Change $2,500
Minor Setback (10') Variance $1,000
All Other Variances $1,250
Conditional Use Permits $1,500
Project processing for these five procedures does not begin until a complete
application has been received. Site Plans, Public Notification Lists, and an
Initial Environmental Evaluation must also be submitted. Three public
meetings are required: an initial open meeting before the Planning
Commission, and public hearings at the Planning Commission and City
Council level. Processing time for each of the five procedures is
approximately two months. Applications can be submitted concurrently.
Site Plan Review $1,500
New single-family homes, grading projects, and additions to structures that
exceed 25% of the existing square footage are subject to Site Plan Review.
Two meetings are required: an initial hearing before the Planning
Commission, and a second public hearing in which the Planning Commission
renders its decision. All decisions can be appealed to City Council. •
Approximate processing time is 75 days.
Source: City of Rolling Hills.
HOUSING ELEMENT
33 OCTOBER 23, 1991
eligible to receive subsidies. Rents in the City far exceed maximum
allowable levels payable under the Section 8 Program.
One source of housing assistance used by many local governments
is moneyderived from redevelopment .project tax increment. This
source is unavailable, however, because the City has no
redevelopment areas and the absence of blight in the City precludes
the formation of a redevelopment area. The City's limited financial
resources further precludes the use of City General Fund monies
for housing assistance.
The absence of federal, State and local funding sources for
affordable housing in Rolling Hills (refer to table in Appendix A),
coupled with the high cost of land and construction, act as a
significant constraint to the provision of affordable housing in the
City. Private financing of affordable housing is also unlikely given
the low densities required by the CC&Rs and by the topography of
the City.
Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
Portions of Rolling Hills are exposed to a variety of environmental
hazards which may constrain the development of lower priced
residential units. In addition, inadequate infrastructure may also
act as a constraint to residential development.
Hillside/Slopes
Rolling Hills may be described as having the most severe terrain of
any jurisdiction in Los Angeles County. Slopes of 25 to 50 percent
are presenton virtually every remaining undeveloped parcel in the
City. Development on such severely sloped parcels requires
substantial modification to the natural terrain which significantly
adds to the cost of development. The extreme topography present
in Rolling Hills serves as a significant constraint to the
development of affordable housing. As a means of preventing
erosion and landslides and preserving Rolling Hill's natural hillside
topography, the City's Site Review Ordinance prohibits extensive
grading and recontouring of existing terrain. The City has adopted
the County's grading standards with some modifications necessary
to ensure slope stability. The City's cut and fill provisions require
balance on site, which is necessary because export of material is not
practical given the narrowness of streets in the City. The Rolling
Hills Community Association also restricts the use of streets for soil
export due to the impact on street condition and on public safety.
34
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23. 1991
• Landslides
Rolling Hills experiences a recurring problem of landslides which
damage or destroy homes and present risks to human health and
safety. Numerous active landslides in the City presently render
significant areas of the City unsafe for development. The danger of
increased soil instability particularly if higher density development
is constructed, would contribute to potential risk to human life as
well as to physical improvements. A.map of past landslides is
contained in the Safety Element. 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. The
Safety Element sets forth policies to restrict new development and
expansion of existing development in areas susceptible to
landsliding unless this hazard can be adequately mitigated.
Street System
Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Use of privately
owned roadways requires approval of the Rolling Hills Community
Association. The City's privately -owned road network is typified by
winding roads with a 25 foot paved cross-section lacking in curbs,
gutters, or sidewalks. Road width, coupled with steep grades and
private roadways, effectively precludes public transit within the City.
The City's circulation infrastructure is basically not conducive to
higher density housing.
Wastewater Disposal
With the exception of the eight residences which individually or
through the creation of a small sewer district have hooked in with
adjacent jurisdiction's sewer systems,there is no sanitary sewer
system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual septic
tanks and leach lines. Insofar as the City remains on a septic
system, this will prevent the development of higher density housing,
including the construction of second units. The City is currently in
the process of working with a group of five homeowners in the
John's Canyon area located on the City's western periphery to
establish a privately financed sewer district to be linked in the
County system. However, there is only limited potential for
additional sewer districts due to the prohibitive cost associated with
sewering residences at further distances from County sewer lines,
and the inability of the Cityto subsidize these costs.
35
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
This section of the Housing Element evaluates future .housing
opportunities in Rolling Hills in relation to the City's housing
needs.
Residential Land Inventory
In order to assess future residential development potential in
Rolling Hills, an inventory of residentially -zoned vacant parcels has
been prepared and evaluated in terms of the actual capability of
parcels to accommodate residential development. In addition, large
parcels which are currently developed but which have the potential
for further subdivision have also been evaluated. With the majority
of the City's developable residential acreage already built out, many
of the remaining vacant parcels are characterized by physical
constraints which preclude their development. These constraints
are primarily related to severe topography and/or existing
landslides. Of the total 203 acres of vacant residential land
identified in the Land Use Element, approximately 172 acres are
physically suitable to accommodate residential development.
Figure H-1 illustrates those parcels which have been identified as
appropriate for residential development; Table H-12 quantifies the
number of dwelling units which could be accommodated on these
parcels. All of these parcels are subject to CC&Rs. Vacant parcels
have been separated into two categories - individual parcels which
can accommodate a single unit and larger parcels with the potential
to subdivide into several smaller parcels. A single 63 acre parcel
known as Storm Hill provides the most significant opportunity in
the City for potential subdivision, accommodating a net increase in
approximately 25 dwelling units. Several larger developed parcels
also offer the opportunity for further subdivision, as confirmed by
subdivision inquiries received by the City. Aggregating the
development potential on both vacant and underutilized parcels, a
total of ten additional residential dwellings can be accommodated
in the City's RA -S-1 zone, with the potential for an additional 49
dwellings in the RA -S-2 zone.
Non-residential properties in Rolling Hills are limited to public and
institutional uses. None of these uses are anticipated to be
redeveloped within the time frame of this element.
36
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
14'11
et...
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills, December 1989.
Figure H-1
Site Inventory For
Residential Development
TABLE H-12
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DUs
-Zone
Vacant
Vacant/
Subdividable
Developed/
Subdividable
Total
RA -S-1
10
10
RA -S-2
9
28
12
49
TOTAL
19
28
12
59
ource: City of Rolling Hills
Residential Development Potential Compared With Future
Growth Needs
As indicated in the Housing Element section "Share of Region's
Housing Needs", the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
prepared by SCAG identifies a future housing need for Rolling
Hills of 40 units to be developed over the next five years
(1989-1994). The residential land inventory identifies the potential
for development of 59 additional single-family dwelling units on
unconstrained land, indicating the City's General Plan and zoning
provide for a residential development capacity more than adequate
to accommodate the City's share of regional housing needs.
38
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
SUMMARY OF HOUSING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The following housing issues and opportunities have been identified
as part of the General Plan Update and are addressed in the
Housing Element goals, policies and programs.
With the majority of the City's developable acreage already
built out, many of the remaining vacant parcels are
characterized by physical constraints which preclude their
development.
c Virtually every parcel in Rolling Hills which is considered
developable contains slopes of 25 to 50 percent, presenting a
significant constraint to the development of higher density
housing.
o Land costs are extremely high in Rolling Hills and produce a
situation where opportunities for the development of housing
affordable to lower income households are very limited.
o The Rolling Hills Land Use Plan accommodates a total of 59
additional dwelling units on unconstrained land in the City.
The Plan's development potential is thus adequate to meet the
City's five year share of regional housing needs, which has been
identified by SCAG as 40 dwelling units.
o The City could address the housing needs of its significant
elderly population by contributing seed monies for congregate
housing facilities, coordinating with local shared housing service
providers, and coordinating with providers of equity conversion
programs.
39
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
HOUSING PLAN
The prior chapters in the Housing Element establish the housing
needs, opportunities, and constraints present in Rolling Hills. The
Housing Plan presented in the following chapter sets forth the
City's goals, policies and programs to address Rolling Hills'
identified housing needs..
Evaluation of Accomplishments Under Existing Housing Element
State Housing Element law now requires communities to assess the
achievements under adopted housing programs as part of the five
year update to their housing elements. These results should be
quantified where possible (e.g. new construction results) but may be
qualitative where necessary (e.g. mitigation of governmental
constraints). These results are then compared with what was
projected or planned in the earlier element. Where significant
shortfalls exist between what was planned and what was actually
achieved, the reasons for such differences are discussed.
The City of Rolling Hills prepared a comprehensive update to its
Housing Element in 1981. In compliance with the July 1984
deadline for review and update, the City prepared a memorandum
which reviewed the accomplishments to date under adopted housing
programs; no additional programs were set forth under this 1984
Housing Element review. The following section re-examines the
progress made towards implementing the City's housing programs
as set forth in the 1981 Housing Element. The results of this
analysis have been utilized to refine and . augment the City's housing
programs to develop an overall strategy to adequately address the
community's housing needs.
1. Existing Program: Provide an overlay zone classification which
may be applied to appropriate areas for housing for low and
moderate income elderly based on proximity to commercial
services, public transit, and other services.
Accomplishment: Environmental constraints present on the
City's remaining vacant parcels, combined with extreme land
costs, preclude the development of multi-family/affordable
housing in Rolling Hills. Due to these factors, the concept of
an affordable housing overlay zone is no longer an appropriate
program for the City's Housing Element.
40
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23. 1991
2. Existing Program: Permit manufactured or mobile homes on
all buildable, single family lots in the City.
Accomplishment: The City has amended its Zoning Ordinance
to provide for manufactured homes, mobile homes and trailers.
3. Existing Program: Provide low and moderate income housing
in the City of Lomita through pooling of area block grant
monies.
Accomplishment: The City of Rolling Hills contributes its
annual allotment of CDBG funds to the City of Lomita to be
used expressly for the construction of congregate housing for
lower income seniors. The City's contribution of approximately
S10,000 per year has enabled the construction of the following
two senior housing projects in Lomita:
a) 78 rental units for low income elderly or handicapped
individuals at 24925 Walnut Street, Lomita
b) 67 rental units for low income elderly or handicapped
individuals at 25109 Ebony Lane, Lomita
• Additionally, for the past several years Rolling Hills' CDBG
contributions have been set aside to go towards the acquisition
of land for a construction of a third senior housing project.
The City of Lomita expects to acquire this property by June
1990 and will construct 25 low income elderly/disabled rental
units on the site.
4. Existing Program: Participate in regional low and moderate
income housing programs.
Accomplishment: The City participates in regional low and
moderate income housing programs through joining other
neighboring cities in pooling financial resources to construct
low cost housing in the greater community. In addition, the
City has met with representatives of other jurisdictions to
discuss cooperative housing strategies.
5. Existing Program: Solicit the private sector's involvement in
providing affordable housing.
Accomplishment: The City has amended its Zoning Ordinance
to provide density bonuses for developers wishing to build low
and moderate income housing in Rolling Hills.
41
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
6. Existing Program: Encourage developers to construct low and
moderate income housing by providing a density bonus of 25
percent over the otherwise allowable units permitted when the
developer provides at least 25 percent of the total number of
units in a housing development for persons of low or moderate
income.
Accomplishment: The City's Zoning Ordinance has been
amended accordingly.
7 Existing Program: Encourage developers .to construct housing
for persons of low or moderate income by providing
developmental incentives.
Accomplishment: The City has amended its Zoning Ordinance
to provide density bonuses for developers wishing to build low
and moderate income housing in Rolling Hills.
8. Existing Program: Encourage housesharing for those residents
who no longer needs a large residence.
Accomplishment: Seniors in Rolling Hills utilize two nearby
shared housing programs - South Bay Senior Services in.
Torrance and Anderson Center in San Pedro - which assist
seniors in locating roommates to share existing housing in the
community.
. Existing Program: Control grading in new and existing
development.
Accomplishment: The City has adopted a Site Plan Review
Ordinance which, among other things, regulates grading
practices to ensure compatibility with the existing natural
setting. Planning Commission approval of a project's site plan
review application is required before a grading permit willbe
issued.
10. Existing Program: Provide programs for minor home repairs.
Accomplishment: The City's housing stock is in excellent
condition and the vast majority, if not all, of the City's residents
have the financial means to ensure adequate upkeep to their
homes. This program is not appropriate to Rolling Hills.
11. Existing Program: Promote neighborhood beautification
activities.
42
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Accomplishment: Both the City and the Rolling Hills
Community Association undertake neighborhood beautification
activities on an ongoing basis in the community.
12. Existing Program: Establish open space hazard zones to
protect the health and safety of present and future residents.
Accomplishment: As part of the City's General Plan Update, a
Landslide Hazard overlay designation for the Flying Triangle is
being developed to provide consistency with the City's
restrictions on development in unstable geological areas.
13. Existing Program: Allow repair of structures and remedial
grading within the landslide moratorium area.
Accomplishment: The City's updated Safety Element sets
forth policy to allow for hazard mitigation and slope
maintenance plans for existing and continuing development in
hillside areas.
14. Existing Program: Allow temporary mobile homes on landslide
' sites where existing residential structure is uninhabitable.
Accomplishment: The City's Zoning Ordinance has been
modified to accommodate temporary mobile homes on
landslide sites where the existing structure is uninhabitable.
43
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23. 1991
Goals and Policies
The City of Rolling Hills adopted a series of goals and policies as
part of its 1981 Housing Element to guide the development and
implementation of its housing program. As part of the current
General Plan update, these adopted goals and policies were
reviewed with the General Plan Advisory Committee as to their
appropriateness in addressing the community's housing needs. The
following goals and policies reflect a revision to those previously
adopted to incorporate community input and to reflect what has
been learned from the prior element. These goals and 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 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 13: Continue to contribute Community Development Block
Grant funds to nearby cities for the development of congregate •
housing for seniors.
Policy 1.4: Encourage the development of residential units which
are accessible to the handicapped or are adaptable for conversion
to residential use by handicapped persons.
Policy 1.5: Encourage the use of energy conservation devices and
passive design concepts which make use of the natural climate to
increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs.
Policy 1.6: 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.
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Policy 21: 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 and cooperate with the
Rolling Hills Community Association 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 31: Coordinate with existing agencies providing 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.
Policy 43: Investigate any allegations of violations of fair housing
laws.
HOUSING ELEMENT
45 OCTOBER 23. 1991.
Implementing Programs
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, five year quantified objectives, funding source,
responsible agency and implementation time frame.
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 - 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. These programs make roommate matches
between seniors based on telephone requests. South Bay Senior Services
frequently receives calls from seniors in Rolling Hills in search of other seniors
to rent guest cottages or second units attached to the main residence, and bas
located roommates for several of the City's elderly homeowners. The City can
more actively market the availability of these shared housing programs by
providing informational brochures at the public counter.
Quantified Objective: Develop informational brochures advertising existing
shared housing programs to increase the number of roommate matches to ten
over the 1989-1994 period.
Funding Source: City budgets.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: Two Years.
Reverse Mortgage Program
The most substantial asset of most elderly homeowners is their home, which in
Rolling Hills has increased significantly in value with inflation. But while owning
a home in Rolling Hills may provide a rich asset base, the onslaught of
retirement and a fixed income can cause many elderly homeowners to quickly
become income poor. Home maintenance repairs multiply as the home ages,
and with rising costs in home utilities, insurance, and taxes, housing maintenance
often gets deferred.
HOUSING ELEMENT
46 OCTOBER 23.1991
An alternative option for elderly homeowners is to draw needed income from the
accumulated equity in their homes through a reverse mortgage. A reverse
mortgage is a deferred payment loan or a series of such loans for which a home
is pledged as security. Qualification for the loan is based primarily on property
value rather than income, allowing the elderly homeowner on a fixed income to
receive a loan for which he or she would not otherwise qualify. Most reverse
mortgage programs permit homeowners to borrow up to 80 percent of the
assessed value of .their property, to receive needed principal of up to 25 percent
of the loan, and then to receive monthly annuity payments for the life of the
loan.
Reverse mortgages may offer a viable financing alternative to many of Rolling
Hills' elderly homeowners. The City can help to inform its senior population as
to the availability of reverse mortgages by providing educational brochures, as
well as referral services, to those seniors interested in pursuing a reverse
mortgage. Based on available information, the following companies and lending
institutions are known to offer reverse mortgage loans in the Los Angeles area.
1. Security Pacific National Bank, City of Downey (213) 869-1056,
2. Capital Holding 1-(800)-431-8100,
3. Providential Home Income Plan (714) 793-2309,
4. American Homestead 1-(800)-233-4762.
Quantified Objective: Provide informational brochures at the public counter, and
offer referral services to seniors interested in pursuing a reverse mortgage.
Funding Source: None necessary..
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: Two years.
Congregate Housing for Seniors
Based on the infeasibility of senior housing development in Rolling Hills due to
land costs and environmental constraints, the City contributes its annual
allotment of CDBG funds to the City of Lomita to be used expressly for the
construction of housing for lower income seniors. The City's contributions have
facilitated the construction of two low income/senior housing projects and will go
towards the purchase of land for a third senior housing facility. As this housing
is located outside the City of Rolling Hills' jurisdiction, under State law it cannot
47
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23. 1991
be counted towards the City's regional share of housing needs. Nonetheless, this
housing provides congregate housing .opportunities for Rolling Hills' senior citiien
households, and thereby addresses a special housing need in the City. Rolling
Hills will continue to contribute its CDBG funding to nearby jurisdictions to
facilitate the development of congregate housing for seniors.
Quantified Objective: Increase the available supply of congregate housing units
for seniors. •
Funding Source: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development/Los Angeles
County Community Development Commission
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing
Assessment Fee Program
To encourage the availability of low income housing, the City will actively
encourage and assist the Rolling Hills Community Association to develop a
program to reduce, eliminate or defer the Association's assessment fees for low
and moderate income households. Even though Rolling Hills residents with low
reported incomes likely have high wealth reserves, these households may have
difficulty making their assessment payments.
Quantified Objective: Develop program to help residents having difficulty
making assessment payments.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: Three Years.
Code and CC&R Enforcement
One factor contributing to the high levels of maintenance of Rolling Hills homes
and neighborhoods is the cooperative work of the Rolling Hills Community
Association and the City. The Architectural and the Landscape committees of
the Association continuously monitor the City to ensure compliance with CC&Rs
and relevant City codes and regulations. In the event that a violation of City
codes or regulations is discovered, the City works with the Association to cure
the violation.
HOUSING ELEMENT
48 OCTOBER 23, 1991
Quantified Objective: Continue code enforcement efforts.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing.
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 unique geographic and
infrastructure constraints in the City require high levels of cooperation between
City staff and developers and builders. Continued cooperation will facilitate the
construction new housing to allow the City to meet its total regional share
allotment of new housing.
Quantified Objective: The development of Rolling Hill's regional share of 40
housing units as established by SCAG in January, 1989.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1994.
Facilitate Repair and Remodeling Activities
Landslide damage has, and may continue to necessitate repair work on damaged
homes in the City. In addition, many homeowners have instigated extensive home
remodeling which has lead to significant increases in the value and quality of
existing housing stock. Both repair and remodeling activities are expected to
continue. City staff has been active in. facilitating the permitting process for
remodeling and repair work and will continue to provide this assistance.
Quantified Objective: Assist all applicants for remodeling repair permits.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department..
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing.
49
. HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Density Bonus Program
Pursuant to State density bonus law (section 565915-65918 of the Government
Code), if a developer allocates at least 20% of the units in a housing project to
lower income households, 10% for very low income households, or at least 50%
for "qualifying residents" (62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age or older in
a senior citizen housing project)_, the City must either: a)grant a density bonus
of 25%, along with one additional regulatory concession to ensure that the
housing development will be produced at a reduced cost, or b) provide other
incentives of equivalent financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling
unit.
Should the City receive a development application for a low income density
bonus project which otherwise complies with zoning and CC&R restrictions, the
City will approve the density bonus as a mechanism of providing affordable
housing.
Quantified Objective: Grant bonuses on all qualified projects.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing.
Ground Instability
Continue to explore possible solutions to ground instability problems. The City
has had to impose a moratorium on development in certain areas because of
landslide risks. The City is currently analyzing this problem to determine ways to
eliminate these risks. One solution being implemented is continued analysis of
conditions in the City.
Quantified Objective: Continue to work with geotechnica] consultants to
establish construction regulations and to explore other potential solutions to
problem.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department and City. Manager's Office.
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
50
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
Neighborhood Sponsored Sewer Districts.
41,1
Promote and facilitate the development of homeowner sponsored sewer districts.
Financial constraints currently prohibit the development of a public sewer system
in Rolling Hills. Costs for sewer services through the County's system are
prohibitively expensive, due to both the great distance to the County sewer lines,
and the .distance between homes, and beyond the City's financial means to
subsidize. Requiring all homeowners to bear such a significant cost could create
hardships for homeowners and would increase the cost of housing in the City.
The City is in the process of coordinating with a group of five homeowners to
develop a sewer district that will be hooked up to the County system. This
proposed sewer district is located in John's Canyon on the City's western
periphery, rendering it more feasible than other locations in the City at a greater
distance from County sewer lines.
Quantified Objective: Complete development of district.
Responsible Agency: City Planning and City Manager's Office.
Implementation Tune Frame: Two years.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
Housing Repair and Temporary Shelter on Landslide Sites
The City will continue to allow the repair of damaged structures and remedial
grading in landslide areas. The use of temporary mobile homes on landslide
sites will also continue to be permitted. (Mobile homes are permitted in all the
City's residential zones.)
Quantified Objective: Assist all persons qualified.
Responsible Agency: City Planning Department.
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing.
Funding Source: City Budgets.
Summary of Five -Year Program Goals
Number of Units to be Constructed: 40 single-family units
Number of Units to be Rehabilitated: 0 rehabilitation need
Number of Units to be Conserved: 683 single-family housing units
51
HOUSING ELEMENT
OCTOBER 23, 1991
FEDERAL AND STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS
(continued)
Comment
Single -Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds
Redevelopment -Tax Increment Financing
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.
Allows local agencies to keep increases in taxes for
redevelopment areas. This is inapplicable to Rolling
Hills because there are no blighted areas which
could qualify for redevelopment.
A-4
APPENDIX B
Second Unit Ordinance
D. The geological report prepared ty the independent
registered geologist shall recommend c..rrcct-Ve act:On which
is designed tc F:e•.•ent the displaceme.._ er slippage of the
:and. (Ord. 178 S", 1980:.
15.40.030 Corrective action re '__red when,. As a condi-
tion to the issuance of a permit c_ City Engineer of .he
City, - the corrective action or procedures recomMendedHin
proposed
s_ructior.. c: _�_. for ;..:C tne __ nas reen a;.___.
(Ord. 178 53, 19i,, ..
15.40.04 ^ Assessment cf tests. All e•• senses _red
ty the applicant in complying with the' pro✓is_orns of toie
ch,apt.er shall be paid for by the applicant and shall be in
addition to ali other charges or fees levied, assessed or
charged by the City in connection with the issuance of a
building or grading permit. (Ord. 178 S4," 1.980).
Chapter 15.44
SECOND UNITS ON SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
Sections.:
15.44.010 Prohibition.
15.44.020 Findings.
15.44.030 Limitation on housing opportunities.
15.44.010 Prohibition. Second units on single-family
lots are prohibited within the City for the reasons set
forth in Section 15.44.-020. For the purposes of this Chapter,
"second unit" means a detached or attached dwelling unit
which provid.=s complete, independent living facilities for
one or more persons including permanent provisions for _ i• - ,
sleeping, cooking, and sanitat_on,~cn the same parcel as _s
situated the primary residential structure. (Ord. 198 51
(part),.1983).
15.44.020 Findings. The following findings specify the
adverse impacts on the public health, safety and weifar_•that
would result from allowing second units on single-fa'.1.. lots
and which justify their -preclusion within the City:
A. Lack of Sewers. The City.has no sanitary sewer-
system.and°sewage effluent is disposed of into cesspools and
leach lines which enter the earth strata and percolate .into
the soil. By authorizing second units in. the City, the
amount of sewage effluent entering the ground, currently
189-1 (Rolling Hills 8/83)
60;133,750 ca11cn- a year, could dcuble. T is increase
would add to an already exist_.ng problem cf Je effluent
water entering the around and decreasing tie shearing_-
strength of the predominant clay soil along slippage t.:r:aces..
The_ strength of clay decreases as its absorred water content
increases, resulting in movement and instability. The author-
zat_on of second units we __d _ower the ma_ -_n of safe_, by
contributing to a decrease in geologic stat_lity. The current
ethod of sewerinc the City is predicated on one -acre and
-iwc-acre a-ized -- - and li7ited dens_ _, _.laces an
a._ce_ _able level c: risk on the amount cf effluent en:err. ,
the earth . strata in the City. -
B, Geologic Setting: In the City numerous active
landslides.greatly.diminis` development potential and call
for caution in increasing densities. Reference is made -to
the Landslide Map fol.lowiic page 86 of the'Seismic/Safety
Element of the Rolling Hills General Plan. The risk of
landslide is affected by development of the land, in that,
as is noted in the'Seismic/Safety Element, areas shown as
probable landslides are "unacceptable risks" and development
upon slide masses add to the total weight of the system,
thereby increasing driving forces of the land. The Addition -
of second units -in the City would compound the problem by
increasing development and exposure to levels of risks beyond
acceptable'standa_ds as described on page 90 of the Rolling
Hills Seismic/Safety Element. •
C. Rural -Design and Community Roadway Character. The
City has -no public streets and all roadways have controlled
access. The roadways are rural and narrow (twenty to twenty-
four feet of paving) , with no curbs, gutters or sidewalks.
In many instances ecuestrian oaths are directly adjacent to
the roadway paving. Th
is _ is design. _s - :ec_cated or. a 'rural
density of one to two acres per unit. The current capacity
•arid design of the entirely private roadways, riding rings
and trails cannot withstand increased densities. Ro.dways
in the City are generally long and narrow with lengthy cul-
de-sacs ;one way in and out . This standard is acceptable
^r._ because of IOW-ru_a1 dens_ -y, and the authorization
of two units on lets would demand a change in the roadway
design cf the City. There is no funding available for such
an endeavor and to proceed with two units on lots without
additional access would cc -promise traffic safety as well
as the fire protection needs of the City.
D. Fire Flow Requirements; The introduction of second
units would chance the infrastructure requirements on water
pressure in the City beyond the current requirements of
one thousand two hundred fifty g . p. m. According to the
Seismic/Safety Element of the General ?lac., water pressure
to fight fires would chance to one thousand seven hundred
fifty g.p.m., and the spacing requirement for fire hydrants
189-2 (Rolling Hills 8/83)
wo.:1d be ore three hundred thirty feet, rather than the c::rre.n_
five -hundred feet. The fire -fighting capability o: the City
..ould be cc' ' -c-_ sed _;f _roper pressure cc -_1d not ce met.
;e City has nc funds ava__ab.e to revamp the syste7 tha
was planned and installed for single-family residential lots
in a hillside area. -(Ord. 193 Sl{par•), 1983).
15.44.030 Limitation on housing opportunities. A The
Zity rt th=t - -- cF
units _.. C___ may c
the region,: This 1,mitat.on is justified, however, by tne
-unusual circumstances described in Section 15.44.020-.
B. , ":cre: __ t':e City of Roll i n ----s has par ..ic
tec in regional' housing programs and has -contributed its
funds for housi-c`projects to 'the city of Lomita, a neighbor-
ing municipality. In adopting the Housing Element of the
General Plan in 1981, Rolling Hills accepted a share of the
regional housing allocation model and established the
documented constraints on housing potential in the City.
The Housing Element- established that Rolling Hills would`
work fully with -all jurisdictions in insuring that housing
needs of the recaon are met. Given the relatively small
number of single-family residences located within the C.ity,.
this preclusion will notsignificantlyaffect housing oppor-
tunities_in the region. (Ord. 198 §l(part),.1983).
189-3 (Rolling Hills 8/83)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
Rolling Hills is located in southern Los Angeles County near the coast on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula as shown on Figure 1. The City is bounded on the north
by Rolling Hills Estates, and on the east, south, and west by Rancho Palos
Verdes. Rolling Hills is approximately 18 miles south of downtown Los Angeles
and five miles west of the major harbor and port facilities in San Pedro. Figure
2 delineates Rolling Hills' jurisdictional boundaries and parcelization.
Community Character
The City of Rolling Hills is an entirely residential community of rural character
with large lot parcels of one acre or more. The City encompasses 2.98 square
miles of land on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The land use pattern was
established with the original subdivision and sale of parcels, which began in 1936.
From its inception, the emphasis in Rolling Hills has been to create and maintain
a distinctive rural residential character which preserves the sense of openness
created by the area's hilly topography. The City's minimum lot size requirements
are reflective of the community's desire to maintain its rural setting, its
recognition of the limitations presented by the varied topography, and the lack of
urban infrastructure.
The City was established as a community of single-family homes on large parcels
and has continued as such for more than 50 years. Today it is essentially a built -
out community. All of the developable property in the City is subject to
enforceable covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) which run with the
property in perpetuity and greatly restrict development within the City. These
restrictions have been in existence since 1936.
A large, geologically unstable open area exists in the City. It once contained
homes, but many of these suffered irreparable damage in a major slippage in the
1980s. . Soils and geologic conditions place great constraints on development
within the City. The City has experienced major landslides due to soil saturation
and instability. Since only a few homes on the periphery of the City are served
by a sewer system, most new homes must also utilize septic tanks and leach fields for disposal of sanitary waste. Past experience suggests substantial care, and
restraint must be exercised in the expansion of any existing systems or the
addition of new systems to avoid possible ground instability due to saturation of
the upper soil layers. This situation and existing infrastructure constraints act to
limit densities in the City. The City has acted to restrict development in areas of
past landslides and other areas which studies indicate to be potentially unsafe.
New housing construction or home remodelling is carefully monitored and
regulated to assure geologic and soils conditions are satisfactory and the
construction can be permitted without impact or hazard.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Office of Planning & Research City of Rolling Hills
Agency 2 Portuguese Bend Road
1400 Tenth St . , Room 121 Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Address
Sacramento, CA 95814
PROJECT TITLE: Rolling Hills Housing Element Update
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Rolling Hills
A determination has been made by the City of Rolling Hills based on an initial
study, that:
X The project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared for the
project.
The project COULD have a significant effect, but revisions to the project
plans made by the applicant and/or an enforceable commitment from the
applicant to include mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less -
than -significant levels; therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared for the project.
Any comments you may wish to make regarding the action are hereby invited.
Comments must be received in the offices of the Planning Department by Monday.
P-c_e ber 23, 1991.
The description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained
in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is attached, which includes
mitigation measures, if any, to avoid potentially significant effects.
Please send your response to Craig Nedis, City Manager, at the address shown
above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency.
Date November 8 , 1991
m584.02
Signature
Title Principal Planner
Telephone ( 310) 377-1521
Hwy 118
0
N
Santa
Monica
Mountains
SANTA
MONICA
0
cc` \�� r �� B LONG CH
9
US 101
I/;
y J
o // / San Gabriel Mountains
PASADENA
kik-11 t North °
3 6 scale in miles .
1-10
1-210
WHITTIER
`Hwy 22
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
2
z
0
5
F. 0
5
•
•
r
C-
C
V)
07,
0
•
co
W
�C\
C`DDA
V'
a
C)
mm
N�
• C
O N
• N
Project Description
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home
and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State's major housing
goal. Recognizing the importance of local planning inthe pursuit of this goal,
the Legislature has mandated that each city prepares a housing element as pan
of its General Plan, and that the housing element be updated every five years to
reflect the community's changing housing needs. Rolling Hills' Housing Element
was last updated in June 1989 as part of the 1989-1994 update cycle for
jurisdictions in the SCAG region. The Housing Element update was also part of
a comprehensive General Plan Update.
This subsequent amendment is being prepared for two primary reasons. One, to
comply with recent changes in State law. And two, to more fully address
comments made by the Department of Housing and Community Development on
the prior Housing Element.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by SCAG identifies
Rolling Hills as one of the few localities in Southern California with an existing
unmet housing need of zero. Rolling Hills' future new construction need is for
40 dwelling units over the 1989-1994 time period, as specified for RIINA. The
City's Land Use Plan provides for the development of 59 additional dwelling
units, thereby providing a development capacity which is more than adequate to
accommodate the City's share of regional housing needs.
The Rolling Hills Housing Element update consists of the Housing Element and
supporting Technical Data. The Technical Data provides an overview of the
population, socio-economic, and housing characteristics of the City. The Housing
Element is comprised of the following components:
1. A summary of the present and projected housing needs of the City's
households;
2. A review of potential constraints to meeting the City's identified
housing needs;
3. An evaluation of opportunities that will further the development of
new. housing;
4. A statement of goals and policies which address identified housing
needs; and
5. A comprehensive housing program strategy that will implement goals
and policies.
The Housing Element itself does not define the residential growth potential of
the City, but rather works within the framework of the Land Use Element which.
4
establishes the type and amount of future residential development permitted in
Rolling Hills. The Housing Element identifies the existing housing needs in the
community, and sets forth goals and policies, such as rental and rehabilitation
assistance, to address these needs.
Summary
The adoption of a revised Housing Element is not expected to have
environmental consequences which may be considered significant under the
California Environmental Quality Act. An EIR was prepared prior to the
adoption of the revised general plan including the housing element in 1989.
Because the revision of the housing element does not have environmental
impacts beyond those previously considered in the General Plan EIR, a negative
declaration is proposed for this project.
5
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent- City of Bolling Hills
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent-
Portuguese Rend Road
Polling Hills California 9p 74
3. Date of Environmental Assessment: 11/8/91
4. Agency Requiring Assessment: City of Rolling 1 -tills
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
Polling Nills Housing 1Fle*nent t 1ptiate
6. Location of Proposal: City-wide
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes," "maybe," and "no" answers are provided on
attached sheets.)
YYs Maybc _N
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
c. Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction,, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Y0 Mayes N9
e. Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
off site?
f Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or steam or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth-
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
2
Mayix
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including. but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property
to water -related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
j. Significant changes in the tem-
perature, flow or chemical
content of surface thermal springs?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
3
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
c. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
d. Deterioration to existing fish
or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
4
YS,5 Maybe �4
. Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
10.. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emer-
gency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand 'for
additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? •
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
5
Yes Maybe NI)
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardsto motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
_X.
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
6
ICS be riQ
d Sewer or septic tanks? _
e. Storm water drainage? _
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? •
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric. or historic
archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
7
4.
•
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential
to 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 or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
8
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
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 the
mitigation measures described on attached sheets have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
Signature
Lola Ungar, Principal Planner
Name
'Uovember R 1991
Date
City of Polling Mills
For
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST FORM
1. Earth
a. through g. - The Housing Element itself will not directly result in any
change in earth or geologic conditions as the density, type, and distribution
of residential development permitted to occur in Rolling Hills are
controlled by the Land Use Element. The Element does reinforce goals
and policies in the Safety Element to protect the residents from geologic
ha72rds.
2. Air
a. through c. - As the future residential holding capacity in the City of
Rolling Hills is not determined by the Housing Element but rather by the
Land Use Element, the Housing Element itself will not impact air quality.
3. Water
a. through j. - As the Housing Element itself will not generate additional
development in the City, it will not have an impact on water -related issues.
4. Plant Lift
a. through d. - As the Housing Element itself does not providefor
additional development in the City, it will not have an impact on
agriculture or other plant life.
5. Animal Lifc
a. through d. - The Housing Element will not impact animal life in the
community as it does not provide for additional residential development.
6. Noise
a. through b. The Housing Element itself will not directly impact existing
noise levels in the community, or expose people to severe noise levels as
the density, type, and distribution of residential development permitted to
occur in Rolling Hills are controlled by the Land Use Element.
7. Light and Glare
As the Housing Element itself does not provide for new construction, it will
not generate new sources of light or glare.
10
8. Land Use
The Housing Element .reflects the land use pattern established under the
Land Use Element of the General Plan and will not therefore result in any
alteration to the present or planned land use in Rolling Hills. The Housing
Element does set forth policies which address land use compatibility issues
related to residential development.
9. Natural Resources
a. through b. -The Housing Element does not in itself provide for any
additional development, and thereby does not result in the increased use of
non-renewable resources. The Housing Element sets forth policy to
encourage the use of energy conservation devices and passive design
concepts to reduce residential energy consumption and housing costs.
10. Risk of Upset
a. through b. - The Housing Element will not involve a risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances, nor will it interfere with an
emergency response or emergency evacuation plan.
11. Population
As the Housing Element itself does not provide for any additional
development, it will not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the City's population.
12. Housing
The Housing Element itself does not provide for additional housing growth
in the community. The Housing Element does however set forth policies
and programs to address the City's future housing needs by encouraging
housing which takes advantage of remaining opportunities in the City. The
Housing Element also provides for the conservation and improvement of
the City's existing housing stock.
13. Transportation/Circulation
a. through f. - As the Housing Element itself does not provide for
additional development, it will not impact the City's circulation system.
11
14. Public Services
a. through f. - As the Housing Element dots not in itself provide for
additional development, it will not have an effect upon public services in
the. community. Housing Element policy calls for residential development
to be coordinated with the provision of public services.
15. Energy
a. through b. - The Housing element does not generate any additional
development, and thereby does not result in increased energy usage. The
Housing Element sets forth policy to encourage the use of energy
conservation devices and passive design concepts to reduce residential
energy consumption.
16. Utilities
a. through f. As The Housing Element does not in itself provide for
additional development in the community, it will not generate increased
demands for any utilities.
17. Human Healtb
a. through b. - The Housing Element will not result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard, or exposure of people to potential
health hazards. The Housing Element encourages vigorous enforcement of
housing, building, and safety codes to mitigate unsafe conditions.
18. Aesthetics
The Housing Element is consistent with the Land Use Element of the
general Plan which sets forth policies to emphasize aesthetic improvements
in Rolling Hills. Housing element policies address issues of land use
compatibility in new development.
19. Recreation
As the Housing Element does not in itself provide for additional
development in the community, it will not generate increased demands for
recreational facilities.
20. Cultural Resources
a. through c. - As the Housing Element in itself does not provide for
additional development, it will not have an effect on cultural resources in
the community.
12
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
The 1991 Housing Element of the Rolling Bills General Plan is a three
year policy document established to address the State's housing goals of
attaining a decent home and suitable living environment for every
Californian. The Housing Element itself does not provide for additional
growth in the community, but rather works within the framework of the
Land Use Element which establishes the type and amount of future
residential development permitted in the City. The Housing. Element does
not therefore impact the natural or man-made environment of the area.
References
1. City of Rolling Hills General Plan, June 1990.
2. City of Rolling Hills General Plan EIR, April 1990.
3. City of Rolling Hills Safety Element Technical Appendix, Leighton and
Associates, October, 1989.
13
•
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GLENN R. WATSON
ROBERT G. BEVERLY
HARRY L GERSHON
DOUGLAS W. ARGUE
MARK L LAMKEN
ARNOLD SIMON
ERWIN E. ADLER
DAROLD D. PIEPER
FRED A FENSTER
ALLEN E. RENNETT
STEVEN L DORSEY
WIWAM L STRAUSZ
ROBERT M. GOLDFRIED
ANTHONY B. DREWRY
MITCHELL E. ABBOTT
TIMOTHY L NEUFELD
ROBERT F. DE METER
GREGORY W. STEPANICICH
ROCHELLE BROWNE
DONALD STERN
MICHAEL JENKINS
WILLIAM B. RUDELL
DAVID L COHEN
TERESA R. TRACY
QUINN M. BARROW
CAROL W. LYNCH
COLEMAN J. WALSH. JR.
JOHN A. BELCHER
JEFFREY A. RABIN
GREGORY M. KUNERT
SCOTT WEIBLE
TriOMAS M. JiMBO
MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS
WIWAM K KRAMER
CURTS L COLEMAN
STEVEN H. KAUFMANN
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
AMANDA F. SUSSKIND
WILLIAM E. MATSUMURA
ROBERT C. CECCON
PAMELA A. ALBERS
SAYRE WEAVER
KEVIN G. ENNIS
ROBIN D. HARRIS
MICHAEL ESTRADA
EFRAT M. COGAN
LAURENCE S. WIENER
DAVID P. WAITE
CHRIST HOGIN
STEVEN R.'ORR
DEBORAH R. HAKMAN
SCOTT K SHINTANI
MICHAEL'G. COLANTUONO
JACK 8. SHOLKOFF
B. TILDEN KIM
DARYL T. TESHIMA
CHRISTINA R. MELTZER
BIRGITA. HUBER
S. ALAN RAY
RUBIN D. WEINER
SASKIA T. ASAMURA
ADAM F. STREISAND
TAYLORL FITZMAURICE
DAVID M. FLE:SHMAN
KAYSER O. SUME
STEVEN L HOLCOMB
June 10, 1992
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO
THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT AND/OR THE
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS
HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
RICHARD RICHARDS
(1916-1988)
THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469
(213) 626-8484
TELECOPIER (213) 626-0078
OF COUNSEL
RICHARD H. DINEL
1911056
OUR FILE NUMBER
R6980-00001
Re: HCD Comments -on 1991 Housing Element of the City's
General Plan
Dear Mr. Nealis:
Mike Jenkins has asked me to review the recent letter
from the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) which critiques the City's recently adopted housing
element. I write to set out my comments.
HCD's criticisms are not surprising, and because they
raise no new issues, we conclude they do not warrant further
revisions to the element. HCD's conclusion that the resolution
by which the City Council approved the element "does not adopt
findings as required by [Government Code Section 65585(f)(2)]" is
incorrect. HCD apparently did not have access to the resolution
and the exhibit to it which set out the City's findings regarding
HCD's comments on the draft element. I note that Lola Ungar has
since provided HCD with these materials and that further comments
from the state agency may be forthcoming.
As we advised the Planning Commission and City Council
late last year, certification of the City's Housing Element by
HCD would have been quite welcome, but did not appear likely.
The predicted result has occurred. Nonetheless, subject to the
caveats stated in my November 15, 1991 memo to the Commission, we
believe the element can be defended on the basis of the existing
record. Although we should review any further comments issued by
HCD, for now, we recommend no furtheraction- with respect to the
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Craig Nealis
June 10, 1992
Page 2
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF.
DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
housing element until the next Regional Housing Needs Assessment
is released in draft form in mid -1993.
Of course, if the City Council wishes to respond to
HCD's comments by revising the element to provide for housing on
the school site or otherwise to depart from policy commitments
which do not promote the development of low cost housing, our
capacity to defend the element could be significantly enhanced.
If you or the City Council have any questions about
this matter, please do. not hesitatetocall mc or Mike.
Very truly yours,
Michael G. Colantuono
cc: Michael Jenkins, Esq.
MGC:mgc
1911056