CL_AGN_220920_PC_AgendaPacket_F1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
This is the appropriate time for the Chair or Commissioners to approve the agenda as is or reorder.
5.BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the
printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
6.PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This section is intended to provide members of the public with the opportunity to comment on any subject that does not
appear on this agenda for action. Each speaker will be permitted to speak only once. Written requests, if any, will be
considered first under this section.
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
AGENDA
Regular Planning Commission
Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
6:30 PM
Executive Order N-29-20
This meeting is held pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Newsom on
March 17, 2020. All Planning Commissioners will participate by teleconference. Public
Participation: City Hall will be closed to the public until further notice.
A live audio of the Planning Commission meeting will be available on the City's website
(https://www.rolling-hills.org/PC%20Meeting%20Zoom%20Link.pdf).
The meeting agenda is also available on the City's website
(https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php).
Join Zoom Meeting via https://us02web.zoom.us/j/99343882035?
pwd=MWZXaG9ISWdud3NpajYwY3dF bllFZz09
Meeting ID: 993 4388 2035 Passcode: 647943
Members of the public may submit comments in real time by emailing the City Clerk's office at
cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become a part of the official meeting record. You
must provide your full name but do not provide any other personal information (i.e., phone
numbers, addresses, etc) that you do not want to be published.
1
7.CONSENT CALENDAR
Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the
Consent Calendar. The Chair or any Commissioner may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed,
discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded
Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The
Chair will call on anyone wishing to address the Commission on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has
not been pulled by Commission for discussion.
7.A.CONTINUATION OF REMOTE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS
DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF AB 361.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.B.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 2022, PLANNING
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2022, PLANNING
COMMISSION FIELD TRIP MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
9.PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
10.NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.A.RESOLUTION NO. 2022-15 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE 2021-2029 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT AND
ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REC OMMEN D AT ION: Approve Resolution No. 2022-15 recommending that
the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2021-2029
Rolling Hills Housing Element and adopt the 2021-2029 Rolling Hills Housing
Element.
10.B.ZONING CASE NO. 21-17: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR 1,930 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A 7,088-SQUARE-FOOT TENNIS COURT; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
FOR GRADING EXPORT, ENCROACHMENT OF THE TENNIS COURT AND
PLANTERÂ INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND FRONT YARD AREA,
AND EXCEEDANCE OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DISTURBANCE AREA
LOCATED AT 12 UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 97-1-RH)
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (KIM)
CL_MIN_220816_PC_F.pdf
CL_MIN_220816_PC_FieldTrip_F.pdf
Attachment A - 2022-15_PC_Resolution_HousingElementUpdate-c1.pdf
Attachment B - Exhibit "A" 2021-2029 Housing Element 0922.pdf
Attachment C - HCDComments7212022.pdf
Attachment D - ResponsestoHCDComments.pdf
Attachment E - RedlinedChapters5-6.pdf
Attachment F1 - FinalMND_0922_Part1.pdf
Attachment F2 - FinalMND_0922_Part2.pdf
Attachment F3 - FinalMND_0922_Part3.pdf
Attachment F4 - FinalMND_0922_Part4.pdf
2
RECOMMENDATION:
Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public
hearing to a field trip on October 18, 2022 at 7:30 a.m.
11.OLD BUSINESS
12.NEW BUSINESS
13.SCHEDULE FIELD TRIPS
14.ITEMS FROM STAFF
15.ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
16.ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. via teleconference.
Development Plans.pdf
Conceptual Landscape Plan.pdf
Letter from Wendi Russell_9 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road
Notice:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for
your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in
the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
All of the above resolutions and zoning case items have been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines unless otherwise stated.
3
Agenda Item No.: 7.A
Mtg. Date: 09/20/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONTINUATION OF REMOTE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
MEETINGS DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PURSUANT
TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AB 361.
DATE:September 20, 2022
BACKGROUND:
With the Governor ’s approval of AB 361, public agencies have been granted the continuing
ability to conduct virtual meetings during declared public health emergencies under specified
circumstances until January 1, 2024. Based on the requirements of AB 361, in order for the
City to hold virtual meetings, the Planning Commission needs to determine monthly that the
following conditions exist:
1) There continues to be a health and safety risk due to COVID-19 as a proclaimed state of
emergency with recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
2) Meeting in person during the proclaimed state of emergency would present imminent risks
to the health and safety of attendees.
The other requirements associated with continued virtual meetings are outlined in the text of
AB 361. The recommended action is for the Planning Commission to find that the following
conditions exist and that they necessitate remote Committee meetings for the coming month:
1) There continues to be a health and safety risk due to COVID-19 as a proclaimed state of
emergency with recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
2) Meeting in person during the proclaimed state of emergency would present imminent
risks to the health and safety of attendees. These findings will need to be made by the City
Council each month that the City opts to continue with remote meetings.
4
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
5
Agenda Item No.: 7.B
Mtg. Date: 09/20/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES:
AUGUST 16, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION FIELD TRIP MEETING
DATE:September 20, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_220816_PC_F.pdf
CL_MIN_220816_PC_FieldTrip_F.pdf
6
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Page 1
Minutes
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Regular Meeting 6:30 p.m.
Via tele-conference
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills met via teleconference on the above date at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Brad Chelf presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Melissa Flores, Administrative Clerk
Ryan Stager, Assistant City Attorney
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director, led the Pledge.
4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Cooley, seconded by Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, to approve as is. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Motion by Commissioner Cooley, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to approve. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS – NONE
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
7.A. CONTINUATION OF REMOTE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING THE
MONTH OF JUNE, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AB 361
7.B. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: JULY 19, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETING
7
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Page 2
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, to approve items 7A and 7B. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS – NONE
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS – NONE
10. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.A. ZONING CASE NO. 22-14: SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 525-SQUARE-FOOT
GARAGE ATTACHED BY A BREEZEW AY TO THE RESIDENCE, CONVERT AN EXISTING
GARAGE TO HABITABLE SPACE, INTERIOR REMODEL, NEW PATIO WITH TRELLIS,
LANDSCAPING, AND HARDSCAPING; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ENCROACH INTO THE
REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE
A STABLE AND CORRAL SET ASIDE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 FLYING MANE ROAD
(LOT 62-A-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (SATO/NAKAMURA)
Chair Chelf and Commissioner Douglass recused themselves due to proximity to the property. Chair Chelf
turned the case over to Vice Chair Kirkpatrick to preside .
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director .
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Cooley, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-14
as written. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10.B. ZONING CASE NO. 21-02: MODIFICATION NO. 1: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-
FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING NON-
EXEMPT GRADING; VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE -FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN
THE SETBACK AREA AND CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING; MODIFICATION TO ADD A
1,428-SQUARE-FOOT BASEMENT, STAIRCASE, AND RETAINING WALL ON A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53 -SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (NEVENKA
LLC)
Chair Chelf and Vice Chair Kirkpatrick recused themselves due to proximity to the property. Chair Chelf
turned the case over to Commissioner Cardenas to preside . Commissioner Cardenas disclosed that
Commissioner Douglass has a residential financial interest because she lives within 1,000 feet of the subjec t
property, but she will be participating as a commissioner out of necessity for a quorum.
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director .
Planning & Community Services Director Signo corrected a typo in Section 8 of Resolution No. 2022-13 and
read the missing text into the record: “and (2) adjusting the non-exempt grading from a total of 6,687 CY and
57 CY of export to 5,800 CY and 410 CY of export.”
8
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Page 3
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-
13 with the change to Section 8 that was read into the record. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chair Chelf resumed presiding.
11. OLD BUSINESS – NONE
12. NEW BUSINESS – NONE
13. SCHEDULED FIELD TRIPS – NONE
14. ITEMS FROM STAFF
14.A. DISCUSSION ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director.
The Commissioners discussed and decided that a joint workshop with the City Council is not necessary, but
the Commission is willing to participate if the City Council deems it necessary.
Public Comment: Councilwoman Leah Mirsch
14.B. CONSIDER FUTURE IN-PERSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
Planning & Community Services Director Signo and Assistant City Attorney Stager clarified that tele -
conference meetings are allowed to resume under emergency orders from the Governor.
The Commission chose to resume tele-conference meetings and revisit the possibility of in -person meetings
at a later date.
15. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION – NONE
16. ADJOURNMENT : 7:28 P.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be
held on Tuesday, September 20, 2022 beginning at 6:30 p.m. via tele-conference.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
Brad Chelf, Chair
9
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION FIELD TRIP MEETING
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Page 1
Minutes
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Field Trip Meeting 7:30 a.m.
2 Flying Mane Road
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills met at 2 Flying Mane Road on the above date at 7:31
a.m. Vice Chair Gregg Kirkpatrick presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick
Commissioners Absent: Chair Chelf
Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Melissa Flores, Administrative Clerk
Public Present: Leah Mirsch, Jim Aichele, Charlie Raine, Matt Schneider
3. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA – NONE
4. FIELD TRIP
4.A. ZONING CASE NO. 22-14: SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 525-SQUARE-FOOT
GARAGE ATTACHED BY A BREEZEW AY TO THE RESIDENCE, CONVERT AN EXISTING
GARAGE TO HABITABLE SPACE, INTERIOR REMODEL, NEW PATIO WITH TRELLIS,
LANDSCAPING, AND HARDSCAPING; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ENCROACH INTO THE
REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE
A STABLE AND CORRAL SET ASIDE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 FLYING MANE ROAD
(LOT 62-A-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (SATO/NAKAMURA)
Commissioner Douglass recused herself as a commissioner due to proximity to the property.
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director.
Matt Schneider represented the owner.
Public Comment: Leah Mirsch, Abby Douglass, Jim Aichele
The Commission moved their field trip to 11 Flying Mane Road.
4.B. ZONING CASE NO. 21-02: MODIFICATION NO. 1: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-
FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING NON-
EXEMPT GRADING; VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE -FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN
THE SETBACK AREA AND CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING; MODIFICATION TO ADD A
1,428-SQUARE-FOOT BASEMENT, STAIRCASE, AND RETAINING WALL ON A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53 -SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (NEVENKA
LLC)
Public Present: Leah Mirsch, Jim Aichele, John Ruzicka, John Mackenbach, Lola & Giancarlo
Fantappie
10
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION FIELD TRIP MEETING
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Page 2
Vice Chair Kirkpatrick recused himself as a commissioner due to proximity to the property and turned the
case over to Commissioner Cardenas to preside . Commissioner Douglass disclosed that she has a
residential financial interest because she lives within 1,000 feet of the subject property. However, out of
necessity for a quorum, she participated as a commissioner.
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director.
Public Comment: Gregg Kirkpatrick, Jim Aichele
5. ADJOURNMENT : 8:01 A.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 a.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to
be held on Tuesday, August 16, 2022 beginning at 6:30 p.m. via tele-conference.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
Brad Chelf, Chair
11
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 09/20/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RESOLUTION NO. 2022-15 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2021-2029 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING
ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATE:September 20, 2022
BACKGROUND:
State law requires all cities and counties in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of
their General Plans. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years and certified by
the State. Through the Housing Element, each jurisdiction must demonstrate that it is
accommodating its fair share of the region’s housing needs and taking proactive measures to
accommodate housing of all types for persons of all incomes. All cities and counties are
subject to this requirement, regardless of their size, physical constraints, or real estate market
characteristics.
The current Housing Element cycle (referred to as the “6th Cycle”) extends from October 15,
2021 through October 15, 2029. To comply with State law, Rolling Hills must show that it has
the capacity to add 45 housing units during this period, including 29 that are affordable to low-
and very low-income households. The City is not required to build 45 housing units; rather, it
must demonstrate that it has created the opportunity for the private and non-profit sectors to
do so. The City’s housing strategy is to meet its 45-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) through a combination of an affordable housing overlay zone on the Rancho Del Mar
School site (16 units) and the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs—at a rate of
roughly five units a year).
There are numerous other Housing Element requirements, including a mandate to affirmatively
further fair housing, programs to remove government constraints to housing development, and
requirements to allow specific housing types (such as emergency shelters) in every
jurisdiction. Many of these requirements are addressed in Chapter 6 of the Housing Element,
which is an “action plan” for the next eight years.
12
The City published its Draft 6th Cycle Element on December 3, 2021 and circulated this draft
for a State-mandated 30-day review period. The Planning Commission convened a hearing
on December 16, 2021 to discuss the Draft and provide an opportunity for public comment
during the 30-day period.
On January 10, 2022, the Rolling Hills City Council directed staff to submit a working draft of
the 2021-2029 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for their review. All California cities are required to have their documents
reviewed by HCD before adopting them. Once HCD receives the Draft, it has 90 days to issue
a “findings” letter indicating the revisions to the document that are needed to receive State
certification. Rolling Hills submitted its draft on January 11, 2022 and received its State
comments on April 11, 2022. The State indicated that the City had met many of the statutory
requirements but indicated the Element required revision before it could be certified. Their
findings letter requested 34 changes, some of which were specific and others that were more
generalized.
On April 22, 2022 City staff and its Housing Element consultant met with the HCD reviewer by
Zoom to go over the State’s comments. The reviewer provided guidance on how the City
could respond to some of the comments. The City then prepared written responses to each of
the 34 HCD comments. It also prepared a “tracked change” and “clean” copy version of the
Housing Element, making it easier for City officials, the public, and State reviewers to see the
changes between the two documents. The new version of the document was referred to as
the “Adoption Draft” (the prior version was referred to as the “HCD Draft).”
The Adoption Draft was presented to the Planning Commission on May 17, 2022. It was
subsequently presented to the City Council on May 23, 2022. The document was resubmitted
to the State on May 24, 2022. Under State law, HCD had up to 60 days to review the updated
draft. Their comments were received on July 21, 2022.
The July 21 letter was generally positive and indicated a much smaller list of concerns.
Whereas the initial (April 11) letter had 34 comments, the July 21 letter had only five
comments. City staff and its Housing Element consultant met with HCD via Zoom on August
5, 2022 to review their comments. HCD provided further guidance on the comments and
ideas for the City to consider in developing its response. The project team revised the
Adoption Draft in late August and early September. Concurrently, the City completed the
required environmental review of the Housing Element, including publication of an Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project (see CEQA discussion below).
City staff believe that all comments in HCD’s final letter have been addressed, and the
document now meets State requirements. Accordingly, it is being presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration, accompanied by the Final IS/MND. The Commission is asked
to recommend adoption of these documents by the City Council. Upon adoption, the Housing
Element will be resubmitted to HCD for certification.
DISCUSSION:
HCD’s comments on the May 2022 Adoption Draft are summarized as follows:
1. Metrics: Some of the Housing programs in Chapter 6 require quantifiable metrics. In a
subsequent Zoom meeting, HCD indicated that Programs 4, 5, 7, 12-15, and 20-22
13
required numerical objectives (number of households that will benefit, etc.).
2. Housing Mobility: The City needs to more pro-actively promote “housing mobility” – in
other words, opportunities for non-Rolling Hills residents of all incomes to live in Rolling
Hills. HCD suggested the City could do this through home sharing and “affirmative
marketing”
3. Affordability: The City needs to implement specific programs to support affordability. In a
subsequent Zoom meeting, their review team specifically suggested strengthening
Program 15 to offer minor home repair grants to lower-income Rolling Hills residents.
4. Supportive Housing : The City must amend its Municipal Code to allow supportive
housing in multi-family and mixed use zones (e.g., the “Rancho Del Mar Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone”).
5. Timing: The Element must discuss the time delay between when a project is entitled and
when it receives building permits.
Attachment B indicates how the City has edited the document to respond to each comment.
The text below provides a short summary:
1. Metrics have been added to Programs 5, 7, 12-15, and 20-22.
2. “Affirmative marketing” measures have been added to Program 21 (a home sharing
program had already been included)
3. Program 15 has been modified to be more pro-active. As the program notes, the City’s
ability to implement this program is contingent on funding.
4. This action was completed in August 2022 when the City amended its code. This has
been documented in the Draft document. No further action is required.
5. Several paragraphs were added to Chapter 5 on this topic. The City has also expanded
Program 11 to work with the LA County Building and Safety Division to receive more
current and regular data on active building permits in Rolling Hills.
Staff is awaiting confirmation from HCD that these edits are acceptable and that the City will
receive certification if they are included as proposed. HCD has indicated that it will review this
material informally, avoiding the need to adopt the Element and then wait 60 days for the next
decision letter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Housing Element is a planning document that establishes policies for the City of Rolling
Hills and will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City. The MND is a required document that
looks at potentially significant impacts of the Housing Element. Certification of the Element and
adoption of the MND provides an indirect positive fiscal impact by reducing legal risks and
qualifying the City for State planning grants. The City was awarded $65,000 from HCD through
the Local Early Action Planning Grants Program (LEAP) to help fund the Housing Element.
Remaining costs are paid through the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 2022-15 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the 2021-2029 Rolling Hills Housing Element and adopt the 2021-
2029 Rolling Hills Housing Element.
ATTACHMENTS:
14
Attachment A - 2022-15_PC_Resolution_HousingElementUpdate-c1.pdf
Attachment B - Exhibit "A" 2021-2029 Housing Element 0922.pdf
Attachment C - HCDComments7212022.pdf
Attachment D - ResponsestoHCDComments.pdf
Attachment E - RedlinedChapters5-6.pdf
Attachment F1 - FinalMND_0922_Part1.pdf
Attachment F2 - FinalMND_0922_Part2.pdf
Attachment F3 - FinalMND_0922_Part3.pdf
Attachment F4 - FinalMND_0922_Part4.pdf
15
Resolution No. 2022-15 -1- 2021-2029 Housing Element
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE ROLLING HILLS CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPT THE 2021-2029 HOUSING
ELEMENT
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals
A. On January 4, 1957, the City of Rolling Hills was established as a duly
organized municipal corporation of the State of California.
B. On June 25, 1990, the City of Rolling Hills adopted its current General Plan.
The General Plan establishes goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve the
community’s vision for its future. The Housing Element is part of the General Plan and
was initially adopted in 1991 and amended in 2001, 2009, 2014, and 2021.
C. Housing Elements are subject to certification by the State of California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). On July 7, 2021, HCD
certified the City’s Fifth Cycle Housing Element for the 2014-2021 period.
D. Housing Elements are updated approximately every eight years, in
accordance with a schedule established by the State of California. In 2021, cities and
counties in the Los Angeles region were required to update their Housing Elements to
cover the Sixth Cycle from 2021-2029.
E. Following certification of the 2014-2021 Housing Element, the City of Rolling
Hills initiated the State-mandated update of the document for 2021-2029.
F. The City completed the required components of the Housing Element,
including an evaluation of its prior Element, a needs assessment, a sites inventory, a
constraints analysis, a fair housing analysis, and the development of policies and
programs between August 2021 and November 2021. The City conducted community
outreach and engagement at this time, including newsletter articles and notices to
residents and housing organizations. The Planning Commission hosted a community
meeting on the Housing Element on October 19, 2021.
G. On December 3, 2021, the City published a Working Draft of its 2021-2029
Housing Element for public review. Notice of the document’s availability was sent to a
mailing list of housing-related organizations, posted in the Daily Breeze, and announced
to Rolling Hills residents on the City’s newsletter. The document was made available on
the City’s website. The formal public comment period ended on January 4, 2022.
16
Resolution No. 2022-15 -2- 2021-2029 Housing Element
H. On December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission convened a duly noticed
public hearing on the Working Draft Element. At that meeting, the Commission
recommended that the City Council submit the Working Draft to HCD for their initial
review.
I. On January 10, 2022, the City Council convened a duly noticed public
hearing on the Working Draft Element. At that meeting, the Council authorized submittal
of the Working Draft to HCD for their initial review. The document was formally submitted
on January 11, 2022.
J. On April 22, 2022, the City received its first comment letter from HCD,
identifying the revisions required for a compliance determination. The City met with the
HCD reviewers and prepared responses and proposed edits based on the comments. A
Revised Draft Housing Element (“Revised Draft”) was published on May 9, 2022.
K. On May 16, 2022, the Planning Commission convened a duly noticed public
hearing on the Revised Draft. At that meeting, the Commission recommended that the
City Council submit the Revised Draft to HCD for a second review.
L. On May 23, 2022, the City Council convened a duly noticed public hearing
on the Revised Draft. At that meeting, the Council authorized submittal of the Revised
Draft to HCD for a second review. The document was formally submitted on May 24,
2022.
M. On July 21, 2022, HCD send a second comment letter to the City identifying
the revisions required for a compliance determination. The City met with the HCD
reviewers and prepared responses and proposed edits based on the comments. A Final
Draft of the Housing Element was published on September 15, 2022.
N. The City has worked diligently to implement programs in its Housing
Element. It amended its Municipal Code in August 2022 to incorporate current State
requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units; density bonuses; and provisions for a variety
of housing types, including transitional and supportive housing. It previously amended
the Municipal Code to create an affordable housing overlay zone, creating the capacity
to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
O. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study on the Draft Housing Element. The
Initial Study disclosed that all potential impacts from the Project would be less than
significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and there was no substantial
evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment.
17
Resolution No. 2022-15 -3- 2021-2029 Housing Element
P. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff determined that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared for the Project. The MND was prepared
pursuant to CEQA Statute and Guidelines and was made available for review and
comment by the general public and public agencies for a 30-day review period
commencing on August 8, 2022 and ending on September 7, 2022.
Q. On August 8, 2022, the City published a Notice of Intent to Adopt the Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) in the local paper and posted a copy
of the notice and IS-MND document as required. One comment letter was received from
the Southern California Association of Governments. No comments were received from
the public or from other government agencies.
R. The City has reviewed and considered the comments and prepared a Final
IS/MND, including the mitigation measures identified in the Draft.
Section 2. Findings. Based upon the facts contained in this Resolution, those
contained in the staff report and other components of the legislative record, the IS-MND
for the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and direction from HCD, the Planning Commission
finds that:
A. The IS-MND contains complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the
environmental impacts associated with the Project; has been completed in compliance
with CEQA; and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
B. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed changes to the
Housing Element and the July 21, 2022 comment letter from HCD, including HCD’s
findings that the proposed changes will bring the Element into compliance with State
Housing Element law.
C. The Draft Housing Element substantially complies with the requirements of
Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8. The document demonstrates the capacity
of the Rolling Hills to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2021-2029
Housing Element Cycles, and further demonstrate that topographic, geologic,
infrastructure, fire safety and land use constraints preclude further rezoning of property
or increases in the development capacity of the city.
D. The 2021-2029 Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of
the General Plan because the 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 2021-2029
Housing Element are appropriate for the City of Rolling Hills and will contribute to the
attainment of State housing goals. The Housing Element will aid the City’s efforts to assist
in the development of housing for all members of the community and is in the public
interest.
18
Resolution No. 2022-15 -4- 2021-2029 Housing Element
Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills hereby
recommends that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills adopt the IS-MND and further
recommends that the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element (attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”) based on the preceding findings.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022.
__________________________
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing
on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
19
Resolution No. 2022-15 -5- 2021-2029 Housing Element
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE ROLLING HILLS CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPT THE 2021-2029 HOUSING
ELEMENT
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 20, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
20
For City Council Adoption
Published September 15, 2022
Rolling Hills General Plan2021-2029 Housing Element
21
Initial Release:December 3, 2021
Submittal to HCD:January 11, 2022
Second Release:May 9, 2022
Submittal to HCD:May 22, 2022
Third Release:September 15, 2022
Adoption:September 26, 2022
Compliance Determination: TBD
22
ROLLING HILLS
HOUSING ELEMENT
2021-2029
CONTACT:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Contact: John Signo, AICP
jsigno@cityofrh.net
Published December 3, 2021
Revised May 9, 2022
Revised September 15, 2022
23
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rolling Hills City Council
James Black, M.D., Mayor
Bea Dieringer, Councilmember
Leah Mirsch, Councilmember
Jeff Pieper, Councilmember
Patrick Wilson, Councilmember
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Brad Chelf, Chair
Greg Kirkpatrick, Vice-Chair
Sean Cardenas, Commissioner
Jana Cooley, Commissioner
Abby Douglass, Commissioner
City Staff
Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager
John Signo, Planning and Community Services Director
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Consultants
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting
24
i
FOREWORD
This document has been prepared to comply with the requirements of California Government
Code Sections 65580-65589, which mandate that all California cities and counties adopt a
Housing Element to address local and regional housing needs. The Housing Element is part
of the Rolling Hills General Plan and covers the time period 2021-2029. State law requires
that the Housing Element is updated every eight years and submitted to the State Department
of Housing and Community Development for certification.
Certification of the Housing Element is based on a determination that the City has complied
with a variety of State laws addressing regional issues such as affordability, fair housing,
density, housing type, overcrowding, and homelessness. These laws apply universally to all
cities, including those with limited services and land capacity.
As a community within the Greater Los Angeles region, the City of Rolling Hills is obligated to
provide for its “fair share” of regional housing needs as determined by the Southern
California Association of Governments. Cities without certified Housing Elements are subject
to legal and financial penalties, the loss of eligibility for grants which help fund City
operations, and even the potential loss of local control over building and land use decisions.
For these reasons, it is in the City’s best interest to strive for a compliant element.
In adopting this Element, the City has endeavored to balance State mandates with the
overarching goal of preserving the semi-rural, equestrian character of Rolling Hills. The
Housing Element responds to local as well as regional needs, including the need to preserve
the community’s environment, minimize further exposure to wildfire and landslide hazards,
and recognize infrastructure and public facility constraints.
25
ii
Rolling Hills Housing Element
2021-2029
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD .................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. ii
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Community Overview ............................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Legislative Requirements ...................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.................................................... 1-5
1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions ................................................... 1-6
1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline ........................................................... 1-6
1.7 Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 1-9
2. EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT ............................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 2014-2021 RHNA and Actual Housing Production ........................................... 2-1
2.3 Review of Prior Housing Element Goals and Policies ....................................... 2-2
2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs ........................... 2-5
3. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Population Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Household Characteristics ................................................................................... 3-9
3.4 Populations with Special Needs......................................................................... 3-17
3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................................................... 3-26
3.6 Future Housing Needs ........................................................................................ 3-33
26
iii
Section Page
4. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES ............................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Approved or Pending Development .................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Vacant Sites ............................................................................................................ 4-2
4.4 Lot Splits ................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.5 Non-Vacant Sites ................................................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Accessory Dwellings ........................................................................................... 4-12
4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .................................................................... 4-15
4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ............................................................ 4-16
4.9 Financial Resources ............................................................................................ 4-18
5 CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION ................................................ 5-1
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Governmental Constraints .................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints ......................................................................... 5-23
6 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES, AND PROGRAMS ................... 6-1
6.1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029 ......................................................... 6-4
6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives ............................................... 6-22
APPENDIX A:
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Analysis ........................................................ A-1
Overview ........................................................................................................................ A-1
Duty of All Agencies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing .................................... A-3
Integration and Segregation ....................................................................................... A-5
Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................... A-22
Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................. A-29
Other Relevant Factors .............................................................................................. A-41
Local Data and Knowledge ....................................................................................... A-42
Distribution of Proposed Housing Sites .................................................................. A-43
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors ........................................ A-44
Summary of Fair Housing Issues and Additional Fair Housing Concerns .......... A-48
APPENDIX B:
Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site ......................................... B-1
APPENDIX C:
Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Findings ............................................................................. C-1
27
iv
Figures Page
1.1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 1-2
4.1 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites ............................................................................... 4-5
4.2 Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated ....................................................................................... 4-8
5.1 Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site ................................................................................. 5-9
5.2 Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills ................................................................... 5-32
5.3 Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity ......................................................... 5-33
5.4 CalFIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ....................................................... 5-34
A-1 AFFH Percentage of Residents who are Non-White ............................................... A-8
A-2 AFFH Diversity Index ................................................................................................... A-9
A-3 AFFH Percentage of Residents with a Disability .................................................... A-10
A-4 Familial Status ............................................................................................................. A-15
A-5 Low Moderate Income (LMI) Areas ......................................................................... A-16
A-6 Median Income by Census Tract Block Group ...................................................... A-17
A-7 Regional Income by Census Tract in Greater Los Angeles ................................. A-18
A-8 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ...................... A-19
A-9 Environmental Outcomes .......................................................................................... A-25
A-10 Economic Outcomes .................................................................................................. A-26
A-11 Education Outcomes .................................................................................................. A-27
A-12 Composite Opportunity Map..................................................................................... A-28
A-13 Cost-Burdened Homeowners ................................................................................... A-34
A-14 Cost-Burdened Renters ............................................................................................. A-35
A-15 Incidence of Overcrowding ....................................................................................... A-36
A-16 Percent of Households with One or More Severe Housing Problems ............... A-37
A-17 Sensitive Communities .............................................................................................. A-38
A-18 Density of Homeless Population in 2020 in Los Angeles County ........................ A-40
Charts
3.1 Age Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020....................................... 3-4
3.2 Racial Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020 ................................... 3-4
3.3 Household Type in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County, 2021 ............................ 3-10
3.4 Household Size in Rolling Hills and Other Jurisdictions, 2010 and 2021 .............. 3-11
3.5 Total Number of Housing Units in Rolling Hills, 1990-2020 ..................................... 3-26
3.6 Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes ............................................................ 3-27
3.7 Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and LA County 3-29
3.8 Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County ............................... 3-31
A-1 Summary of AB 686 Requirements .............................................................................. A-2
28
v
Tables Page
2.1 Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs .......................... 2-5
3.1 Rolling Hills Population, 1970-2021 .............................................................................. 3-2
3.2 Comparison of Rolling Hills Growth with Nearby Cities and Region ........................ 3-3
3.3 Race and Ethnicity in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, LA County, and State .......... 3-5
3.4 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Occupation ....................................................... 3-8
3.5 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Industry.............................................................. 3-8
3.6 Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 2021 ............................................................ 3-13
3.7 Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits ........................ 3-13
3.8 Rolling Hills Households by HUD Income Category ................................................. 3-14
3.9 Household Income in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County .................... 3-15
3.10 Percent of Income Spent on Housing in Rolling Hills and LA County .................... 3-16
3.11 Overpayment among Lower Income Households in Rolling Hills ........................... 3-17
3.12 Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions ............................................. 3-18
3.13 Percent of Rolling Hills Residents with a Disability ................................................... 3-20
3.14 Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Household ...................................... 3-23
3.15 Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021 .................................................................. 3-32
3.16 RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle ........................................................... 3-33
3.17 Comparison of 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category ............................................... 3-34
4.1 Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA Period ....................................... 4-1
4.2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites .................................................................................. 4-3
4.3 Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029 ...................................................... 4-15
5.1 Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards ................................................................ 5-4
5.2 City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees ............................................................ 5-19
6.1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills, 2021-2029 .................... 6-23
6.2 Housing Element Action Plan Summary..................................................................... 6-24
A-1 Population Share by Race and Ethnicity, Rolling Hills and LA County .................... A-5
A-2 Percentage of Residents with a Disability, Rolling Hills and LA County .................. A-7
A-3 Population by Familial Status, Rolling Hills and LA County ..................................... A-11
A-4 Household Share by Income, Rolling Hills and LA County ...................................... A-13
A-5 Housing Units by Type, Rolling Hills and LA County ................................................ A-20
A-6 Housing Tenure in Rolling Hills and LA County ........................................................ A-29
A-7 Percentage of Cost-Burdened Households, Rolling Hills and LA County ............. A-31
A-8 Overcrowded Households, Rolling Hills and LA County .......................................... A-32
A-9 Rolling Hills Home Ownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity ................................... A-41
A-10 Fair Housing Priorities, Issues, Contributing Factors and Strategies ..................... A-47
29
vi
30
Introduction Page 1-1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element is to ensure that a safe, decent supply of housing is
provided for current and future Rolling Hills residents. The Element strives to conserve existing
housing while providing opportunities for new housing serving a variety of income levels.
State law mandates that all municipal governments prepare and maintain a Housing Element as
a component of their General Plans. The following five sections are required:
1. Evaluation of the previous Housing Element
2. Assessment of local housing needs based on demographics, economic, and housing
conditions
3. Inventory of potential sites for housing development
4. Analysis of City regulatory framework related to housing development
5. Goals and policies for housing, coupled with specific action programs to be implemented
in the coming years.
In addition, the Element must demonstrate the steps the City is taking to promote fair housing
practices, and to proactively develop housing for all income groups. The Housing Element
describes how the City will provide for its fair share of the region’s housing needs over the eight-
year planning period (2021 to 2029). It identifies new programs to be implemented, along with
on-going programs that create housing opportunities in Rolling Hills.
The Housing Element is the only part of the General Plan that is subject to review and
certification by a State agency. Adopted Elements must be submitted to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD determines if the Element
meets the requirements of the California Government Code, which apply equally to all cities and
counties of the state regardless of the community’s size, physical constraints, or resources. A
compliance determination is important to maintain eligibility for State grants, avoid costly
lawsuits, and maintain local control over local land use and building decisions.
31
Introduction Page 1-2
Figure 1.1: Vicinity Map
1.2 Community Overview
The city of Rolling Hills is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large
lot residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of
land (approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles
(Refer to Figure 1.1, Vicinity Map). The 2020 Census indicates a citywide population of 1,739
residents, making Rolling Hills the fifth smallest of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County.
The land use pattern in Rolling Hills was established in 1936 with the original subdivision and
sale of parcels. American landscape architect A.E. Hanson designed the community in the
1930s, establishing an historic Southern California design aesthetic that remains today, 85 years
later. Well-known architects like Cliff May and Wallace Neff designed some of the early homes,
contributing to the community’s historic context.
The entire city is characterized by single-story California ranch-style homes on large lots with
three-rail fences and equestrian facilities. There are three points of ingress and egress to the
city, each of which has a controlled entry gate. Rolling Hills was planned and conceived to
balance development with nature and respect the area’s rugged topography. The community
was laid out on hilly terrain, with narrow, winding roads traversing steep, wooded canyons.
Minimum lot size requirements were established to recognize the area’s many natural
constraints, including geologic hazards, wildfire, and sensitive biological resources.
Source: Google Maps, 2021
32
Introduction Page 1-3
The natural landscape is characterized by steep slopes of 25 to 50 percent. Underlying this
terrain are ancient landslides, occasionally causing damage or even destroying property, roads,
and infrastructure. The City carefully regulates grading and earth movement to protect public
safety and minimize the potential for property damage. Geologic studies and grading
requirements also add to housing costs.
The entire city lies within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. This is the most constrained
designation used by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and
requires restrictive construction standards such as the boxing in of eave projections and use of
construction materials approved by the California Fire Marshal. Professionally designed
landscaping meeting Fire Department fuel reduction standards (i.e., fire-resistant plants around
structures) also is required. Fire hazards are complicated by an aging water distribution system,
and the high cost of water system improvements on steep terrain.
Rolling Hills is also home to a number of sensitive plant and animal species, several of which are
listed or being considered for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue
butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard,
and Brackishwater Snail. The community is also underlain with blue-line streams that are under
the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The City’s infrastructure is scaled to meet the needs of a mature, rural community with severe
natural hazards. Its water distribution system is designed for very low-density residential land
uses. Wastewater treatment generally occurs through private septic tanks. Only a few parcels
on the western periphery of the city have access to sanitary sewer. All roads in the community
are private and many were built 60 to 80 years ago before modern emergency vehicle
standards were in place.
Housing policies and programs in Rolling Hills reflect the city’s natural hazards, lack of
developable land, and infrastructure limitations. In the past, the City has complied with
Government Code housing requirements in ways that respond to these inherent physical
constraints. For example, Rolling Hills has adopted provisions for accessory dwelling units in all
of its zoning districts, permitted manufactured housing units, and created an affordable housing
overlay zone on its most developable land. Its policies also emphasize conservation and
maintenance of the existing housing stock, much of which is over 60 years old.
1.3 Legislative Requirements
The provision of adequate housing for families and individuals of all economic levels is an
important public goal and has been a focus for state and local governments for more than five
decades. Local governments have been required to prepare Housing Elements since 1969. The
required contents of the Element have expanded significantly over this time, in response to rising
housing costs, increasing competition for resources, and a growing population of individuals with
special needs that cannot be met by the private sector alone.
33
Introduction Page 1-4
1.3.1 Government Code Requirements
State law requires each municipality to perform the
following tasks:
• Identify and analyze the current and projected
housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
• Evaluate current and potential constraints to
meeting those needs, including constraints due
to the marketplace and those imposed by the
government.
• Promote and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community for all persons
regardless of race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status, or disability.
• Inventory and assess the availability of land
suitable for residential use.
• Establish goals, objectives, policies and programs aimed at responding to identified housing
needs, market and governmental constraints, and housing opportunities.
1.3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
As part of the Housing Element process, the State of California determines the total need for
housing in each region of California. For the 2021-2029 period, the State determined that the
need for the six county Southern California region was 1,341,827 housing units. The Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for allocating this total to each of
the six counties and 191 cities in the SCAG area. This process is known as the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and occurs every eight years.
SCAG calculates each city and county’s “fair share” of the regional need using a computer
model that weighs factors such as existing population and employment, growth potential,
proximity to transit, and social equity. For each jurisdiction, SCAG distributes the RHNA among
four different income groups. This ensures that each city or county is planning for housing that
meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, including lower income
households.
Each city in California is required to plan for its RHNA. This does not mean the cities must
acquire land or construct housing. Rather, it means that they must identify sites where the
RHNA can be accommodated and adopt policies and regulations which facilitate housing
construction on those sites. Ultimately, the responsibility for constructing housing falls to the
private market and non-profit housing developers. Cities are expected to assist by adopting
“The availability of housing is of
vital statewide importance, and
the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living
environment for every
Californian, including
farmworkers, is a priority of the
highest order. 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.”
California Government Code,
Section 65580
34
Introduction Page 1-5
development standards that support housing at a variety of densities, providing technical
assistance and infrastructure, and adopting policies that encourage housing production,
conservation, and assistance to persons with special needs.
In Rolling Hills, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units. This includes 20 very low income units, 9
low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units.1 The 2021-
2029 Housing Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this
assignment.
1.3.3 HCD Review Authority and Compliance Requirements
Once the Housing Element is adopted, it is submitted to HCD to determine whether, in HCD’s
view, the Housing Element “substantially complies” with state Housing Element Law. HCD’s
compliance determination is based in part on a detailed checklist corresponding to specific
requirements set forth by the Government Code. Once certified, HCD still has the authority to
find a city out of compliance if it finds that city is taking actions that are inconsistent with its
Housing Element or failing to implement the programs listed in its Element.
Localities without an HCD-certified Housing Element are subject to a growing number of
penalties and potential risks. This includes litigation from housing organizations, developers,
and HCD itself. In addition to legal costs, potential consequences include suspension of local
control of building matters and court approval of housing development. Courts can also levy
costly fines on local governments and mandate streamlined and less rigorous approvals. Cities
also become ineligible for numerous state local funding programs, including those supporting
infrastructure and roads, as well as housing and planning.
1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The Government Code requires internal consistency among the various elements of a General
Plan. Section 65300.5 of the Government Code states that “the General Plan and the parts and
elements thereof shall comprise an integrated and an internally consistent and compatible
statement of policies.”
The Rolling Hills General Plan contains the following six elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Housing; 3)
Circulation; 4) Open Space and Conservation; 5) Safety; and 6) Noise. The General Plan is
internally consistent, meaning that the policies in different elements complement and support
one another. The Housing Element reflects the policy direction provided by the other General Plan
elements. For example, it references the residential densities established in the Land Use
Element and the natural constraints identified in the Safety Element. The City amended its Land
Use Element in early 2021 to maintain consistency with its new Housing Plan. It adopted a
revised Safety Element in March 2022 to comply with new provisions of the Government Code.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the City will annually review its progress in
implementing this Housing Element. This review will help ensure consistency between this
Element and the other General Plan Elements.
1 See Section 3.2.5 of this document for a definition of these income categories
35
Introduction Page 1-6
1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions
Most of the developable property in Rolling Hills is subject to covenants, conditions, and
restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a non-profit
California Corporation and homeowners association. RHCA is governed by elected Rolling Hills
residents and oversees and enforces implementation of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs run with each
property in perpetuity and cover all properties in the City except those listed below:
1. City Hall Complex
2. Tennis Court Facility
3. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District property
4. Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center
CC&Rs represent private contractual obligations between homeowners and are usually
established at the time a subdivision or community is built. Development in Rolling Hills has
been governed by CC&Rs since the community was planned in the 1930s. The RHCA and the
CC&Rs were in force prior to the City’s incorporation, which occurred in 1957. The City of
Rolling Hills has no jurisdiction over the RHCA or the content or implementation of the CC&Rs.
The CC&Rs limit the density on most parcels in Rolling Hills to one residence per one-acre or
two-acre lot. In addition, any construction, remodel, or grading for a building, fence or structure
is required under the CC&Rs to adhere to traditional or California ranch and equestrian
architectural styles and aesthetics. The uses and purposes of all perimeter easements around
each property are required to be dedicated to the RHCA and maintained for the purposes of
ingress, egress, construction, and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed as roadways,
bridle trials, storm drains, utility access and drainage.
In some instances, State law may supersede the authority of CC&Rs. For example, AB 670 (Cal
Civil Code 4751—effective January 1, 2020) limits CC&Rs from placing unreasonable limitations
on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). To the greatest extent feasible, the programs in this
Housing Element reflect the requirements of State law while maintaining the integrity of the
CC&Rs. CC&Rs that directly conflict with State or Federal law are not enforceable.
1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline
The City of Rolling Hills has made a diligent effort to engage the community in the Housing
Element update. The process was structured as a continuation of the previous (2014-2021)
Housing Element update, which included an initial phase in 2013-14 when the Element was
adopted and a second phase in 2020-2021 when the adopted Element was amended and
resubmitted to the State for a compliance determination. The 2020-2021 amendments
coincided with the Sixth Cycle engagement processes that were underway throughout Southern
California cities at that time. Although the focus of the 2020-2021 effort was on Fifth Cycle
compliance, the process provided an opportunity to engage the community in a broader
conversation about housing, the RHNA process, and new State requirements.
36
Introduction Page 1-7
SCAG began the RHNA process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different
methodologies for allocating the regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities
began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements, Rolling Hills was required to first amend its Fifth
Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle and the prior (Fourth) cycle
RHNA allocations due to its non-compliant status. The combined RHNA for the two cycles was
28 units. Accommodating this need meant that Rolling Hills was also required to amend its
General Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity.
The City held a public hearing on the Housing Element on November 25, 2019. The meeting
focused on potential sites for rezoning and related development impacts. The meeting was
widely noticed through advertisements in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, an announcement
in the City newsletter, posting at City Hall, and an email to the City’s interested parties list.
The Draft RHNA numbers were published in March 2020. Rolling Hills did not appeal its
allocation, instead focusing its efforts on continued outreach and engagement to certify the
Fifth Cycle Element and lay the groundwork for the Sixth Cycle. This outreach included nine
public hearings related to the Housing Element on the following dates:
• October 20, 2020 (Planning Commission)
• November 9, 2020 (City Council)
• December 22, 2020 (Planning Commission)
• January 25, 2021 (City Council)
• February 5, 2021 (Planning Commission)
• February 8, 2021 (City Council)
• February 22, 2021 (City Council)
• March 8, 2021 (City Council)
• March 16, 2021 (Planning Commission)
The outcome of these meetings included adoption of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, new
provisions for by-right affordable multi-family housing and emergency shelter, amendments to
the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and various changes to the Municipal Code to
facilitate housing production. On June 1, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council adopt the amended Fifth Cycle Housing Element. The Council took action on
June 14, 2021. The Element was submitted to HCD and found to be in compliance on July 7,
2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior
allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA.
In addition to the public hearings described above, staff conducted direct outreach to Rolling Hills
residents in 2020 and 2021 through newsletters, including a survey on Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) administered to every household in the city. More than 30 percent of the city’s households
completed the survey, and a report on the findings was prepared (it is included as Appendix C to
this Element).
The City continued its public outreach efforts after adoption of the revised Element in July 2021.
A special session of the Planning Commission was convened on October 19, 2021 to provide an
overview of the Sixth Cycle Element and solicit input from the entire community. In addition,
public hearings on the HCD Draft Element were convened by the Planning Commission on
December 16, 2021 and by the City Council on January 10, 2022. In March 2022, the City
37
Introduction Page 1-8
convened a public meeting on its Annual Progress Report, providing another opportunity for
public input on housing issues as well as an opportunity to evaluate progress in Housing
Element implementation. Additional public hearings were held on May 17 (Planning
Commission) and May 23 (City Council) after the document was revised.
A revised version of the Housing Element, incorporating responses to HCD’s initial comments,
was submitted to the State on May 24, 2022. Staff received HCD’s comments on July 22. The
number of comments was much smaller at this point, and staff worked collaboratively with HCD
in August and September 2022 to prepare revisions. On September 20, 2022, the Planning
Commission convened a public hearing on the Housing Element and recommended Council
approval of the Plan and related environmental document. The City Council took action on
September 26, 2022, adopting the Element at that meeting.
The City has endeavored to solicit input from all economic segments of the community,
including local renters as well as homeowners. It has also incorporated this input in the Housing
Element. In surveys and public hearings, the community generally supported the Rancho Del
Mar site as the preferred location for accommodating denser housing, and also supported
meeting the RHNA primarily through accessory dwelling units (ADU). Both of these concepts
are reflected in this document. Housing advocacy groups also provided letters to the City
encouraging ADU development, which helped shape Housing Element programs. In addition,
the community was especially concerned about the housing needs of older adults. Thus,
policies relating to special needs populations and lower income households focus on the needs
of seniors, particularly those who may need assistance with the maintenance of their homes and
properties, or adaptive changes to facilitate aging in place.
City staff has also engaged service providers, the development community, and partner
agencies such as the School District in the process. As a small community, most residents rely
on the City newsletter for information on local government affairs. The City has featured the
Housing Element in newsletter articles and encouraged residents to share their views on
proposed housing policies. Publication of the “HCD Review Draft” was announced in the City’s
newsletter during the first week of December 2021. More than 30 stakeholder organizations on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and in the South Bay, Los Angeles, and Long Beach regions were
notified of the document’s availability for 30-day review and comment. These agencies were
also notified when the document was brought back to the Planning Commission and City
Council for adoption.
In addition, as required by SB 1087, the City sent an electronic copy of its Housing Element to
the appropriate water and sewer providers immediately after adoption. The document was
accompanied by a letter reminding these agencies they must have adopted written policies and
procedures that grant a priority for service hook-ups to developments that help meet the
community’s share of the regional need for lower-income housing.
38
Introduction Page 1-9
1.7 Data Sources
The Housing Element is a data-driven document, with policies and programs that are based on
analyses of demographics, housing conditions, resource constraints, and forecasts. The primary
data sources consulted were:
• Rolling Hills General Plan, as amended
• Rolling Hills Municipal Code
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Plan, adopted March 4, 2021
• SCAG “pre-approved” Housing Element data set for Rolling Hills, 2020
• City of Rolling Hills Planning Department records (building permits, etc.)
• American Community Survey, 2015-2019
• US Census (1990, 2000, 2010)
• US Census August 12, 2021 data release from the 2020 Census
• Department of Finance Table E-5, population and housing estimates, 2010-2021
• California Economic Development Department (EDD) Labor Force Data
• Rolling Hills Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
• County of Los Angeles (data on homelessness)
39
Introduction Page 1-10
40
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-1
2.0 Evaluation of Prior Housing Element
2.1 Purpose
Government Code Section 65588 requires each local government to periodically review its
housing element to:
(1) Evaluate the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to
the attainment of the state housing goal, which is to provide decent housing and a suitable living
environment for every Californian.
(2) Evaluate the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing
goals and objectives.
(3) Discuss the progress of the city or county in implementation of the housing element.
2.2 2014-2021 RHNA and Actual Housing Production
The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the prior (2014-2021) period was six
units. This included two very low income units, one low income unit, one moderate income unit,
and two above moderate income units. Rolling Hills also had a “carry-over” requirement of 22
units from the prior (2006-2013) planning period, including six very low, four low, four moderate,
and eight above moderate income units. The 2014-2021 Housing Element identified the
capacity to meet the combined two-cycle (2006-2021) need.
Actual housing construction during 2014-2021 was five units. There were four new market rate
(e.g., “above-moderate income”) single-family homes completed on previously vacant lots over
the 2014-2021 period.1 Another three single family homes were approved on vacant lots but have
not yet been constructed. There was one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) completed. It is
estimated to be a moderate-income unit based on its size (720 square feet). Another six ADUs
were approved between September 2020 and September 2021.2 Three more were pending as of
October 15, 2021. All of these units will become available for occupancy during the Sixth Cycle.
There were no new low or very low-income units recorded during the Fifth Cycle, although lower
income households may have secured housing in the city through room rentals, on-site
employment (caregivers, etc,), or housing provided at nominal or no charge (family members,
domestic staff, etc.). Production of deed-restricted lower-income housing units during the 2014-
2021 planning period was constrained by the high cost of land and construction, limited
opportunities for multi-family housing, and limits to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development
during the first half of the planning period. The latter two constraints were removed over the
course of the planning period, placing the City in a better position to meet its targets during the
upcoming 2021-2029 period.
1 There were also 12 new homes built on sites that previously included single family homes, with no net gain in units (e.g., “tear
downs”)
2 The six ADUs approved in 2020-2021 were in various states of completion in October 2021 and are all counted toward the Sixth
Cycle RHNA rather than the Fifth Cycle.
41
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-2
2.3 Review of Prior Housing Element Goals and Policies
The next section of this chapter systematically evaluates the policies and actions of the previous
Housing Element and reports on implementation progress. The 2014-2021 Element included
four goals, each of which included related policies. The goals and policies are evaluated below.
2.3.1 Progress on Goal 1: Housing that Meets the Needs of Rolling Hills Residents
This goal expresses one of the main purposes of the Housing Element. It remains relevant and
should be carried forward. The City worked to accomplish this goal throughout the 2014-2021
planning period through its planning, zoning, building, code enforcement, and fire safety
programs.
Policy 1.1 called for evaluating ways to assist special needs populations. The largest population
with special needs in Rolling Hills consists of seniors, including those with disabilities. The City
continues to implement programs to assist seniors with housing, transportation, emergency
preparedness, and access to social services. The policy should be carried forward. Policy 1.2
called for working with other governmental entities to explore providing affordable housing in
the South Bay region. This occurs on an ongoing basis through the city’s participation in SCAG,
communication and liaison with developers, and meetings with planners and housing
organizations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and throughout Los Angeles County. Policy 1.3
called for encouraging energy conservation and weatherization. The City implements this policy
through its planning and building regulations, including Title 24. It also works with residents
interested in solar installation and weatherization.
Policy 1.4 expresses the City’s commitment to facilitating a variety of housing types. The City
made significant progress through its creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay zone, permitting
of accessory dwelling units by right, and allowance of emergency shelter and single room
occupancy dwellings. Given community context, constraints, and development costs, ADUs and
home sharing provide the best solution for meeting the needs of all income groups. Policy 1.5
recommends effective community participation. The City produces a twice-monthly newsletter
which is delivered to all households and uses its website to keep the community informed. It
has used a variety of methods, such as surveys and workshops, to involve the public. Given the
community’s small size and engaged population, there is a very high level of awareness of
housing issues and requirements. Policy 1.6 calls for the City to participate in countywide
programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents. This continues on an ongoing basis.
2.3.2 Progress on Goal 2: Maintain and Enhance the Quality of Residential
Neighborhoods
Maintaining the city’s neighborhoods as great places to live is the fundamental purpose of the
City’s General Plan. As a built out community with extreme natural hazards and constraints, this
goal is primarily covered by the Land Use and Safety Elements. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to
include policies in the Housing Element addressing conservation of the existing housing stock,
as well as management of home alterations and additions. There are five policies in the 2013-
2021 Element, and they all remain relevant.
42
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-3
Policy 2.1 is to encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of existing homes.
The City does this through its planning and building processes, and works closely with
homeowners to support home improvements. Policy 2.2 requires housing that complies with
building code requirements. This could be restated in the updated Element, since compliance
with the building code is required under State law. Policy 2.3 requires “compatible design” that
minimizes impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. This remains valid, but should reference the
zoning ordinance as the source of objective design standards that clarify the meaning of
“compatible design.”
Policy 2.4 calls for code enforcement to maintain housing, which is still relevant. Policy 2.5
allows for ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) in all residential zones. Consistent with State law, the
City implemented regulations allowing ADUs in all zones in 2018 and amended those regulations
in 2020. The policy should be retained, as it provides the foundation for related regulations in
the Municipal Code.
2.3.3 Progress on Goal 3: Provide Housing Services to Address the Needs of the
City’s Seniors
Seniors/older adults are the predominant special needs group in Rolling Hills. The Housing
Element Needs Assessment confirms that a significant number of the city’s seniors have
disabilities, are living alone, and may have difficulty covering their housing expenses.
Policy 3.1 calls for housing reference and referral services for seniors, which is still relevant and
implemented on an ongoing basis. The Rolling Hills Community Association formed a
committee in 2014 to specifically focus on the needs of seniors. Policy 3.2 calls for more
information on shared housing, which remains valid. Policy 3.3 recommends reverse mortgage
loans for seniors with limited incomes. Given the mixed success of reverse mortgage programs,
the City should consider replacing this policy with others relating to the needs of seniors. For
instance, it could indicate that affordable senior housing be considered on the Rancho Del Mar
site. Policy 3.4 promotes opportunities for live-in care or family members who can assist
mobility-impaired or elderly residents. This remains relevant and should be carried forward.
Other policies addressing the housing needs of seniors could be considered.
2.3.4 Progress on Goal 4: Fair Housing
Goal 4 directs the city to “Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national origin.” The importance of this
goal has been elevated by AB 686, and it should be retained. There are four policies listed in
the Fifth Cycle Element to implement this goal.
Policy 4.1 indicates the City should “affirm a positive action posture” and enforce all applicable
laws and policies. This policy could potentially be simplified to focus on enforcement. Policy 4.2
specifically covers the needs of persons with disabilities. It should be carried forward. Policy 4.3
relates to making information on housing laws available to the community at City Hall. It is
implemented on an ongoing basis but should be clarified to include information on the City’s
website as well as City Hall. Policy 4.4 expresses a commitment to investigate alleged violations
of fair housing laws. This should be carried forward, with reference to the partner entities the
43
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-4
City works with on such investigations. Additional policies on fair housing related to economic
inclusion and opportunities for lower income households should be considered.
2.3.5 Cumulative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Prior Element in Addressing Special
Housing Needs
The State Department of Housing and Community Development has requested that the City
include an “a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related
actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with
disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons
experiencing homelessness).”
As a small city with only 640 households and a staff of six full-time employees, the City’s
capacity for providing services to special needs populations is limited. The greatest emphasis
has been on seniors, who are present in 56 percent of the city’s households and represent one-
third of the population. The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element included a goal addressing the
needs of seniors but it did not include a more generalized goal addressing special needs
populations. This has been addressed in the 6th Cycle Element by broadening the goal to
address other special needs categories.
As noted on P. 2-3, Rolling Hills has worked effectively to meet the needs of seniors through its
partnerships with the Rolling Hills Community Association (and their Senior Committee), its
support for shared housing and ADU programs, and its code provisions allowing live-in care
providers throughout the city. Many older Rolling Hills residents have been able to age in place,
retrofit their homes, and continue living in the city as a result of these policies and programs.
The 2014-2021 Element also included a policy related to unhoused residents (Policy 1.6) and a
policy related to persons with disabilities (Policy 6.2). As noted in Chapter 3, there are no
unhoused residents in the city according to the annual “point in time” count, but Rolling Hills
continues to participate in intergovernmental meetings, forums, and councils of government
activities that recognize the regional nature of homelessness and the importance of regional
solutions. The City has also amended its codes to allow emergency shelter by right in at least
one zoning district. The City also has adopted a Reasonable Accommodation ordinance for
persons with disabilities and supports home improvements to facilitate aging in place and
access for residents with disabilities. On a cumulative basis, these measures have contributed
to the health, safety, and welfare of all Rolling Hills residents and to the quality of life and
condition of housing in the city.
Both the 2014-2021 Needs Assessment and the 2021-2029 Needs Assessment determined that
there were not significant housing needs associated with large households, female-headed
households, or farmworkers in the city.
44
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-5
2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs
The 2014-2021 Housing Element included 24 implementation programs. Table 2-1 below
indicates the status of each program as of October 2021. The table indicates whether the
program has been accomplished or should be carried forward, revised, or deleted.
Table 2-1: Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs
Prog. Description Status
1 Prepare an annual housing progress
report
CARRY FORWARD. The City filed its annual Housing
Progress Report for 2021 on March 29, 2022 and
should continue to do so in future years.
2 Amend the Land Use Element to
permit a variety of housing types
ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from
the Housing Element, as it was accomplished in March
2021. The City amended its General Plan to permit by
right multi-family development, emergency shelter, and
single room occupancy housing in the Rancho Del Mar
Overlay Zone.
3 Create an Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone (AHOZ)
ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from
the Housing Element or merged with the program to
periodically evaluate the Overlay Zone and determine if
changes are needed (See Program 13). The City
adopted a 31-acre Overlay in February 2021 (known as
the Rancho Del Mar Overlay zone), allowing for by-right
development of up to 16 units of affordable multi-family
housing (20 units per acre) on the Rancho Del Mar site
on Crest Road West.
4 Determine next steps for PVUSD
housing opportunity
CARRY FORWARD. The City Manager meets with the
PVUSD Superintendent regularly to discuss issues of
concern, including the future of the PVUSD property.
Other aspects of Program 4, including meeting with
developers and providing input to parties interested in
this site, should be retained and implemented on an
ongoing basis.
5 Adopt zoning for emergency
shelter.
ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in
February 2021. The City permits emergency shelter up
to 12 beds by right in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay
Zoning district. A replacement program should be
included, identifying ongoing measures the City will
take to address the needs of unhoused residents.
45
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-6
Prog. Description Status
6 Adopt zoning for single room
occupancy (SRO) units.
ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in
February 2021. The City permits SROs of 6-8 units as a
conditional use in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zoning
district, subject to objective operational and
performance standards.
7 Adopt a Reasonable
Accommodation Policy
ACCOMPLISHED. The City of Rolling Hills adopted a
Reasonable Accommodation policy in October 2020.
The policy establishes a formal procedure through a
which a person with disabilities may request reasonable
accommodation in order to have equal access to
housing. This program may be replaced with other
actions to assist residents with disabilities .
8 Add definitions of Transitional/
Supportive Housing and Employee
Housing to Municipal Code
CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been
implemented. The 2014-2021 Housing Element
clarifies that supportive and transitional housing may
not be subject to requirements or standards other than
those that apply to similar dwelling unit types in the
same zones. However, the program must still be
codified through a Municipal Code amendment.
9 Adopt density bonus requirements CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been
implemented. Any project including units eligible for a
density bonus would be subject to State density bonus
rules. The City should amend its Municipal Code for
consistency with these rules, and expressly identify
opportunities and rules for density bonuses.
10 Adopt and periodically update
accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
regulations
REVISE. The City adopted ADU regulations in 2018
and amended these regulations in January 2020 to
incorporate new State laws. This action should be
replaced with one or more new actions related to ADUs,
including incentives to promote their use as affordable
housing.
11 Implement ADU education,
outreach, and community
engagement measures
REVISE. The City has provided information on ADUs to
the community since 2018 and should continue to do so
in the future. Newsletter articles and web-based
information have been provided and a citywide survey
on ADUs was administered in 2020. Potential outreach
measures are listed in the 2014-2021 Element and
should be carried forward. Staff time should be
allocated to these activities to ensure they are
implemented. This includes coordination with Rolling
Hills Community Association to ensure that design
review practices do not constrain ADU production or
add to their cost. Future activities could include proto-
type floor plans and designs, FAQs, community
workshops, and tenant matching services.
46
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-7
Prog. Description Status
12 Develop incentives to encourage
ADU production
REVISE. This program suggested reaching out to at
least five cities and two non-profits to develop a suite of
best practices for incentivizing ADUs. Based on the
findings, the program recommended incentives such as
fee reductions, streamlined permitting, and funding for
septic system expansion to make it easier and more
affordable to add ADUs. The City has begun
implementing this program by participating in a South
Bay Cities Council of Governments collaborative that
helps residents calculate cost and revenue for adding
an ADU (see https://southbaycities.aducalculator.org/).
Additional measures will be considered in the future.
13 Monitor the effectiveness of the
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
(AHOZ) and consider future multi-
family housing opportunities
REVISE. There are two parts to this program. The first
is monitoring the effectiveness of the Rancho Del Mar
Overlay Zone to determine if it is achieving its intended
purpose. This should be retained. The second part of
the program is to evaluate other multi-family housing
opportunities. This is occurring through preparation of
the Sixth Cycle Element and should continue through
2029.
14 Assist Extremely Low Income (ELI)
households
CARRY FORWARD. This program is implemented by
facilitating housing for family members, caregivers and
domestic employees, and by assisting elder Rolling Hills
homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance,
home sharing, ADU construction, and other actions that
reduce housing cost burdens. The program should be
carried forward.
15 Facilitate communication with
affordable housing service
providers, developers, and
advocates
CARRY FORWARD. The program recommends
coordinating with affordable housing organizations to
facilitate housing assistance and production for lower
income households. The City implements this program
on an on-going basis and should continue to do so in
the future.
16 Provide public information on home
sharing programs
CARRY FORWARD. This program references a number
of home sharing programs in Los Angeles County and
suggests that Rolling Hills provide information about
these programs on its website and at City Hall. This is a
relatively low-cost measure that can help seniors, young
adults, and local employees find housing options in the
city. It should be retained.
47
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-8
Prog. Description Status
17 Provide information about reverse
mortgages
DELETE. While reverse mortgages may be helpful for
some households, there may also be downsides
associated with high closing costs, fees, and
unfavorable repayment terms. There is also a risk of
fraud. The City may not wish to take an advocacy
position promoting reverse mortgages due to the risks
involved. Local homeowners may still consider this
option should they choose to do so. The program could
also be revised to focus on consumer protection issues
related to reverse mortgages.
18 Undertake sewer feasibility and
design studies
REVISE. This program should be updated to reflect the
current status of sewer feasibility and design studies. A
feasibility study was initiated in 2020 and design plans
are nearing completion. The updated Housing Element
program should reflect the findings of these studies, as
well as Council direction.
19 Implement Best Management
Practices to improve stormwater
REVISE. The City has continued to implement
municipal storm water management measures to
reduce urban runoff pollution. It will continue to do so
in the future as conditions and requirements change.
This program could potentially be deleted or combined
with Program 18.
20 Maintain code enforcement
procedures
REVISE. This program called for hiring a full-time Code
Enforcement Officer, which was accomplished in 2019.
There is an ongoing need for enforcement of planning
and building codes in order to conserve housing quality
and correct structural deficiencies. Violations have
been consistently abated in order to maintain public
safety and community standards. The program should
be updated and retained.
21 Encourage energy conservation CARRY FORWARD. This program continues to be
relevant and informs City actions relating to
weatherization, solar installations, and other steps to
reduce home energy costs and promote clean energy.
The program references various links on the City’s
website to energy conservation programs, and financial
assistance for home energy costs. It should be carried
forward.
22 Facilitate new construction and
remodels
CARRY FORWARD. This is a general program that
encourages the City to work with applicants, builders,
property owners, and others to produce new market
rate housing and to facilitate permits for home
improvements. It supports permit streamlining and
efficiency, and transparency in the planning and
building processes. It should be carried forward.
48
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-9
Prog. Description Status
23 Explore solutions to ground stability
and landslide problems
CARRY FORWARD. The City implements this program
on an ongoing basis through requirements for soils and
geology reports, as well as grading standards and
grading permit requirements. It continues to allow and
support repair work on landslide damaged homes and
unstable hillsides. Given past damage caused by
landslides and the vulnerability of parts of the city to
future damage, this program should be retained.
Reference could also be made to programs that reduce
wildfire risk and promote defensible space.
24 Make Fair Housing information
available to the public
REVISE. This program reflects the City’s ongoing
commitment to making fair housing information
available to the public. Given HCD’s guidelines for
implementing AB 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing), additional fair housing programs should be
developed.
49
Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-10
50
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-1
3.0 Housing Needs Assessment
3.1 Introduction
Each community’s housing plan must be based on an analysis of local housing needs. This
analysis is expressly required by the State Government Code (Section 65583(a)), and includes a
comprehensive evaluation of local demographics, housing conditions, and market conditions.
The analysis includes an assessment of household characteristics in the city, including
household type, tenure (rent vs own), overcrowding, and percent of income spent on housing. It
also evaluates the special housing needs of older adults, persons with disabilities, large families,
and persons in need of emergency shelter.
The needs assessment helps ensure that the city is not only planning for its “fair share” of the
region’s housing needs, but also responding to its own local needs. Where appropriate, local
conditions are compared to regional conditions or conditions in nearby cities to provide
appropriate context. Rolling Hills is a very unique community and it is important to recognize
that when planning for housing conservation and production.
Most of the data presented in this chapter is from the American Community Survey (ACS), an
ongoing survey performed by the US Census to gauge population and housing conditions in
between the decennial censuses. Because most 2020 Census data was not available at the time
this report was prepared, the ACS data provides the most accurate information on local
demographics. ACS data for Rolling Hills in 2021 is based a five-year average covering 2015-
2019. However, the ACS is based on a sample of the population, so there is a margin of error in
some of the tables. Other data sources include the California Department of Finance, the
County of Los Angeles, and the City of Rolling Hills. In addition, SCAG provided a “pre-HCD
certified” data profile for each city in the Los Angeles region in 2019. This is referenced as
appropriate throughout this chapter.
The Needs Assessment is broken into five sections as follows:
• Section 3.2 covers population characteristics, such as age, race, and total rate of growth
• Section 3.3 covers household characteristics, such as presence of children and home
ownership
• Section 3.4 addresses special housing needs
• Section 3.5 covers housing stock characteristics
• Section 3.6 covers growth forecasts and the RHNA for the 2021-2029 period
The Needs Assessment is supplemented by Appendix “A”, which looks specifically at the recent
State mandate to “affirmatively further fair housing” through the Housing Element. Appendix A
focuses on regional patterns of segregation and inequity in order to inform local fair housing
policies.
51
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-2
3.2 Population Characteristics
3.2.1 Total Population
Table 3.1 shows population data for Rolling Hills over a 50-year period. The City’s population
was 2,050 in 1970 and has declined by more than 300 residents since then. Between 1980 and
1990, Rolling Hills lost nearly 9 percent of its population. The decline was the result of several
factors, including smaller households, fewer children, and the loss of homes due to wildfire and
landslides. Change between 1990 and 2010 was minimal. There were 1,871 residents in 1990
and 1,860 residents in 2010. The August 12, 2021 US Census data release reported a
population of 1,739 residents, a 6.5 percent drop relative to 2010. The Census figure is
substantially lower than the Department of Finance estimate of 1,866, which was made on
January 1, 2021.
Table 3.1: Rolling Hills Population, 1970-20211
Population Percent Change
1970 2,050 --
1980 2,049 0
1990 1,871 -8.7%
2000 1,871 0
2010 1,860 -0.6%
2021 (DOF) 1,866 0.3%
2020 (Census) 1,739 -6.5%
Sources: US Decennial Census, 1970-2010. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate, 2020 Census (8/12/21 release)
Table 3.2 compares population change in Rolling Hills with the region, the County, and the other
cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula using data from the California Department of Finance. The
six-county Los Angeles region grew 14.4 percent between 2000 and 2021, from 16.5 million
residents to nearly 19 million residents. Los Angeles County grew by 5.2 percent, reflecting its
more urbanized character and larger population base. By contrast, the rate of growth on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula during this 21-year period was just 1.1 percent. While Rolling Hills
Estates grew by 5.5 percent, the other three cities have roughly the same number of residents
today as they did 20 years ago. The Peninsula communities are mature, with limited vacant and
re-developable land, high land costs, and environmental constraints that limit population growth.
1 The ACS data sets for Rolling Hills for 2015-2019 show a citywide population of 1,513 residents. This is 15 percent below the
actual population, which was reported to be 1,739 residents in the 2020 Census data released on August 12, 2021. In addition,
SCAG reported the population at 1,939 residents (in 2018), while the State Department of Finance reported 1,866 residents. These
discrepancies are due to sampling errors resulting from the small size of Rolling Hills’ population. As a result, charts are used (rather
than tables) for some of the variables discussed below. This allows the analysis to focus on change over time rather than total
values.
52
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-3
Table 3.2: Comparison of Rolling Hills Growth with Nearby Cities and Region, 2000-2021
Population Percent Change 2000 2021
Rolling Hills 1,871 1,866(*) -0.3
Rolling Hills Estates 7,676 8,098 5.5
Rancho Palos Verdes 41,145 41,541 0.9
Palos Verdes Estates 13,340 13,286 -0.4
Los Angeles County 9,542,000 10,044,458 5.3
SCAG Region 16,547,000 18,954,083 14.4
Sources: US Decennial Census, 2000. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate
(*) August 12, 2021 Census data release shows 1,739 residents, which is a 7.1 decrease since 2000
3.2.2 Age
The age structure of the population has a strong influence on housing needs. For example, if a
city is experiencing an outmigration of young adults (ages 25-34), it often indicates a shortage of
rental housing or entry-level housing opportunities. If a city has a high percentage of residents
over 75, it often indicates a need for special housing types, such as assisted living or single-
story homes---or programs to assist with home rehabilitation.
Chart 3.1 shows the age distribution of Rolling Hills residents in 2000 and 2020. The chart
illustrates significant shifts, including a decrease in the number of children (from 28% of the
population in 2000 to 20% in 2020) and an increase in the number of persons over 65 (from
22% of the population in 2000 to 33% in 2020). The percentage of residents aged 20-34 nearly
doubled over the 20-year period, likely as a result of adult children moving back home or
delaying entry into the housing market due to high housing costs. The percent of residents 35-
44 dropped significantly, likely because of limited local housing options for young families and
mid-career adults.
The median age in Rolling Hills has steadily increased over the last 40 years. In 1980, it was
38.2. It increased to 45.5 in 1990, 48 in 2000, and in 52 in 2010. By 2020, the median age was
55.3, meaning that half of all residents are older than 55 and half are 55 or younger. By
contrast, the median age in Los Angeles County is 36.5. Rolling Hills also has a higher median
age than the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling Hills Estates: 50.1; Palos Verdes
Estates: 52.2; Rancho Palos Verdes: 50.0).
Census data indicates that one-third of Rolling Hills’ residents over 65 are 80 or older. This
cohort represents more than 10 percent of the City’s population, a substantially higher share
than in most communities in California.
53
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-4
Chart 3.1: Age Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020
Source: US Census, 2000. ACS, 2021 (for 2015-2019 sample period)
Chart 3.2: Racial Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020
Source: US Census, 2000 and ACS, 2021 (for 2015-2019 sample period)
0-19
20%
20-34
9%
35-44
4%45-54
16%
55-64
18%
65+
33%
0-19
28%
20-34
5%35-44
12%
45-54
18%
55-64
15%
65+
22%
Hispanic
(any race)
6%
White
Non-
Hispanic
70%
Multi-
racial
6%
Black
2%
Asian
15%
Other
1%
2020
2000 2020
Hispanic
(any race)
3%
White
Non-
Hispanic
80%
Multi-
racial
2%
Black
2%
Asian
13%
2000
54
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-5
3.2.3 Race and Ethnicity
Racial and ethnic composition may affect housing needs due to the cultural preferences of
certain groups (including extended families, multi-generational families, etc). In addition, certain
groups have historically faced discrimination due to the lending policies of financial institutions,
former covenants and ownership restrictions, and past racial bias.
Chart 3.2 shows the racial distribution of Rolling Hills residents in 2000 and 2020. The city has
become more diverse over time, with the Non-Hispanic White population declining from 80
percent to 70 percent of the total. The Hispanic population (any race) roughly doubled over the
20-year period, although relative to the total population, the numbers are still small.
Approximately 6 percent of the City’s residents are Hispanic.
The percentage of African-American residents remained at about 2 percent of the population
between 2000 and 2020. During this same period, the number of residents of Asian or Pacific
Island descent increased from 13 percent to 16 percent of the city’s total. According to the
Census, the largest Asian ethnic groups in the city are Chinese (6.5 percent) and Korean (5.1
percent). The number of residents indicating they were more than one race more than doubled
between 2000 and 2020, with multi-racial residents representing about 6 percent of the 2020
population.
Relative to the County of Los Angeles and the State of California, Rolling Hills and the four cities
on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have a substantially higher White Non-Hispanic population.
Table 3.3 compares race and ethnicity in Rolling Hills, the Peninsula cities, Los Angeles County,
and the State as a whole. Nearly half of the County’s residents, and more than one-third of the
State’s residents, are Hispanic. By contrast, less than 10 percent of the residents in the
Peninsula cities are Hispanic. The Peninsula cities tend to have higher percentages of Asian
and Pacific Islander residents, and more multi-racial residents.
Table 3.3: Race and Ethnicity in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, Los Angeles County, and
State, 2020
Percent of Total
Rolling Hills Palos Verdes
Peninsula*
Los Angeles
County
State of
California
Non-Hispanic White 71.3% 54.4% 26.2% 37.2%
Hispanic (all races) 5.8% 9.7% 48.5% 39.0%
Black/ African American 1.5% 1.6% 7.8% 5.5%
Native American/Alaskan N/A 0.1% 0.2% 0.4%
Asian 15.6% 28.8% 14.4% 14.3%
Pacific Islander/Hawaiian N/A 0.6% 0.2% 0.4%
Other N/A 0.1% 0.3% 0.3%
Multi-Racial 5.8% 4.7% 2.3% 3.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sources: US Decennial Census, 2020.
(*) Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates
55
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-6
The August 2021 release of 2020 Census data shows that the ACS may have underestimated
the diversity of Rolling Hills’ population. The 2020 Census indicated that 66 percent of the city’s
residents are White, 20.5 percent are Asian, 10.4 percent are more than one race, 1.3 percent
are Black, and 1.9 percent are Other. The Census further indicated that 7.0 percent of the city’s
residents were Hispanic (includes all races).
3.2.4 Language
Based on ACS data for 2015-2019, 79 percent of the City’s residents speak only English at
home.2 Of the roughly 300 Rolling Hills residents speaking a language other than English at
home, 18 percent speak Spanish, 56 percent speak an Asian language, and 26 percent speak
another Indo-European language. Most of these residents are bilingual and are fluent in English.
About 66 percent of those speaking a foreign language at home indicated they also spoke
English “very well.” Of the remaining 34 percent, about half spoke an Asian language. Korean
and Chinese were the most commonly spoken languages in those households.
Relative to other cities in Los Angeles County and the region, the percentage of “linguistically
isolated” persons (i.e., those with limited English) is very low in Rolling Hills. Whereas about 6
percent of Rolling Hills’ population is linguistically isolated, the percentage in Los Angeles
County is about 24 percent.
3.2.5 Educational Attainment
Rolling Hills residents are highly educated. Among residents 25 or older, 97.6 percent have a
high school degree. More than 70 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 39 percent
have a graduate or professional degree. These percentages are substantially higher than in the
County as a whole.
3.2.6 Health Indicators
Health can impact housing needs both by limiting the income earning potential of residents and
by creating the need for supportive services or special housing design. Based on data provided
to the City by the Southern California Association of Governments, Rolling Hills health indicators
are consistently better than the County as a whole. The City’s obesity rate is 16.5 percent,
compared to a countywide average of 28.2 percent. Its asthma rate is 10.1 percent, compared
to the countywide average of 15.1 percent and its diabetes rate is 8.3 percent, compared to 12.1
percent countywide. On the other hand, Rolling Hills has a higher rate of heart disease than the
County as a whole, with 9.7 percent of the population diagnosed with a heart ailment compared
to 6.6 percent countywide. This is likely due to the higher percentage of older residents in the
city.
2 American Community Survey 2015-2019, based on residents 5 years of age or older.
56
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-7
3.2.7 Employment
Employment affects the demand for housing and the dynamics of the housing market. In most
cities, the types of jobs that are present affect the wages paid and the ability of the local
workforce to pay for housing in the city. Rolling Hills is unique in this regard, as it has no major
employers or land zoned for employment uses. In 2018, the Southern California Association of
Governments estimated that there were only 110 jobs in the city.3 Employers include the City,
the School District, Rolling Hills Community Association, the County Fire Department, and the
Palos Verdes Transit Authority. The figure excludes construction workers, landscapers,
housekeepers, child care providers, care givers, delivery workers, and others who travel to the
city intermittently for work.
Data from SCAG collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic indicates that a majority of
employed residents in Rolling Hills commuted to jobs elsewhere in Los Angeles County. The
largest percentages of residents commuted to Los Angeles (28.2%), Torrance (8.3%), and Long
Beach (5.0%). Beyond Los Angeles County, the next largest commute destination was Orange
County, including Anaheim (1.5%) and Huntington Beach (1.5%).
A relatively large percentage of Rolling Hills residents work from home. Prior to the COVID-19
pandemic, census data reported that about 18 percent of the city’s employed residents worked
from their homes. While data after March 2020 is not available, the percentage likely increased
dramatically during the second quarter of 2020 and remained high for the rest of the year. The
long-term effects of the pandemic on commute patterns are still unknown. However, the
relatively large home sizes in Rolling Hills and the high percentage of the workforce in
professional-sector jobs suggests that a substantial number of workers will continue to work
remotely in the future.
Recent data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) indicates there
are 600 Rolling Hills residents in the labor force. EDD indicates an unemployment rate of 9.3
percent in June 2021, compared to a countywide average of 10.5 percent. The average annual
unemployment rate in Rolling Hills was reported as 4.0 percent in 2019, when the countywide
average was 4.4 percent. 4
Tables 3.4 and 3.5 provides an overview of the Rolling Hills labor force, based on census data.
The first table identifies the occupation of residents in the city by category, and the second
classifies employed residents by industry.
A majority of the city’s residents are in higher-wage professional and management occupations.
Approximately 18 percent work in health care. About 13 percent work in education, legal
services, arts, and media. Only a small percentage work in the service sector, and even smaller
percentages work in the construction, maintenance, and transportation sectors. The largest
economic sectors associated with the Rolling Hills workforce are finance, insurance, real estate,
health care, and professional, scientific, and management services. The percentage of residents
employed in retail sales, wholesaling, and manufacturing is much smaller than in the county as a
whole.
3 Based on data from the California Employment Development Department
4 California EDD “Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places” accessed July 2021
57
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-8
Table 3.4: Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Occupation
Number of
Residents
Employed
Percent of
Total
Management, business, and financial services occupations 185 32.9%
Computer, engineering, and science occupations 39 6.9%
Education, legal, community service, arts, and media occupations 72 12.8%
Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 104 18.5%
Service occupations 24 4.3%
Sales and office occupations 115 20.4%
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 22 3.9%
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 2 0.4%
TOTAL 563 100.0%
Sources: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 characteristics)
Table 3.5: Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Industry
Number of
Residents
Employed
Percent of
Total
Construction 24 4.3%
Manufacturing 29 5.2%
Wholesale trade 43 7.6%
Retail trade 30 5.3%
Transport/ warehousing/ utilities 4 0.7%
Information 12 2.1%
Finance/ insurance/ real estate 132 23.4%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and
waste management services 85 15.1%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 146 25.9%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food
services 39 6.9%
Other services, except public administration 12 2.1%
Public Administration 7 1.2%
TOTAL 563 100.0%
Sources: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 characteristics)
58
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-9
There are approximately six times more employed residents in Rolling Hills than jobs in Rolling
Hills. The City is not expected to become an employment center in the future. Rolling Hills is
currently a housing “reservoir” in that it provides far more housing than employment relative to
other cities in Los Angeles County. Nearby communities with large employment bases rely on
Rolling Hills to some extent to meet their housing needs, particularly at the upper range of the
housing market.
3.3 Household Characteristics
The Bureau of the Census defines a "household" as “all persons who occupy a housing unit.
This may include 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 classified as living in “group quarters” and are not considered
households. On the other hand, a property with an occupied accessory dwelling unit may be
considered to consist of two households.
Household characteristics provide important indicators of housing needs. These characteristics
include household structure (families with and without children, single persons, persons sharing
homes, etc.), household size (number of persons per household), tenure (renter vs owner), and
household income and poverty status. Again, the US Census 2021 American Community
Survey (providing sample data for 2015-2019) is regarded as the definitive source for household
data and is referenced in the tables and narrative below. At the time this report was prepared,
2020 Census data for households (other than total number of households) was not yet available.
3.3.1 Household Type
Census data for Rolling Hills indicates that there is no group quarters population in the city and
that all residents reside in households. Data from the California Department of Finance for
January 1, 2021 indicates that there were 667 households in Rolling Hills, an increase of four
households from the 2010 Census. The August 2021 release of US 2020 Census data indicates
that there are 639 households in the city, which is a decrease of 24 households from 2010. The
US Census data is considered more accurate, as it is based on an actual count and not an
estimate.
Just over 81 percent of all households in Rolling Hills are classified as families. This percentage
remained constant between 2010 and 2020. Non-family households include persons living
alone and unrelated persons living in shared homes.
Chart 3.3 shows the distribution of households by category for Rolling Hills and the County of
Los Angeles. Relative to the County, Rolling Hills has a much higher percentage of married
couple families (74% of all households compared to 45% countywide). The City has smaller
percentages of single parent households and non-married couple households than the County
and the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. A much smaller share of Rolling Hills’
residents live alone than in the County as a whole.
59
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-10
Chart 3.3: Household Type in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County, 2021
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 data)
The data for Rolling Hills reflects the community’s single family housing stock. For decades, the
city has attracted families with children. Couples tend to keep their homes when their children
are grown, resulting in a significant number of homes (more than half) occupied by older
couples with adult children and empty nesters. In fact, the Census indicates that 60 percent of
the married couple households in Rolling Hills include at one person over 60 years old,
compared to 38 percent in the county as a whole.
Household type in Rolling Hills has changed over the last 20 years. The percentage of people
living alone has been increasing, growing from 12 percent of the population in 2000 to 16
percent in 2020. The percentage of households with children living at home has been
decreasing. It was 33 percent in 2000 and 23 percent in 2020.
3.3.2 Household Size
In 2020, the State Department of Finance reported the average household size in Rolling Hills as
2.80 persons. This is almost the same as it was in 2010, when average household size was
reported at 2.81 persons. In general, average household size has been falling over time. It was
2.90 in 2000 and was reported as being 3.2 in the Rolling Hills General Plan (1989). Preliminary
releases from the US Census (August 2021) show actual household size has fallen even further,
and is now 2.72.
ACS data indicates that 16 percent of all households in the City are comprised of one person, 52
percent have two people, 10 percent have three people, and 21 percent have four or more
people. By contrast, in Los Angeles County as a whole, 26 percent are comprised of one
person, 28 percent of two persons, 17 percent of three persons, and 29 percent of four or more
Married w/
children
under 18 at
home
22%
Married, no children
<18 at home
52%
Single
parent, w/
children < 18
at home
1%
Non-
married
couples
2%
Living
alone
16%
Other
7%
Married w/
children
under 18 at
home
19%
Married, no children
<18 at home
26%
Single parent, w/
children < 18 at home
6%
Non-
married
couples
7%
Living
alone
26%
Other
16%
City of Rolling Hills County of Los Angeles
60
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-11
persons. Rolling Hills has a much higher share of two-person households and smaller shares of
one-person households and large households.
Chart 3.4 compares average household size in Rolling Hills, the County, the State and the other
three cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Data is shown for 2010 and 2021 for each city,
based on California Department of Finance statistics.
Chart 3.4: Household Size in Rolling Hills and Other Jurisdictions, 2010 and 2021
Source: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2021
3.3.3 Overcrowding
Overcrowding may result when high housing costs prevent households from buying or renting
homes that provide sufficient space for their needs. The Census defines overcrowded
households as those with more than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, hallways, and
porches. Households are considered to be “severely” overcrowded if they have more than 1.51
persons per room.
Although Rolling Hills has a higher number of persons per household than the other cities on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula, it does not experience overcrowding. ACS data for 2015-2019 indicate
that 98.9 percent of the homes in the city have 1.0 persons per room of less. There are no
households with more than 1.51 persons per room. By contrast, in the county at large, 11.3
percent of the households have more than 1.01 persons per room and 4.7 percent have more
than 1.51 persons per room. Homes in Rolling Hills are generally large and owner-occupied,
reducing the likelihood of future overcrowding.
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
Rolling Hills LA County California Rolling Hills
Estates
Rancho Palos
Verdes
Palos Verdes
Estates
2010 2021
61
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-12
3.3.4 Tenure
Tenure refers to a household’s status as an owner or renter. ACS data for 2015-2019 indicate
that 95.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ households are homeowners and 4.7 percent are renters. This
percentage has remained relatively constant over the last two decades. The 2010 Census
indicated that 95.7 percent of the city’s households were homeowners and that 4.3 percent
were renters. This equated to 28 renter households in the entire city. Because there are no
multi-family units at this time, these households are presumed to be renting single family homes.
Renter households in the city are slightly larger than owner-occupied households. The ACS
data for 2015-2019 indicates an average household size of 3.07 for renters and 2.60 for owners.
3.3.5 Household Income
Income is the single most important factor in determining housing affordability. While upper
income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, lower income
households are more constrained in what they can afford. The State and federal government
have developed metrics for classifying households into income categories. These metrics are
used to quantify what is considered an “affordable” housing unit and to determine eligibility for
housing subsidies and assistance programs. All metrics are benchmarked against the areawide
median income, or AMI.
State-Defined Income Categories
The commonly used income categories are as follows:
• Extremely low income 0-30% of AMI
• Very low income 30% to 50% of AMI
• Low income 50% to 80% of AMI
• Moderate income 80% to 120% of AMI
• Above Moderate income More than 120% of AMI
“Affordable housing cost” is defined by State law as being not more than 30 percent of gross
household income. “Housing cost” in this context includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities,
property taxes, and homeowners (or renters) insurance. The income limits are updated annually
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
For each income category, a sliding scale is used based on the number of persons per
household. This recognizes that larger households must dedicate greater shares of their
income for food, health care, transportation, and other expenses. The income categories are
calculated by county, resulting in different median incomes from place to place within California.
Table 3.6 shows income categories for Los Angeles County that became effective in April 2021.
A two-person household earning less than $75,700 a year would be considered low income.
The same household would be considered very low income if it earned less than $47,300 a year.
For a household of four people, the threshold is $94,600 for low income and $59,100 for very
low income.
62
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-13
Table 3.6: Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 20215
Income Category
Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low Income $24,850 $28,400 $31,950 $35,450 $38,300 $41,150 $44,000 $46,800
Very Low Income $41,400 $47,300 $53,200 $59,100 $63,850 $68,600 $73,300 $78,050
Low Income $66,250 $75,700 $85,150 $94,600 $102,200 $109,750 $117,350 $124,900
Moderate Income $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,700 $111,350 $119,050 $126,700
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021
Table 3.7 indicates the monthly housing cost that would be considered “affordable” for
households of different sizes in each income category. Using the state’s definition of
affordability, a low income household of four would be able to afford a monthly housing cost of
$2,365. A very low income household of four could afford a monthly housing cost of $1,478. If
these households are pay in excess of this amount, they are considered to be “cost-burdened.”
In a high-priced market like the Palos Verdes Peninsula, many low income households pay
significantly more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent or mortgages. Those employed in
low-wage professions in the area may commute long distances from areas with more affordable
housing.
Table 3.7: Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits
Income Category
Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low Income $621 $710 $799 $886 $958 $1,029 $1,100 $1,170
Very Low Income $1,035 $1,183 $1,330 $1,478 $1,596 $1,715 $1,833 $1,951
Low Income $1,656 $1,893 $2,129 $2,365 $2,555 $2,744 $2,934 $3,123
Moderate Income $1,680 $1,920 $2,160 $2,400 $2,593 $2,784 $2,976 $3,168
Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021. Based on 30% of monthly income for each household
Market-rate ownership housing in the Los Angeles area is generally not affordable to
households who are moderate income or below. With an income of $100,000, a household of
four could potentially spend $2,500 a month on their housing cost without experiencing a cost-
burden. Assuming a 10 percent down-payment and 3 percent interest rate, an “affordable”
home would be about $360,000. While there are a few condominiums at this price point in the
region’s larger cities (Long Beach, Los Angeles, etc.), there is no housing on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula in this range. Consequently, “below market” housing programs typically focus on
rental housing for low and very low income households, and a mix of subsidized ownership
housing and rental housing for moderate income households.
5 Income limits for low, very low, and extremely low income are set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
However, income limits for moderate income households are set by HCD based on mathematical averages of County income.
Consequently, the moderate income numbers are only marginally different from the low income numbers in Los Angeles County.
This is not the case in all counties.
63
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-14
Some market-rate rental units are “affordable by design”—meaning they are not subsidized but
have rental prices that fall within the affordability ranges of low and moderate income
households. For example, a one-bedroom apartment renting for $1,700 a month would be
considered affordable to a two-person low-income household. While the supply of such units is
limited on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, there are opportunities for market-rate accessory
dwellings and small apartments to fill some of this need.
Household Income in Rolling Hills
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations
of Census data each year to evaluate housing needs for lower income households. The data is
referred to as “CHAS” (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data and includes
documentation of the current number of owner and renter households in each HUD income
category for each jurisdiction. At the time the 2021-2029 Housing Element was prepared the
CHAS data set was based on 2013-2017 conditions. Table 3.8 provides CHAS data for the City
of Rolling Hills.
Table 3.8: Rolling Hills Households by HUD Income Category
Income Category Owners Renters Total (*)
Extremely Low 25 0 25
Very Low 35 10 45
Low 45 0 45
Moderate 25 0 25
Above Moderate 465 15 480
Total 595 25 620
Source: HUD User Portal CHAS data, based on 2013-2017 ACS. Accessed July 2021
(*) Total number of households does not match Census and DOF totals due to sampling methods. CHAS data is also rounded to the
nearest “five” by HUD.
Table 3.8 indicates that 77 percent of the households in Rolling Hills are “above moderate”
income (more than 120% of Areawide Median Income). There are 25 “extremely low” income
households and 45 “very low” income households in the city, representing four percent and
seven percent of total households respectively. Another seven percent meet “low” income
criteria.
Table 3.9 provides additional data on income in Rolling Hills, using 2015-2019 American
Community Survey data rather than CHAS data. Rolling Hills is among the most affluent cities in
California, with a median income exceeding $250,000 a year, and a mean household income of
$434,685. The Census indicates that 57.5 percent of the city’s households have annual incomes
exceeding $200,000, compared to 37.8 percent for all of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities and
10.2 percent for Los Angeles County.
64
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-15
Table 3.9: Household Income in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and Los Angeles County
Income Category
Percent of Households in Income Category
Rolling Hills
Palos Verdes
Peninsula Cities Los Angeles County
Less than $10,000 1.2% 3.0% 5.6%
$10,000-$14,999 2.6% 1.6% 4.8%
$15,000-$24,999 2.6% 3.4% 8.4%
$25,000-$34,999 1.2% 3.4% 8.1%
$35,000-$49,999 6.1% 4.7% 11.2%
$50,000-$74,999 3.8% 9.2% 15.9%
$75,000-$99,999 4.2% 9.0% 12.3%
$100,000-$149,999 12.7% 15.5% 15.8%
$150,000-$199,999 8.1% 12.6% 7.8%
$200,000 or more 57.5% 37.8% 10.2%
Median Income $250,000+ $154,165 $68,044
Mean Income $434,685 $210,231 $99,133
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019)
Data for Palos Verdes Peninsula cities represents weighted average of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and
Palos Verdes Estates
While a majority of households are “above moderate” income, the ACS data indicates that 6.4
percent of Rolling Hills’ households (or approximately 42 households) have annual incomes of
less than $25,000 a year. This compares to 8.0 percent for the Palos Verdes Peninsula and 18.8
percent for Los Angeles County. Approximately 7.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ households have
incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, compared to 8.1 percent on the Peninsula and
19.3 percent countywide.
The Census also disaggregates household income data by family households, married couples,
and non-family households. Non-family households include persons living alone and unrelated
individuals in shared homes. Family and married couple household incomes in Rolling Hills are
higher than non-family households. Census data indicate that 27 percent of the non-family
households in the city (or about 30 households) have annual incomes below $35,000 compared
to just 3.1 percent for families and married couples.
An important qualifier about the Census income data is that it does not account for accumulated
wealth or savings and is based only on annual income. Given the high cost of housing in Rolling
Hills, the very high rate of owner-occupancy (95 percent), and the large number of retired adults
in the city, it is likely that most of the lower income households in the city are seniors on fixed
incomes. In fact, 68 of the 108 non-family households in the city are comprised of persons over
65 living alone. Many of these households have no mortgage and their housing costs are
primarily associated with property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and utilities. Despite
accumulated wealth and home equity, a subset of the population on fixed incomes may lack the
resources to meet these expenses without financial hardship.
65
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-16
3.3.6 Overpayment
Overpayment refers to the incidence of households spending more than 30 percent of their
incomes on housing costs. As noted earlier, this includes monthly utility bills, taxes, HOA dues,
and insurance as well as mortgage or rent payments. Overpayment occurs in all income
categories but is more challenging for lower income households given the limited resources to
pay for other household expenses. As previously indicated, such households are defined by the
US Department of Housing and Urban Development as being “cost-burdened.”
ACS data indicates that 30.6 percent of all homeowners in Rolling Hills and 32 percent of all
renters are paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. About 18 percent of
Rolling Hills homeowners are paying more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing. This
compares to 16 percent in the county as a whole. Table 3.10 compares rates of overpayment in
Rolling Hills with those of Los Angeles County as a whole. At the countywide level, the rate of
overpayment is somewhat higher for homeowners and substantially higher for renters. In Los
Angeles County, approximately 35.7 percent of all homeowners and 57.6 percent of all renters
pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing.
Table 3.10: Percent of Income Spent on Housing in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Percent of
Income Spent
on Housing
Homeowners with no
Mortgage
Homeowners with a
Mortgage Renters
Rolling
Hills
LA
County
Rolling
Hills
LA
County
Rolling
Hills
LA
County
Less than 20 % 64.3% 73.4% 37.1% 30.0% 54.5% 19.7%
20-24.9 % 10.5% 6.4% 10.1% 14.5% 0 11.5%
25-29.9% 5.0% 4.2% 14.0% 12.1% 13.6% 11.2%
30-34.9% 0.8% 3.0% 7.8% 9.1% 0 9.5%
More than 35% 19.3% 12.9% 30.9% 34.4% 31.8% 48.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019)
Not surprisingly, the incidence of overpayment is much greater for homeowners with a
mortgage than for those without a mortgage. In Rolling Hills, approximately 44 percent of all
homeowners have paid off their mortgages, while 56 percent have a mortgage. For those
without mortgages, 20.1 percent pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. For
those with mortgages, the figure is 38.6 percent.
Even homeowners without mortgages may still face a cost burden associated with taxes,
maintenance, and other home expenses. The ACS reports that 93 percent of Rolling Hills’
homeowners with no mortgage payments still have monthly housing costs exceeding $1,000 a
month. The median monthly cost for homeowners without mortgages in the city is over $1,500 a
month. The comparable figures for Los Angeles County are just 20.3 percent and $608 a
month. The data suggests that Rolling Hills seniors on fixed incomes may be particularly cost-
burdened due to limited income, monthly HOA fees, and the high cost of maintaining a home in
the city.
66
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-17
For homeowners with mortgages, monthly costs are substantially higher. ACS data shows that
89.9 percent of the city’s homeowners with mortgages spend over $3,000 a month on housing,
with a median well above $4,000 a month (the maximum reported by the Census). This
compares to 34.2 percent in Los Angeles County, with monthly median of $2,498.
Data on the City’s renter households indicates that a majority are above moderate income
households spending more than $3,000 a month on housing. However, the ACS indicates
seven renter households paying $1,000 to $1,499 a month, which indicates that at least a few
renters in the city occupy guest houses or unregistered accessory dwelling units.
Table 3.11 shows the incidence of overpayment among owners and renters in Rolling Hills who
are lower income. Among lower income homeowners, 78 out of 90 are considered cost-
burdened, while among the city’s 10 lower income renters, eight are considered cost-burdened.
About two-thirds of the city’s lower income owners are severely cost-burdened, paying more
than half of their incomes on housing. While the income data does not fully account for savings
and accrued wealth, it does suggest that some of these households might benefit from
assistance with home maintenance and monthly housing expenses (for example, through home
sharing and ADUs).
Table 3.11: Overpayment among Lower Income Households in Rolling Hills
Total
Households
Number Paying More than
30% of Income on Housing
Number Paying More than
50% of Income on Housing
Homeowners
Income Under 80%
of Areawide Median 90 78 60
Income Under 30%
of Areawide Median 25 19 15
Renters
Income Under 80%
of Areawide Median 10 8 4
Income Under 30%
of Areawide Median 0 0 0
Source: HUD User CHAS data, 2014-2018
3.4 Populations with Special Needs
The California Government Code recognizes that some segments of the population have more
difficulty finding decent, affordable housing than others due to their circumstances. Populations
with special needs include older adults, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers,
families with female heads of households, and persons experiencing (or at risk of)
homelessness. These groups are more likely than the population at large to spend a
disproportionate amount of their incomes on housing. They are also more likely to face
discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances.
67
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-18
3.4.1 Older Adults
The special needs of older households result from limited income, higher rates of physical
disability and health care costs, and changing life circumstances which may require assistance
from others. This is the single largest special needs group in Rolling Hills, and it is growing
rapidly as the population ages. Table 3.12 compares the number of older adults in Rolling Hills
with the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, along with Los Angeles County.
Table 3.12: Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Percent of all
Residents over 65
Percent of all
Residents over 75
Percent of households
with at least one
member over 65
Rolling Hills 32.9% 18.4% 56.0%
Rolling Hills Estates 25.2% 13.9% 46.5%
Palos Verdes Estates 27.0% 13.3% 46.8%
Rancho Palos Verdes 15.5% 13.6% 44.7%
Los Angeles County 13.3% 5.7% 29.7%
California 14.0% 5.9% 30.8%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019)
The percentage of residents over 65 in Rolling Hills was 22 percent in 2000, 28 percent in 2010,
and 33 percent in 2020. Moreover, 56 percent of the households in Rolling Hills include at least
one person who is 65 years or older. This is almost double the rate for Los Angeles County as a
whole. The percentage of Rolling Hills residents over 85 has doubled in the last 20 years, with
this cohort representing 4.7 percent of the population in 2020.
The percentage of older residents is likely to continue increasing in the next decade. Nearly one
in five Rolling Hills residents is in the 55-64 age cohort (compared to one in nine countywide),
and most of this cohort will reach retirement age during the timeframe of this Housing Element.
Some of these residents, as well as those already over 65, may seek to “downsize” or adapt
their homes to meet changing mobility needs and financial resources.
Older adults in Rolling Hills are more likely to live alone, have one or more disabilities, and be
cost-burned by housing than the population at large. Census data indicates that there are 68
households, representing roughly 10 percent of all households in Rolling Hills, comprised of a
person over 65 living alone. About 70 percent are female-headed households and 30 percent
are male-headed. There may be opportunities among these households for home sharing and
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. This can provide financial benefits, social benefits,
and an added sense of security, as well as housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income
workers or other retirees in the community.
At the same time, the City should anticipate an increase in homeowners seeking to adapt their
homes to facilitate aging in place. This would include addition of ramps, handrails, kitchen and
bath retrofits, and interior changes that improve access for wheelchairs and walkers. The
Rolling Hills housing stock is well suited for these improvements, as it is limited to single story
68
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-19
construction. Demand for on-site caregiver quarters, and living space for other domestic
employees, will likely increase. At the same time, the substantial cost and demand associated
with maintaining a large home and property may compel some residents to seek living
arrangements that are not currently available in Rolling Hills, such as condominiums and
townhomes. Some of these residents will relocate out of Rolling Hills due to diminished mobility
(capacity to drive) or the need for higher levels of care.
Because of resource limitations and the city’s small size, the City of Rolling Hills does not
provide direct services to seniors. It works with other agencies, non-profits, and the private
sector to address the housing needs of local seniors, and to connect residents with service
providers. This includes maintaining a comprehensive list of facilities and service providers at
City Hall, and a dedicated page on the City’s website listing available services for seniors.
Rolling Hills has partnered with other Peninsula cities and local non-profits to produce a Senior
Resources Guide for the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Nearby local services include:
• Palos Verdes Peninsula Village, located in Rolling Hills Estates, provides social and
educational activities, transportation, and advocacy for seniors in the vicinity. They
provide trained volunteers to assist with routine home maintenance activities, computer
troubleshooting and set-up, and other day to day activities.
• PV Peninsula Transit Authority Dial-A-Ride, which provides services for persons 62 or
older on the Peninsula, and free taxis for medical appointments in the South Bay area.
• Peninsula Seniors, a non-profit 501(c)(3) that has served the four cities on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula (including Rolling Hills) since 1982. They primarily provide social
activities, health and wellness programs, special events, and educational programs.
• Volunteer block captains within Rolling Hills, providing wellness checks for seniors as
well as emergency preparedness and response.
• Homeshare South Bay matches seniors and others in the community with local housing
opportunities. Homeshare South Bay is a project of the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments, which includes Rolling Hills.
• HELP (Health Care and Elder Law Programs) is a Torrance-based organization that
provides counseling to area seniors on elder care, finance, law, and consumer
protection. The organization is dedicated to empowering older adults and their families.
• Palos Verdes Peninsula Library District and the Peninsula Center Library (in Rolling Hills
Estates) provides programs and resources for seniors.
• There are senior centers in the nearby communities of Torrance, Carson, Wilmington,
Harbor City, San Pedro, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, and El
Segundo.
69
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-20
In addition, the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) created a “Needs of Seniors”
Committee in 2014 to address the needs of aging Rolling Hills residents. The Committee
collects information and makes recommendations to the RHCA Board. Their recent efforts have
focused on transportation, health and wellness, home improvement and maintenance, and social
events.
3.4.2 Persons with Disabilities
The number of disabled residents is increasing nationwide due to increased longevity and the
aging of the population. Physical and mental disabilities can hinder access to housing as well as
the income needed to pay for housing. Those with disabilities often have special housing needs
related to their limited earning capacity, higher health care costs, mobility or self-care limitations,
or need for supportive services.
The Census recognizes six disability types in its data tabulation: hearing, vision, cognitive,
ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. These categories are not mutually exclusive and
disabled residents may have more than one of these conditions. Current ACS data (2015-2019)
for Rolling Hills indicates that 10.6 percent of the City’s population has one or more disabilities.
This compares to 8.1 percent in the 2000 Census, with the increase attributable to the greater
number of older adults. Rolling Hills has a slightly higher percentage of disabled residents than
the county as a whole, with the ACS reporting that 9.9 percent of Los Angeles County’s
residents were disabled in 2020.
The city’s older residents are more likely to be disabled than its younger residents. ACS data
shows 23 percent of all residents over 65 have one or more disabilities, whereas only 5.5
percent of those aged 18-64 have one or more disabilities and only 1.4 percent of those under
18 have disabilities. The “over 75” population has the greatest incidence of disability, with 33.8
percent affected.
Table 3.13 shows the incidence of disabilities among persons in different age groups in Rolling
Hills. The most common disabilities are ambulatory (movement), with older adults most
impacted. There were 103 residents reporting an ambulatory difficulty, 66 of whom were over
75. There were 56 residents reporting a hearing difficulty, 46 of whom were over 75. Cognitive
difficulties were more likely to affect the younger population (particularly 18-34). This was the
only category where rates among older adults were lower than among younger age cohorts.
Table 3.13: Percent of Rolling Hills’ Residents with a Disability
Disability Type Under 18 18-64 Over 65 Total
Hearing Difficulty 0 1.0% 10.0% 3.7%
Vision Difficulty 0 1.0% 2.6% 1.3%
Cognitive Difficulty 1.5% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1%
Ambulatory Difficulty 0 2.9% 16.5% 6.9%
Self-care Difficulty 0 0.5% 6.0% 2.3%
Independent Living Difficulty N/A 2.3% 8.8% 5.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019)
70
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-21
There were 61 residents, including 34 residents over 75 and another 11 aged 65-74, who
indicated an independent living difficulty. This represents roughly 5 percent of the City’s
population and is comparable to the countywide average of 5.4 percent. These residents may
require daily assistance from caregivers or family members.
There is an ongoing need to adapt housing to meet the needs of those with disabilities, and to
design new homes so they are accessible for all people. This may require widened doorways
and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, grab bars, walk-in baths
and showers, and other design changes. It is important that planning and building codes
support such changes, and accommodate the needs of those who are disabled or become
disabled while living in the homes they currently occupy. Barrier free design is particularly
important in any multi-family housing that may be constructed in the future.
In 2020, the City of Rolling Hills amended its municipal code to provide “reasonable
accommodation” for persons with disabilities. This complies with state and federal laws and
enables those with disabilities to request modifications from standard practices or codes to meet
their housing needs.
3.4.3 Persons with Developmental Disabilities
SB 812 requires that each jurisdiction’s housing element include an analysis of housing needs
for persons with developmental disabilities. This is defined by federal law as a “severe, chronic
disability” that:
• Is attributable to a mental of physical impairment or combination of mental and physical
impairments
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 18
• Is likely to continue indefinitely
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major
life activity:
o Self-care
o Receptive and expressive language
o Learning
o Mobility
o Self-direction
o Capacity of independent living
o Economic self-sufficiency
• Reflects the need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, of generic
services, individualized support, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended
duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
Examples of developmental disabilities include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Many
developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently. More severely disabled
individuals may require a group living environment with training and supportive services. The
most severely disabled individuals may require an institutional environment where medical
services and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist in
childhood, the transition from living with one’s family to living independently is an important
consideration in meeting local housing needs.
71
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-22
Data on the number of persons with developmental disabilities is maintained by the California
Department of Developmental Services (DDS). DDS coordinates the efforts of a network of 21
non-profit regional centers around the state and provides funding for a variety of programs and
services. Rolling Hills is served by the Harbor Regional Center, which is located in Torrance.
The Harbor Center serves over 15,000 people with developmental disabilities, with a service
area that includes Long Beach, the South Bay, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and other parts of
southern Los Angeles County. About half are children and half are adults.
Data from the DDS is provided by ZIP code. Rolling Hills city represents 7.4 percent of the
25,061 residents in ZIP code 90274. The last available report posted by DDS on their website
(June 2017) indicates 154 clients served in 90274, including 65 under age 18 and 89 over age
18. If Rolling Hills’ share of the total is pro-rated, this would be equivalent to 12 clients, including
five children and seven adults. ZIP code data is also disaggregated by the type of housing
occupied by clients. The data indicates that 149 clients in ZIP Code 90274 live with their
families or guardians and “fewer than 11” clients live in supported living, care facility, or foster
home environments. Overall, about 87 percent of the Harbor Center’s clients live with their
families.
The Harbor Regional Center is an important resource for those with developmental disabilities,
and their families. It provides health assessments, advocacy, family support and training,
individual case management and support, early intervention and prevention services, and
assistance in finding stable and secure independent living arrangements. Additional resources
in the area include the Disability Community Resource Center in Torrance and Southern
California Resources Services for Independent Living.
3.4.4 Female-Headed Households with Children
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater
needs for day care, health care, and other facilities. In particular, female-headed households
with children tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing affordability for this group. In
most communities, female-headed households are considered to be at greater risk of
displacement, poverty, and housing overpayment.
The 2019 ACS indicates that there were five single parent female households with children in
Rolling Hills, representing less than one percent of the City’s households. The comparable
figure for Los Angeles County was 5.1 percent, as the composition of households is substantially
more diverse at the countywide level.
ACS data for the small number of female-headed households with children in Rolling Hills may
not be entirely reliable due to the small sample size. Nonetheless, the data indicate that these
households were above the poverty level, and did not receive supplemental security income,
SNAP/food stamps, or other public assistance income in the past 12 months.
Because the very small number of female-headed households in Rolling Hills, as well as their
income characteristics, they are not expected to have special housing needs that require City
programs.
72
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-23
3.4.5 Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or more members. Such households are
identified in State housing law as a group with special housing needs based on the limited
availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. In instances where large households
have lower incomes, they may be more likely to live in overcrowded dwelling units or in units
that are substandard. The problem is more acute for large households who are renters, who
may face the added risk of eviction or displacement.
Table 3.14 shows data on household size in Rolling Hills. The data is broken down for family and
non-family households. About 12.3 percent of all households in Rolling Hills have five or more
members, including 2.6 percent with seven or more members. All of these households are
families. Countywide, 14.3 precent of all households have five or more members and 2.8
percent have seven or more members.
The average number of rooms per unit in a Rolling Hills home is 8.3, compared to 4.6 for Los
Angeles County. ACS data indicates the median annual income for large households in Rolling
Hills exceeds $250,000. Given the large home sizes in Rolling Hills, the low incidence of
overcrowding, and the relatively small percentage of large households, this is not a priority
special needs group within the city. Larger households will continue to be housed in the city’s
larger single family homes.
Table 3.14: Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Households
Household
Size Family Percentage
Non-
Family Percentage Total Percentage
1 N/A N/A 94 87.0% 94 16.3%
2 287 61.2% 14 13.0% 301 52.2%
3 59 12.6% 0 0 59 10.2%
4 52 11.1% 0 0 52 9.0%
5 51 10.9% 0 0 51 8.8%
6 8 1.7% 0 0 8 1.4%
7 or more 12 2.6% 0 0 12 2.1%
Total 469 100.0% 108 100.0% 577 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019)
73
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-24
3.4.6 Residents Living in Poverty or With Extremely Low Incomes
Census data indicates that 1.7 percent of Rolling Hills’ population—or about 25 residents—are
below the federal poverty line. This compares to 14.9 percent for the county as a whole.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Rolling Hills residents living below the poverty include 14
people aged 18-59 and 11 people over 60. There are no children under 18 below the poverty
line in the city. The data further indicates that the 25 residents include 12 white non-Hispanic
persons, four Asian persons, and nine Latino persons.6
Census data indicates that only five of the residents below the poverty line are in the labor force,
suggesting that some of those tallied by the Census have other sources of income not reported
here. Census data indicates that a majority of the adults below the poverty level in Rolling Hills
are 18-34 year olds—this likely represents adult children not in the labor force who are living at
home. This is further supported by the even lower poverty rate for family households in Rolling
Hills—reported at 0.4 percent by the ACS, which is equivalent to three households.
Although Rolling Hills has a very small number of households in poverty, and some of its
extremely low income residents have supplemental sources of income, the city is located in a
region with significant very low income housing needs. In February 2021, the City amended its
zoning regulations to create the Rancho Del Mar Overlay District. Affordable housing and
emergency shelter are both permitted by right in this district, subject to specific development
standards. Single room occupancy hotels are conditionally permitted. The City also permits
home sharing, room rentals, and accessory dwelling units, all of which are beneficial to meeting
extremely low income housing needs.
3.4.7 Farmworkers
The special housing needs of farmworkers are a result of low wages and the seasonal nature of
agricultural employment. Migrant farmworkers face particular challenges, including severe
overcrowding. Farmworker needs are difficult to quantify due to fear of job loss, language
barriers, and the documentation status of the farmworker labor force.
The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that there are no Rolling Hills residents employed in
“Farming, Fishing, and Forestry” occupations. This data further indicates that there are no
residents in the city employed in the “Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining” sector.
There are also no farmworker jobs in the city, as there is no agricultural land. As a result, the
City does not have active programs or policies to address farmworker housing needs.
6 As noted earlier, the ACS is based on a sample of the population (roughly 15% for the five-year period). In a small city such as
Rolling Hills, the margin of error is high, particularly for the breakdown of poverty status by age, race and ethnicity.
74
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-25
3.4.8 Homelessness
Homelessness has become an increasing problem throughout California and the entire United
States. In Southern California, factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include the lack
of housing affordable to low- and very low-income persons, loss of employment and benefits—
particularly for low wage workers, health care costs and related personal disabilities, reductions
in public subsidies, increasing rates of addiction and substance abuse, and a lack of mental
health services.
State law requires that cities address the special needs of unhoused residents within their
jurisdictional boundaries. For this purpose, homelessness is defined as including individuals
who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, as well as individuals living in
shelters and in places not designed for sleeping. The definition does not include those living in
substandard or overcrowded housing or persons who are temporarily staying with family and
friends. Such individuals are considered to be “at risk” of homelessness.
A “point in time” count of homeless residents in Greater Los Angeles is conducted annually by
the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). In January 2020, the count identified
54,291 persons experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County. This is an increase of about
10 percent from 2019, when the count was 49,521. It is an increase of 37 percent from 2016,
when the count was 39,587. The 2020 figures precede the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
and its impacts on homelessness.
Data provided by the LAHSA indicates the 2020 count for the city of Rolling Hills was zero. The
count for all prior years in the survey (2016-2019) also counted no unsheltered residents in the
city. The nature of homelessness and the method of data reporting make it difficult to evaluate
the full extent of the challenge of adequately housing the entire population. While there are no
unsheltered residents in Rolling Hills, there may be residents who are temporarily staying with
friends or relatives because they lack the resources or have underlying conditions which make it
difficult to find permanent housing.
There are no emergency shelters in Rolling Hills. The closest facilities are in San Pedro and
Wilmington and are less than five miles away. Harbor Rose Lodge (San Pedro) provides
homeless support services for individuals and families in Los Angeles County, with no
geographic restrictions. It assists with temporary housing and provides support services and
referrals. Harbor Interfaith (San Pedro) provides a 90-day emergency shelter and an 18-month
transitional housing program. Also in San Pedro, Shawl House and House of Hope provide
shelter, transitional housing, counseling specifically for women. The Doors of Hope Shelter in
Wilmington also serves single women. The Beacon Light Mission in Wilmington provides a 10-
bed men’s shelter, as well as food, clothing, and supportive services to men, women, and
children.
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow emergency
shelter “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. The 31-acre site overlay zone includes
multiple areas of underutilized land that provide opportunities for emergency shelter or
supportive service facilities.
75
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-26
The City is committed to coordinating with supportive service providers and meeting the needs
of local unhoused residents. A list of nearby social service agencies and shelters is maintained
by the City Clerk.
3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires the Housing Element to describe the
characteristics of the local housing stock, including structural condition. This section of the
Element provides an overview of Rolling Hills’ housing stock, including the age of structures, the
types of structures, the number of bedrooms, and vacancy characteristics. It also includes
information on home values and rents.
3.5.1 Housing Unit Count
The US Census reported 674 housing units in the city in 1990, 675 units in 2000, and 693 units
in 2010 (see Chart 3.5). The California Department of Finance estimated 719 units in the city as
of 2021. However, the August 12, 2021 data release from the 2020 Census indicates the total
unit count is 702, which is more consistent with City records. The net number of housing units
in the city has increased at a rate of about one unit a year for the last 30 years.
While the increase in units has been nominal, additional residential development has been
occurring through the replacement and expansion of existing single family homes. Much of
Rolling Hills was developed in the 1950s and was typified by 2,000 to 4,000 square-foot ranch
style homes. As in many desirable older communities, the original housing stock is gradually
being replaced with much larger units. These units average 6,000 to 9,000 square feet in size,
according to City building permit records. This trend of residential recycling can be expected to
continue and potentially increase as less vacant land is available for development.
Chart 3.5: Total Number of Housing Units in Rolling Hills, 1990-2020
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
674 675 693 702
1990 2000 2010 2020
Source: Census 1990,
2000, 2010, 2020
76
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-27
Chart 3.6: Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes
3.5.2 Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Chart 3.6 shows the age of the housing stock in Rolling Hills. About half of the housing stock in
the community is more than 60 years old. About 35 percent was built in the 1960s and 70s and
the remainder has been built in the last 40 years. About 8 percent of the city’s housing stock is
less than 20 years old—however, most of these homes are “replacements” and were built on
previously developed lots.
The older housing stock in the city is in excellent condition. Census data indicates there are no
units in the city without plumbing or kitchen facilities. The City strongly encourages
reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and homeowners take pride in their homes and
properties. Common repairs include new roofs, new siding, plaster and stucco repair, upgraded
electrical systems, and plumbing improvements. Home additions, kitchen and bathroom
upgrades, and solar energy installations are also common.
No significant code enforcement or housing problems have been observed in the city. The city
has a Code Enforcement Officer who makes complaint-based site visits. In the event a violation
is identified, the City works with the property owner to resolve the issue.
The City estimates that five units, or 0.8 percent of its housing stock, is in need of rehabilitation
or replacement. These properties include:7
• A home that has been red tagged and in need of foundation repair
• A home in a landslide area with a stop work order due to work being done without
permits
7 Addresses can be provided to HCD upon request but are not disclosed here.
Before 1950
11%
1950s
36%
1960s
21%
1970s
14%
1980s
7%
1990s
3%Post 2000
8%
Source: American Community Survey 2021
77
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-28
• An older home where the owner is seeking approval to demolish and rebuild
• A home with an approved application to demolish and rebuild
• A home with an approval for a major remodel and addition
In any given year, the City also receives “tear down and rebuild” applications for one to two
older homes as well as dozens of applications to modernize, expand and update older homes.
In almost all cases, these homes are habitable, but they are outdated and do not provide the
amenities expected in high-end construction.
3.5.3 Housing Type
Rolling Hills is comprised entirely of single family homes. The 2021 ACS indicates there are no
multi-family units in the city. ACS data further indicates seven units that are “single family
attached” which presumably are accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or other separate living
quarters that are ancillary to a primary residence.
Census data does not typically classify “guest houses” as dwelling units unless they have been
legally permitted as separate residences. Rolling Hills classifies guest houses differently than
ADUs; the latter are permitted by right to be independent dwellings provided they meet certain
adopted zoning standards. By contrast, occupancy of guest houses is limited to persons
employed on the premises, the family of the occupants of the main residence, or the temporary
guests of the occupants of the main residence. Guest houses may not be used as rental
housing, but an owner may apply for a permit to convert a guest house to an ADU, which can
then be rented.
3.5.4 House Size
Homes in Rolling Hills are large. Chart 3.7 below shows the distribution by number of
bedrooms. About 74 percent of the homes in the city have four or more bedrooms. Another 21
percent have three bedrooms and only five percent have two bedrooms or fewer. By contrast,
among homes in Los Angeles County as a whole, 16 percent of all housing units have four or
more bedrooms and 56 percent have two bedrooms or fewer.
Data for total house size shows a similar difference between Rolling Hills and the County as a
whole. Countywide, the median number of rooms per home is 4.5. It Rolling Hills, it is 8.3. Only
4.7 percent of the homes in Los Angeles County have nine or more rooms. In Rolling Hills, 46
percent of the homes have nine or more rooms.
78
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-29
Chart 3.7: Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles
County
Source: American Community Survey 2021 (for 2015-2019)
0.0%0.8%
4.4%
20.7%
39.8%
34.3%
7.1%
19.7%
29.4%28.3%
12.3%
3.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
No bedrooms 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more
bedrooms
Rolling Hills Los Angeles County
79
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-30
3.5.5 Vacancy Characteristics
The August 12, 2021 data release from the US Census indicates that 63 of the city’s 702 homes
were vacant at the time of the 2020 Census. This is a nine percent vacancy rate. By contrast,
2020 Census data indicates that the vacancy rate for the Palos Verdes Peninsula as a whole was
about five percent. Countywide, ACS data indicates that six percent of the housing stock in Los
Angeles County is vacant.
ACS data provides an indication of the characteristics of vacant units in Rolling Hills. The ACS
reports that 30 percent of the vacant units in the city were for sale, 26 percent were used
seasonally (and were not occupied at the time of the census), and five percent were for rent.
The remainder were classified as “other.” ACS data further indicates that the vacancy rate
among for-rent units was three times higher than the vacancy rate among for-sale units,
although the sample size is very small.
In 2010, the Census reported that 5 percent of the homes in the city were vacant, indicating a
significant increase between 2010 and 2020. The higher vacancy may be a result of changes in
the housing market, including significantly higher home prices, and an increase in the number of
homes that are used seasonally. The city’s housing market serves a unique market niche.
3.5.6 Home Values and Prices
A variety of sources were used to analyze housing market prices and trends in Rolling Hills,
including on-line real estate data vendors, current real estate listings, and the US Census.
According to on-line real estate service Zillow.com, the median value of a home in Rolling Hills is
$3,733,468. Rolling Hills home values have gone up 19.7% over the past year. Chart 3.8
compares the local median home value with values in the three other Palos Verdes Peninsula
cities and with Los Angeles County as a whole. Homes in Rolling Hills are valued at 50 percent
higher than those in Palos Verdes Estates ($2.45 M), 126 percent higher than those in Rancho
Palos Verdes ($1.65M), and over four times higher than the countywide median ($790,000).
The ACS 2021 data indicates that 95 percent of all homes in Rolling Hills have a value of over
$1,000,000. The Census-reported median is over $2 million, which is the highest interval on the
Census scale. The ACS shows the median in Los Angeles County at $583,200. This is
substantially lower than the Zillow data, which is only based on homes recently sold.
The website realtor.com indicates that the average time on the market for a home in Rolling Hills
in July 2021 was 120 days. However, the sample size is small, and similar data for earlier in the
year indicates a median sale time of 45 days (December 2020 and January 2021). Realtor.com
indicates that homes in the city sold for 4.98 percent below asking price in July 2021. This figure
is highly variable depending on market listings at any given time.
80
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-31
In July 2021, there were 14 homes for sale in Rolling Hills (including properties with pending
offers). These ranged in size from a 1,467 square foot home to a 13,000 square foot home.
Prices ranged from $2,499,000 to $15,975,000. The median price was $5.02 million and the
mean was $6.15 million. This is substantially higher than the average for surrounding cities on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in Los Angeles County. The higher priced homes were typically
new construction, while the two lowest priced homes were built in 1954 and 1957.
Data on rentals in the city is more difficult to characterize because the number of available
properties is so small. In July 2021, there was only one home being advertised for rent in the
city. The asking monthly rent was $16,000. The property has five bedrooms, seven bathrooms,
and is 5,035 square feet. Zillow also reported a 2-bedroom, 1-bath detached 1,000 square foot
accessory dwelling unit for rent for $3,950. In addition, two ADUs were being advertised on
Craigslist (listed as Rolling Hills but likely in Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes). One
was a 500 square foot studio for $1,250 and the other was a 400 square foot guest house for
$1,800. The Census indicates that seven of the renter households in the City pay less than
$1,500 a month in rent, and the remainder pay more than $3,000 a month.
Chart 3.8: Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and Los Angeles County, 2012-2021
Source: Zillow.com, 2021
81
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-32
Table 3.15: Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021
Asking Price Square Footage
Cost per
Square Foot
Year
Constructed
$15,975,000 7,136 $ 2,239 2016
$11,100,000 13,000 $ 854 2007
$8,765,000 5,100 $ 1,719 1951
$7,750,000 4,000 $ 1,938 1968
$7,499,000 8,000 $ 937 2002
$5,800,000 4,453 $ 1,302 1986
$5,795,000 5,884 $ 985 1956
$4,250,000 4,101 $ 1,036 1941
$4,200,000 3,527 $ 1,191 1940
$3,950,000 5,560 $ 710 1989
$3,495,000 3,414 $ 1,024 1947
$2,630,000 3,444 $ 764 1974
$2,500,000 1,467 $ 1,704 1957
$2,499,000 1,752 $ 1,426 1954
MEAN: $6,150,000 $1,273
MEDIAN: $5,020,000 $1,030
Source: Realtor.com, Trulia, Zillow, 2021
Table 3.15 indicates the cost per square foot of those homes currently for sale in Rolling Hills,
along with the asking price, square footage and year of construction. The median cost per
square foot is $1,030, which is substantially higher than the statewide median of $438 per
square foot. Cost per square foot ranged from $710 to $2,239.
3.5.7 Units at Risk of Conversion from Affordable to Market Rate
State law requires the City to identify, analyze and propose programs to preserve any deed-
restricted lower-income housing that could be lost as these deed restrictions expire. However,
there are presently no low-income or income-restricted units in Rolling Hills. As a result, there is
no housing at risk of losing its subsidized status.
82
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-33
3.6 Future Housing Needs
3.6.1 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The eight-year housing need for the six-county Southern California region is calculated by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This need was
determined to be 1,341,827 units for the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle planning period. The total
regional need represents a 225 percent increase over the need calculated for the 2013-2021
Fifth Cycle.
The total regional need is disaggregated to the six counties and 191 cities in the region by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through a process known as the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). About 60 percent of the regional need was
assigned to Los Angeles County, which had 53 percent of the region’s population in 2020.
Concentrating the RHNA in Los Angeles County is a response to the greater availability of
transit, urban services, and housing need within the core of the region. If the 1.3 million unit
need was fully constructed, it would represent a 20 percent increase in the region’s housing unit
count in eight years.
The City of Rolling Hills was allocated 45 units of the countywide total, or about .006 percent.
Allocations for nearby cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula were 191 for Rolling Hills Estates,
199 for Palos Verdes Estates, and 639 for Rancho Palos Verdes. As shown in Table 3.16, these
allocations are significantly higher than they were in the Fifth Cycle, particularly when compared
to the county and region. This represents a shift in the methodology used to allocate units, with
less consideration given to growth potential as defined by local governments and more
consideration given to population, proximity to job centers, and equity factors. Despite the
large increases compared to the last cycle, the RHNA targets for the four Peninsula cities
combined represent one-tenth of one percent of the countywide allocation. The RHNA for each
of the four cities is equal to between four and six percent of each city’s existing housing stock,
compared to 20 percent for the region.
Table 3.16: RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle
Jurisdiction
5th Cycle
RHNA
6th Cycle
RHNA
Percent
Increase,
5th to 6th
Cycle
Existing
(2021)
Housing
Units
6th cycle RHNA
as percentage
of existing
inventory
Rolling Hills 6(*) 45 650% 702 6%
Rolling Hills Estates 5 191 3720% 3,157 6%
Palos Verdes Estates 16 199 1144% 5,303 4%
Rancho Palos Verdes 31 639 1961% 16,340 4%
Los Angeles County 179,881 812,060 351% 3,614,809 22%
SCAG Region 412,137 1,341,827 226% 6,679,283 20%
Source: SCAG 2012 and 2021, plus DOF Table E-5 and US Census 2020
(*) In addition to planning for its 5th Cycle allocation, the 2015-2023 Rolling Hills Housing Element includes the 4th Cycle allocation of
22 units, which was carried over. The 45- unit assignment is a 60 percent increase over the prior 28 unit two-cycle total.
83
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-34
The 6th Cycle allocation by income group is shown in Table 3.17. In Rolling Hills, about 64
percent of the RHNA is for low and very low income households. The figure is comparable to
the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (ranging from 62 to 65 percent). In Los Angeles
County, only 42 percent of the assigned need is for low and very low income households, and
regionally, it is 41 percent. The greater allocation of lower income housing to the Peninsula cities
reflects the statewide and regional focus on encouraging fair housing and discouraging
economic segregation.
Table 3.17: Comparison of 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category
Jurisdiction
Very Low %
of total
Low % of
total
Moderate %
of total
Above
Moderate %
of total
Rolling Hills 44% 20% 24% 11%
Rolling Hills Estates 43% 22% 20% 15%
Palos Verdes Estates 41% 22% 24% 13%
Rancho Palos Verdes 40% 22% 20% 19%
Los Angeles County 27% 15% 16% 42%
SCAG Region 26% 15% 17% 42%
Source: SCAG, 2020
The City’s “very low” income housing allocation for 2021-2029 is 20 units. The State
Government Code requires that this total be further allocated between “extremely low” income
households (earning less than 30% of areawide median income) and other “very low” income
households (earning 30-50% of areawide median income). This distribution may be based on
Census income data showing the current percentages of households in these two categories.
According to the most recent HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, there
are 65 very low income households in Rolling Hills. CHAS indicates 25 are extremely low
income and 40 are very low income. Applied to the 20 unit RHNA, these proportions equal
roughly 7 extremely low income units and 13 other very low income units.
3.6.2 Growth Forecasts
As the regional planning agency for the Los Angeles region, SCAG is responsible for preparing
jurisdiction-level forecasts for each city and county in the region. The latest forecasts were
adopted in September 2020 and describe conditions in a base year (2016) and forecast year
(2045). The six-county region as a whole is expected to grow from 6.012 million households
(2016) to 7.633 million households (2045), an increase of over 1.3 million households in the 29-
year period. Average household size is projected to decline from 3.1 to 2.9 during this period.
SCAG forecasts indicate that Rolling Hills growth will be flat during through 2045. The latest
published forecasts (Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, September 2020)
show 700 households in 2016 and 700 households in 2045. However, the numbers are rounded
to the nearest hundred and it is likely that some marginal change will occur. Population over the
equivalent period is shown as increasing from 1,900 to 2,000, a growth rate of about 5 percent
84
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-35
over 29 years. As noted on page 3.1, the 2020 Census indicates the City lost over 100 residents
between 2010 and 2020, so the SCAG forecasts will need to be adjusted in the future. An
increase of 100 residents would bring the City closer to its 2010 total of 1,860 residents.
3.6.3 Locally Identified Needs
While Rolling Hills is obligated by the Government Code to identify capacity for 29 low and very
low income units and to develop programs to meet this need, the City also has an opportunity to
tailor its housing programs to meet local needs. Based on the Assessment in this chapter, some
of the key findings regarding local needs are:
• The City has a large and growing population of seniors. Some of these residents are on
fixed or limited incomes and face relative high housing costs, including home
maintenance, property taxes, HOA dues, utilities, etc. These residents could benefit
from more senior housing options, ranging from fully independent to assisted living.
• Although there are very few people who list Rolling Hills as their permanent place of
employment, the City supports a relatively large population of service workers, including
caregivers, domestic employees, child care workers and au pairs, landscapers and
gardeners, and others in construction and home maintenance. In addition, there are
public sector workers, firefighters, and teachers/counselors (at Rancho Del Mar)
employed within the city, with incomes that are far below what would be required to buy
a home in Rolling Hills. A limited number of affordable rental units serving these workers
could reduce commute lengths and vehicle miles traveled.
• Adult children of Rolling Hills residents (particularly those in the 18-30 age range) have
limited housing options in the city, other than remaining at home. ADUs could provide
additional options.
• The City’s housing stock is well suited to ADUs and home sharing. More than two-thirds
of the non-vacant housing units in the city have only one or two occupants, despite
homes that are substantially larger than the regional average. There are also 300 fewer
residents in Rolling Hills today than there were 50 years ago, despite larger homes and
more square feet of living space. Additional residents would have a lower impact on
infrastructure, services, and the environment if accommodated in the footprint of existing
homes as opposed to new construction.
• Creating an ADU or deciding to share one’s home is a personal choice and is entirely at
the discretion of the homeowner. However, the City can create incentives that make it
easier and more affordable for homeowners to consider this option.
85
Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-36
86
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-1
4.0 Housing Opportunities and Resources
4.1 Introduction
This section of the Housing Element evaluates potential opportunities to meet the City’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It includes an inventory of potential housing sites in
the city and an evaluation of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior ADU potential. The
analysis in this section demonstrates that Rolling Hills has the capacity to accommodate its
RHNA assignment of 45 additional housing units, including 29 units that are affordable to low
and very income households.
Two other topic areas are covered in this chapter. As required by State law, this chapter
discusses opportunities for energy conservation in the city. Reducing energy costs can reduce
overall housing costs, contributing to affordability. This chapter also identifies potential financial
resources to support the provision of affordable housing and the maintenance of existing
housing in the city.
4.2 Approved or Pending Development
There are 12 housing units in the city that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All
of these units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and
therefore count toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family
homes and nine ADUs. These units are listed in Table 4.1 below, including an assignment of
each unit by income category.
Table 4.1: Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA period
ID Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN)
Address Description Income Category
A 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road E New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate
B 7567-001-018 1 Poppy Trail New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate
C 7569-020-004 8 Middleridge Ln S. New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate
D 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road E ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate
E 7569-001-031 2950 Palos Verdes N ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate
F 7569-026-008 13 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (997 SF) Above Moderate
G 7569-023-006 33 Crest Road W ADU (946 SF) Above Moderate
H 7569-026-012 27 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (800 SF) Moderate
I 7567-006-036 23 Chuckwagon ADU (800 SF) Moderate
J 7567-005-028 79 Eastfield Dr. ADU (799 SF) Moderate
K 7567-014-022 23 Georgeff Road ADU (620 SF) Low
L 7567-008-009 63 Crest Rd E ADU (580 SF) Low
Sources: US Decennial Census, 1970-2010. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate, 2020 Census (8/12/21 release)
87
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-2
The assignment of the ADUs by income category is based on the size of the unit. Units larger
than 800 SF are presumed to be “above moderate”; units 650-800 SF are presumed to be
“moderate”; units 500-650 SF are presumed to be “low”; and units smaller than 500 SF are
presumed to be “very low.” This is based on local rental data for comparably sized ADUs (see
Section 4.6 and the footnote below).1
4.3 Vacant Sites
Table 4.2 identifies vacant residentially zoned sites in Rolling Hills. These sites are shown
graphically on Figure 4.1. For each site, the table indicates the theoretical number of units
permitted by zoning (based on acreage and minimum lot size requirements) and the “realistic”
number of units based on lot configuration, access, and terrain.2 Some of the vacant parcels are
characterized by physical constraints that preclude their development, including steep or
unstable slopes or landslide hazards. A few are landlocked and have no access. The acreage
data for each site is based on assessor parcel maps and subtracts out unbuildable easements
such as flood hazard areas and roads.
There are 34 parcels identified totaling, 124.8 acres. All of these parcels are in private
ownership. Twenty are estimated to be developable and 14 are severely constrained and
presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029 planning period. The constrained parcels include
five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and nine that are in the Flying Triangle
Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area had homes that were
destroyed by earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s.
For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 4.2 indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family
homes. This excludes accessory dwelling units, which are addressed later in this chapter.
1 The City is presuming that the two smallest ADUs listed in Table 4-1 will be affordable “by design” to lower income
households. ADU permits were issued for these two units on October 27, 2020 and May 20, 2021 respectively. Both
of these projects involve converting existing two-story stables (located on two separate parcels about a mile apart)
into ADUs of approximately 600 square feet each. Neither of these units has a finaled building permit yet. Given the
eight year timeframe of the Housing Element, both units are expected to be completed before 2029.
These are market rate units. The assumption that they will be affordable to low-income households is based on the
size of the units and the fact that they are being created by repurposing existing space rather than building new
space, which presumably would cost more. Current HCD income limits for Los Angeles County indicate that the
upper end of the low-income range for a two-person household is $75,700. At 30 percent of household income,
monthly housing costs would need to be $1,892 to be considered affordable. The City’s survey of comparable
properties in 2021 found that ADUs of 400 to 600 square feet in the Palos Verdes Peninsula sub -market were renting
for $1,800 per month or less. The two new ADUs are presumed to rent at comparable rates. Moreover, SCAG’s ADU
survey for Los Angeles County found that 60% of all ADUs in the region could be presumed affordable to lower
income households. As these two ADUs are the smallest of the nine that are listed in the Housing Element (see Table
4-1), it is reasonable to presume they would fall in this range.
2 Excludes additional units that could be permitted under SB 9.
88
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-3
Table 4.2: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites (sorted by APN) (see note at end of table)
Site APN Address or Location Zoning General
Plan
Acres
(*)
Theoretical
Unit Yield
Realistic
Yield, excl.
ADUs
Comments
1 7567-006-001 15 Chuckwagon Road RAS-1 LDR 2.27 2 1
2 7567-006-014 Behind 6 Chesterfield RAS-1 LDR 1.22 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)
3 7567-009-007 5 Southfield Drive RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1 1
4 7567-010-013 East of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1 1
5 7567-010-015 North of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.49 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)
6 7567-011-017 54 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards
7 7567-012-019 SW of 56 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 1 0 In landslide hazard area
8 7567-012-020 53 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 1 0 In landslide hazard area
9 7567-012-026 4 Wrangler Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards
10 7567-012-035 66 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards
11 7567-012-036 64 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards
12 7567-012-038 62 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards
13 7567-013-005 End of Portuguese Bend Rd RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 1 0 Flying Triangle Landslide
14 7567-013-007 2 Running Brand RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards
15 7567-014-005 West of 5 El Concho Ln RAS-1 LDR 2.12 2 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon
16 7567-014-011 West of 24 Georgeff Rd RAS-1 LDR 1.66 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon
17 7567-014-013 North of 27 Georgeff Rd RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon
18 7567-014-031 Access b/w 1 and 3 Poppy Tr. RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 3 1 Rear of 8 Reata Lane
19 7567-015-036 North of 1 Georgeff RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 2 1
20 7567-017-017 Between 4 and 5 Ranchero RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 2 1 Access at end of Ranchero cul-de-sac
89
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-4
Table 4.2, continued
Site APN Address or Location Zoning General
Plan
Acres
(*)
Theoretical
Unit Yield
Realistic
Yield, excl.
ADUs
Comments
21 7567-017-045 17 Cinchring Rd RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1 1 Driveway access b/w 15 and 20 Cinchring
22 7569-001-020 B/w 2954 and 2958 PV Dr N RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1 1
23 7569-001-036 B/w 6 and 14 Roadrunner RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1 1
24 7569-004-026 B/w 35 and 45 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 3.39 3 1
25 7569-005-008 80 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 6.52 6 1 This parcel is currently for sale
26 7569-012-022 W of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1 1
27 7569-012-025 N of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1 1
28 7569-013-017 North of 10 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots
29 7569-013-018 South of 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots
30 7569-013-020 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots
31 7570-024-019 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 1 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 3 1 7.6 ac parcel with 1.6 acres of easements
32 7570-024-020 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 2 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 5 1 34.7 ac parcel with 23 acres of easements
33 7570-024-021 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 3 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 5 1 17.3 ac parcel with 7.2 acres of easements
34 7570-025-022 N/ end of Johns Canyon Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1 1
TOTAL 124.8 57 20
Sources: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021; LA County GIS Portal, 2021
(*) Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements
Note: This is a roster of existing vacant residentially zoned land in Rolling Hills. No changes to the zoning of these parcels is proposed, and no specific projects are proposed on these
sites. Future development applications on these properties would be subject to environmental review or applicable exemptions, consistent with the requirements of California
Environmental Quality Act.
90
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-5
Figure 4.1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites
91
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-6
Several of the sites, such as those on Storm Hill Lane, are quite large and could potentially be
subdivided. However, the “realistic” estimates are intended to be conservative and do not
presume subdivision of any of the sites. These estimates also reflect the absence of sewer
services on these sites, their very steep topography, and the severe risk of wildfire.
The vacant lots have the potential to completely meet the regional need for above moderate
income units assigned to Rolling Hills. As noted, this need is five units for the 6th Cycle. Since
three new single family homes are already in the pipeline (see Sec 4.2), the remaining need is
two units. Several of the vacant sites are currently for sale, making it likely that the City will
exceed its above moderate income allocation for 2021-2029.
Table 4.2 indicates the General Plan and zoning designations for each vacant site. Of the
developable parcels, eight are in the RAS-1 zone (one acre minimum) and 12 are in the RAS-2
zone (two-acre minimum). No zoning changes are proposed or required to meet the above
moderate income or moderate income allocations.
4.4 Lot Splits
There are a number of parcels in Rolling Hills with lot sizes that are more than double the
minimum acreage required by zoning. Some of these parcels could theoretically be subdivided
into two or more lots. Moreover, SB 9 (effective January 1, 2022) includes provisions to allow
single family lots to be divided to allow new homes.
The potential for lot splits in Rolling Hills is very limited due to the configuration of the lots as
well as environmental hazards, evacuation constraints, and the lack of a sewer system. Many of
the city’s larger lots have limited street frontage and irregular dimensions that would make it
difficult to divide them. Moreover, the platting pattern responds to topography, and the larger
lots are often steep and geologically constrained, making them difficult to subdivide. Their
division could result in lots with no buildable area, street frontage, or access.
Although a limited number of new homes could conceivably occur as a result of future lot splits,
a capacity estimate has not been made due to the constraints inherent in the community’s
topography and hazards. In addition, the reliance on septic tanks makes subdivision infeasible
from a public health perspective, even on many larger lots. The supply of vacant lots is
sufficient to meet the above moderate income RHNA without relying on lot splits.
4.5 Non-Vacant Sites
While Rolling Hills’ above moderate income (or “market rate”) RHNA can be met on vacant
residentially-zoned land, the City’s moderate, low, and very low income RHNA will need to be
accommodated through a combination of development on non-vacant sites and accessory
dwelling units (ADUs). The text below addresses non-vacant sites. ADUs and Junior ADUs
(JADUs) are discussed in Section 4.6.
92
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-7
The sites described below provide the potential for 16 units of low- and very low-income
housing. This potential is associated with the 31-acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School
District (PVPUSD) site, where an overlay zone was created in 2021 to facilitate affordable
housing. Other non-vacant properties addressed here are the City Hall complex, the Tennis
Court Facilities, the Los Angeles County Fire Station, and the Daughters of Mary and Joseph
Retreat Center parking lot. These properties have been determined to not be viable as potential
housing sites. Non-vacant housing sites are shown in Figure 4.2.
4.5.1 PVPUSD Site/ Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (APN 7569-022-900)
In March 2021, the City of Rolling Hills adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31-
acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest
Road. Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (23
acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed.
Appendix B of this Housing Element provides a detailed evaluation of the site, demonstrating
that it is the most suitable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The site also provides
the City’s best opportunity to meet its requirements for low- and very low-income units. It is
located outside the jurisdiction of the Rolling Hills Community Association, outside the Rolling
Hills security gates, and is one of the largest properties in the city. It includes multiple areas that
are vacant and underutilized, relatively flat, and well buffered from adjacent uses. The site is
also one of the only properties in Rolling Hills that is served by a public sewer system. This
substantially reduces multi-family development costs and addresses an infrastructure constraint
that makes affordable housing cost-prohibitive in almost all of the city. The site is also ½ mile
from the corner of Crenshaw and Crest Roads in Palos Verdes Estates, which is served by four
bus lines.
Existing uses on the PVPUSD site include Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School and a
maintenance facility leased to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA). Each of
these activities is discussed below.
Rancho Del Mar School was initially developed as an elementary school in 1960. The school
closed in 1980 and was repurposed as a continuation school in 1986. The continuation school
was initially intended as a temporary use but has been in place for 35 years. The possibility of
residential development on the site has been considered in the past. Enrollment at Rancho Del
Mar has been steadily declining and was just 32 students in the 2020-2021 school year
(California Department of Education, DataQuest). Enrollment has declined every year since
2014 and is now less than half of what it was just five years ago.3
The Beach Cities Learning (BCL) Center uses four classrooms in the school building. BCL
serves students aged 11-22 with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities that cannot be
addressed in public school settings. Students participate in individual and group counseling run
by licensed therapists on-site. Total enrollment in 2019-20 was 17 students, with two teachers
on-site (School Accountability Report Card, 2021).
3 California Department of Education indicates the following enrollment figures: 2020-21 (32 students); 2019-20 (46
students); 2018-19 (47 students); 2017-18 (58 students); 2016-17 (69 students); 2015-16 (72 students); 2014-15 (79
students)
93
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-8
Figure 4.2: Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated
94
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-9
The school building is adjoined by a lawn, playing fields, and school parking lot. The complex
serves only a fraction of the number of students for which it was designed. Moreover it
occupies just 1.9 percent of the 31-acre site. Sale of the school property could generate
significant revenue for the School District.
The only other active use on the property is the PVPTA maintenance facility, which occupies 4.5
acres. The PVPTA facilities include maintenance buildings and administrative offices and are
self-contained in the west central part of the site. While PVPTA has no immediate plans to
relocate, the site could be sold in the future or repurposed by the School District. In any event,
the facilities occupy only 15 percent of the 31-acre site and have co-existed with the nearby
school and adjacent residential uses for many years.
Roughly 75 percent of the PVUSD site is vacant, and at least five developable areas have been
identified on the campus. These include the school itself (in the event it is closed), the ballfield
east of the school, the large lawn adjacent to the school, a vacant area between the school and
the PVPTA facility, and the undeveloped area west of the PVPTA facility. Each of these areas is
at least one acre in size. The area west of the PVTPA facility is the largest of the five areas and
the one deemed most viable as a multi-family housing site. It is the closest location to Crest
Road and could easily be developed without affecting activities at either the school or the transit
facility. Accordingly, the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone identifies this area as the location for
future affordable housing.
The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential
and an underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site,
based on the site area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5,
rounded up to 16). However, the General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable
density for this site be transferred to a single location on the property where a density standard
of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay
Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of housing and transfers it to a single
location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates that any housing built on
the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such development is
permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective development and
design standards contained in the RDMO.
The RDMO also provides opportunities for emergency shelter and single room occupancy
(SRO) hotels. Emergency shelter is permitted by right, subject to objective development
standards that have been adopted by the City. SROs require a conditional use permit and are
also subject to objective design standards. These provisions create opportunities for extremely
low income households as well as low and very low income households.
Creation of the RDMO occurred collaboratively with the School District. District staff confirmed
that there are no prohibitions on the application of this zoning overlay or the use of the property
for affordable housing. Moreover, the District has expressed interest in developing housing for
teachers in the past; such units would likely meet income criteria for lower income housing.
Programs in this Housing Element support active communication with the School District
regarding the disposition of the area west of the PVPTA for affordable housing.
95
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-10
The PVUSD site also meets the “carry-over” criteria established by the State for sites that were
counted in the prior cycle Element. It is zoned with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and
permits “by right” development of affordable housing, subject to objective design and
development standards. The current zoning was put in place just six months before the end of
the Fifth Cycle planning period and was principally intended to provide a housing opportunity for
the Sixth Cycle.
For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the capacity figure of 16 lower income units is being used
for the site. Under State Density Bonus law, a 100% affordable project would be eligible for an
80 percent density bonus. This could potentially result in 29 units of lower income housing,
which is equal to the total number of units assigned to the City under the Sixth Cycle RHNA.
However, State law precludes the City from counting potential density bonus units when
determining its RHNA capacity. As explained in Section 4.6, the remaining 13 units will be met
through Accessory Dwelling Units.
As indicated in Appendix B, the PVUSD site is large enough to accommodate multi-family
housing, emergency shelter, and an SRO on the same property, either in the same sub-area or
independently in different parts of the site. Neither the shelter beds nor the SRO rooms would
be counted as independent “dwelling units” so they could be accommodated under existing
General Plan densities. Moreover, all three of these uses are permitted by right, provided they
meet the Municipal Code objective standards (which were previously reviewed by HCD in 2020).
As noted above, the preferred location for the multi-family housing is in the western part of the
property, near the access drive and closest to public transit and other urban services (see
Figure 4 on Page B-8 in the Housing Element Appendix—this is labeled Area 5). This area is
four acres. Only about one acre would be required for multi-family housing, leaving three
vacant acres for the SRO and/or emergency shelter if all three uses are located in this area.
An SRO or emergency shelter could also locate in areas 1, 2, 3, or 4, as shown in Figure 4 in
Appendix B, page B-8. As the map and text indicate, Area 1 is a 1.6-acre site that is flat and
vacant. Area 2 is a 1.0-acre site that is flat and vacant. Area 3 is a 1.75-acre former school
building that is mostly vacant and underutilized. Portions of this building could be easily be
converted to group residential uses. Area 4 includes a ballfield and parking lot which
collectively occupy 2.5 acres. There are no limitations in the housing overlay ordinance that
limit where shelters or SROs can locate within the 31 acres. Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 all have
adequate space for these uses.
4.5.2 Rolling Hills City Hall (APN 7569-003-904)
This site is located at the southeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend
Road. Palos Verdes Drive North is a major thoroughfare and provides access from Rolling Hills
to surrounding communities and the regional roadway network. Portuguese Bend Drive is a
local street but the primary north-south route through the city, connecting to Crest Drive. This is
one of the only sites in Rolling Hills that is located outside the security gates, and adjacent to a
transit line. An elementary school and park are nearby in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
The property is 1.22 acres and is roughly rectangular in shape. It has a General Plan
designation of Civic Center and a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these
96
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-11
designations permits housing, so a General Plan amendment would be required to enable its
development. The site is owned by the City of Rolling Hills.
The parcel currently contains three structures: City Hall, the Rolling Hills Community Association
Administration Building, and an accessory structure that houses an emergency generator. The
site is relatively flat, although it is adjoined by a steep canyon to the east. There is a single
family residence located to the south. To the west, there is a guardhouse in the median of
Portuguese Bend Road, and a public tennis court on the west side of the road. Site ingress and
egress is from Portuguese Bend Road. Direct access to Palos Verdes Drive North is not feasible
due to high speeds and volumes and the existing traffic signal at the corner of Portuguese Bend.
Given the existing uses on the site and its function as the only civic building in Rolling Hills, the
site is not a practical location for multi-family housing. Its rezoning is not recommended at this
time.
4.5.3 Rolling Hills Tennis Court Facility (APN 7569-015-900)
This site is located immediately west of City Hall on the southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive
North and Portuguese Bend Road. It is adjoined by a residence and horse stables on the west
and south and by street frontage on the north and east. The site is 0.86 acres and is one of the
few properties located outside the City security gates. It is currently in use as a community
tennis facility, with three tennis courts in total.
Like City Hall, the property has a General Plan designation of Civic Center and a zoning
designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these designations permits housing, so a
General Plan amendment would be required to facilitate residential development. The site is
owned by the City of Rolling Hills. Parking for the tennis courts is provided on the City Hall
property to the east.
The site could potentially be converted to housing. At a density of 20 units per acre, it would
yield 17 units. However, the community would lose parkland, which is already in short supply,
as well as a well-used recreational amenity and gathering place. As a result, no rezoning is
recommended.
4.5.4 Los Angeles County Fire Station (APN 7567-017-900)
This is a 2.2-acre site owned by the County of Los Angeles located at 12 Crest Road East. It is
currently developed with Battalion 14 Fire Station 56, which provides fire and rescue services
for Rolling Hills and nearby communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. While much of the
parcel is open space, it occupies a steep downslope and would require costly grading and
construction. Moreover, the Fire Station is an essential community asset and long-term use.
This site is also located in an area that is far from services and amenities, not served by transit,
and under the oversight of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Rezoning to allow housing
is not recommended.
97
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-12
4.5.5 Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center (APN 7569-022-006)
The parcel is located on the western edge of the City, immediately west of the Rancho Del Mar
(PVPUSD) site. It is outside the western City gatehouse at 5300 Crest Road and forms part of
the 8-acre Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center, which straddles the border between
Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes. The Retreat Center consists of two parcels—a 5.95-acre
parcel located entirely in Rancho Palos Verdes that contains the buildings, gardens, and a
portion of the parking lot, and a 1.96-acre parcel located entirely in Rolling Hills that contains
parking, landscaping, and unimproved property.
The parcel has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and is zoned RAS-2.
These designations would allow a single dwelling unit on the site. A General Plan Amendment
and rezoning could be considered to allow multi-family housing on the property, or on a portion
of the property. The unimproved portion of the site is about 0.67 acres, which could hypo-
thetically support 13 units if developed at a density of 20 units per acre. This area has a 15-30
percent slope and would require grading to support multi-family construction. The flatter portion
of the site (i.e., the parking lot) is larger and would be easier to develop but is currently in active
use.
The City has had prior conversations with the Retreat owners regarding the possibility of
housing on this site. While there are no plans to redevelop the property, it remains a potential
long-term opportunity.
4.5.6 Conclusions
Based on the analysis above, only the Rancho Del Mar site is considered a viable housing site at
this time. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning amendments completed in 2021, the site
is viable for 16 units of low/very income housing.
4.6 Accessory Dwellings
The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and JADUs over the eight-year
planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is based on the
permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program
that encourage ADUs in the coming years. It is further based on a citywide survey conducted in
October 2020 (with a 30 percent response rate) indicating that:
• 25 percent of the survey respondents indicated they had a secondary building on their
property with a kitchen, bath, and sleeping area. Another 25 percent indicated their
home had two kitchens or an area that could be “easily converted” into an ADU.
• 24 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would consider developing an ADU
on their property now, with another 15 percent indicating they would consider this at
some point in the future.
• 8 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would rent their ADU to a tenant
while 24 percent said they would use it for a caregiver or employee and 31 percent said
they would use it for a family member.
98
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-13
Extrapolating these results to the citywide total of 639 households, the results suggest that:4
• An estimated 153 households might be interested in developing an ADU on their
properties, with another 95 potentially interested at some future date.
• An estimated 51 households would rent their ADU to a tenant, 153 would be interested in
using their ADUs for a caregiver or domestic employee, and 198 would consider using
an ADU for a family member.
The survey, combined with physical characteristics of the City’s large lots and building stock,
indicate significant potential for ADU development. ADUs could be created through new
construction, conversion of existing guest houses and barns, and reconfiguration of interior
spaces in primary residences. The latter category includes Junior ADUs (JADUs), which are
often affordable to very low income tenants “by design” given their small size.
A majority of the 2020 survey respondents indicated they would use their ADU for a family
member, caregiver, or other domestic employee. A substantial number of these households
would likely pay reduced rent, or no rent at all. Some would likely meet HCD criteria for
extremely low income households.
In order to demonstrate the suitability of ADUs and JADUs to satisfy the RHNA, the City must
estimate the affordability of ADUs by income category. This requires data on occupancy and
rents. The 2020 ADU survey conducted by the City identified 12 ADU tenants, including two
extremely low income, two very low income, one low income, and seven who were moderate or
above moderate income (see Appendix C). This is based on data provided by survey
respondents and the HUD income categories by household size for Los Angeles County. The
City’s 2020 ADU survey produced only two data points for rents—one unit renting for $950 and
another for $1,500. Both of these were market-rate units with no deed restrictions.
In addition, weekly scans of Craigslist ads in 2021 identified two ADUs in Rolling Hills and two in
Rolling Hills Estates, with rents of $895 for a “basement apartment”, $1,200 (for a JADU at an
unidentified address), $1,800 (for a one-bedroom one bath “guest house”), and $3,950 for a
two-bedroom one bath, 1,000 square foot guest house. Assuming a household size of two, the
rents for these six units correspond to two very low-income units, three low income units, and
one above moderate income unit. This is a limited sample size, however, and it excludes units
that may be occupied “rent free” or without advertising.
In 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments conducted a survey of ADU rents
in multiple jurisdictions across the region. The stated purpose of the survey was to “provide
local governments with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assign ADUs to
income categories for the purpose of Sixth Cycle Housing Elements.”5 The SCAG study was
organized by geographic sub-area, including one sub-area corresponding to Coastal Los
Angeles County. The survey included an estimate of the percentage of ADUs that would be
affordable to “Extremely Low Income” households, which included units that were available for
4 The numbers in the three bullets below this sentence have been developed by applying the percentages from the
survey to the total citywide housing stock. This assumes that the 192 households who responded are representative
of the 639 households that live in Rolling Hills.
5 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, published by SCAG in 2020
99
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-14
little or no rent and were not advertised (for instance, a detached in-law unit occupied by the
elder parents of the homeowner).
The distribution identified in the SCAG survey (for Coastal LA County) was as follows:
Extremely Low: 15%
Very Low: 2%
Low: 43%
Moderate: 6%
Above Moderate: 34%
This distribution is roughly consistent with the sample taken by the City of Rolling Hills and the
survey data collected in 2020. Applied to the City’s projection of 40 units, the allocation using
SCAG’s methodology would be:
Extremely Low: 6 units
Very Low: 1 unit
Low: 17 units
Moderate: 2 units
Above Moderate: 14 units
This is equivalent to 24 lower income units and 16 moderate and above moderate units.
All of the ADUs permitted to date have been “full” ADUs, meaning they are at least 500 square
feet in size. Among the City’s Housing Element programs is an initiative to create at least five
JADUs. Given the small size of these units and the fact that they are created by repurposing
existing space, they are more likely to be affordable to very low income households, thus shifting
the distribution shown above so that more “very low” income units are produced.
In addition, based on actual production of ADUs in 2021, the City anticipates a smaller share of
“Low” income units and a larger share of “Moderate” income units. Moderate income units
represented one-third of the production in 2021, which suggests something closer to the
following distribution for 2022-2029:
Extremely Low: 7 units (occupied rent-free or at minimal charge)
Very Low: 5 units
Low: 6 units
Moderate: 8 units
Above Moderate: 14 units
Housing Element programs have been developed to ensure that the City reaches its very low/
extremely low income ADU targets.
100
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-15
4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA
As shown in Table 4.3 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to
be occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can
accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus
capacity of seven lower income units based on projected ADU production over the planning
period.
Table 4.3: Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029
Income Category TOTAL
Extremely Low/
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Approved Development -- 2 3 7(*) 12
Vacant Residential Lots -- -- -- 20 20
Rancho Del Mar site (**) 8 8 -- -- 16
Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40
TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88
RHNA 20 9 11 5 45
Surplus/ Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43
Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES
Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021
(*) includes 3 new homes and 4 large ADUs, see Table 4.1.
101
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-16
4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Home energy costs, including electric and natural gas utility bills, are considered part of monthly
housing expenses. The large floor area of many Rolling Hills homes suggests that this may be
an important consideration in the city. Home energy bills can be substantial, particularly for
senior households on fixed incomes. Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the
Housing Element to include an analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation and
reduced energy costs.
The US Department of Health and Human Services provides funding for a program known as
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). In California, the program is
administered by the Department of Community Services and Development. LIHEAP is aimed at
assisting low-income households that pay a high portion of their incomes to meet their energy
needs. This is achieved through one-time financial assistance grants covering the utility bills of
eligible households, an energy crisis intervention program to help low-income households in
danger of having their utilities turned off, free weatherization and energy efficiency upgrades to
qualifying households, and energy education and budget counseling. Low income customers
are also eligible for reduced rates through the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE)
and Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs.
Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company offer energy
conservation and assistance programs. These include home energy audits, rebates on energy-
efficient appliances, and weatherization assistance to qualified low-income companies. SCE has
an energy management assistance program for qualifying households.
While the measures above are aimed at meeting day to day utility bills, there are also more
systemic long-term ways to reduce home energy costs. Nearly half of the homes in Rolling Hills
were built before 1960, many without consideration given to the cost and availability of energy.
Weatherization and insulation can provide significant reductions in home energy use and reduce
monthly utility bills. Replacement of older appliances can likewise provide significant long-term
savings. A variety of rebates and other financial incentives are available for homeowners.
In addition, all new construction in California is subject to State building code and energy
standards, including Title 24. These requirements apply to most remodeling projects, creating
opportunities to retrofit older homes. The standards are periodically updated to reflect new
technology and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The latest standards
incorporate the California Green Building Code, including energy-saving design standards for
walls, ceilings, and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas
cooling devices, window glazing, and the use of renewable energy sources such as solar
energy. These standards are incorporated in Title 15 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the
Building Code).
The City also encourages the use of solar panels to maximize energy efficiency, as well as the
application of passive solar design principles that reduce heating and cooling costs. These
measures include home orientation and siting, landscaping to reduce direct sunlight, placement of
windows to support home heating and cooling, the use of skylights, and incorporation of overhangs
and shade structures. In addition, home energy costs can be reduced by incorporating some or all of
the measures listed below:
102
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-17
• Solar heating for swimming pools
• Flow restrictors on hot water faucets and showerheads (to reduce natural gas use)
• Tankless water heaters
• Attic ventilation systems that reduce attic temperatures during summer months.
• Insulation, caulking, and weatherstripping to guard against heat gain in the summer and
prevent heat loss in the winter. These measures can reduce energy use for air-conditioning
up to 55 percent and for heating as much as 40 percent.
• Proper maintenance and use of stoves, ovens, clothes dryers, washing machines,
dishwashers, and refrigerators.
• Purchase of air-conditioning units and refrigerators 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)
Indoor and outdoor lighting also impacts home energy costs. The City has adopted standards
for outdoor lighting through its Municipal Code (Section 17.16.190(E)). Energy efficient lighting
is required in most cases, and outdoor lighting is prohibited in many instances to retain dark
skies and the community’s rural character. For interior spaces, the costs of lighting can be
reduced through purchase of light bulbs which produce the most lumens per watt, avoidance of
multi-bulb mixtures, and use of long-life bulbs and clock timers.
As a member of SCAG, the City also participates in the Regional Comprehensive Plan to
achieve a sustainable future. The City also has joined ICLEI, which is a membership association
of local governments committed to advancing climate protection and sustainable development.
Rolling Hills also is a participant in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments Environmental
Services Center. The Center serves as a clearinghouse for information on energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and sustainability. It assists residents, businesses, and public agencies with
incorporating energy-saving practices in their daily lives and operations.
Water conservation provides another opportunity to reduce home utility costs. The City has
adopted a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code), and
encourages the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures and products to reduce water use.
103
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-18
4.9 Financial Resources
This section of the Housing Element summarizes financial resources for affordable housing in
Rolling Hills. An overview of federal and State programs, as well as tax credit programs, is
provided below.
4.9.1 Federal Programs
A major source of housing assistance in many communities is the Community Development
Block Grant (CBDG) program (including the Los Angeles County Urban County CDBG program,
which provides federal funds to about 50 participating small cities). Rolling Hil ls no longer
participates in this program, as the cost of its administration made it infeasible. When the City
did participate, it received approximately $6,000 per year. The City transferred these funds to
Rancho Palos Verdes, an adjacent city which has a population roughly 25 times larger than
Rolling Hills.
Opportunities for funding through other federal programs is limited. For example, the federal
Home Investment Partnership (HOME) program is designed to increase home ownership and
affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income Americans. The funds are
distributed to jurisdictions based on need. They support programs such as loans to assist low-
income families with down payments to purchase homes, tenant-based rental assistance,
rehabilitation of affordable housing, and relocation assistance for low-income tenants. The high
cost of land and construction, limited opportunities for home ownership, absence of a sewer
system, and very high incomes in Rolling Hills, make the City non-competitive for these
applications.
Likewise, HUD’s Section 202 program provides funding for construction, rehabilitation, and
acquisition of structures for supportive housing for very low-income seniors. It offers interest-
free capital advances, as well as rental assistance funds. The funds are provided to private and
non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives and are highly competitive. Use of these
funds in Rolling Hills is constrained by the community’s natural hazards, lack of infrastructure,
and high land costs. The use of project-based federal Section 8 funding for new affordable
housing and substantial rehabilitation of existing housing is infeasible in Rolling Hills for these
same reasons.
The federal government also operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. This
program assists very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in securing housing in
the private market. Participants may choose any housing that meet the requirements of the
program. A housing subsidy is paid directly to the property owner, and the tenant pays the
difference between the actual rent charged and the amount subsidized by the program.
Housing choice vouchers could potentially be used on ADUs, but this is rarely done in practice.
HUD also operates the Section 203(k) program, which facilitates the rehabilitation and repair of
single-family residential properties by insuring homeowner loans for purchase or refinancing. It
can enable homebuyers to purchase homes that need significant repairs and can also be used
for a variety of other improvements. These funds can also be used to enhance accessibility for
people with disabilities, and to eliminate health and safety hazards. Eligibility for this program in
Rolling Hills is limited due to the factors cited earlier.
104
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-19
Other HUD programs include Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
(interest-free capital advances, operating subsidies, and/or project rental assistance for eligible
projects developing affordable housing for persons with disabilities) and the Federal Housing
Finance Agency’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP). These programs are most viable in areas
with lower land and development costs, as well as available infrastructure and services.
4.9.2 State Programs
The State of California provides resources for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, and
assistance. Many of these programs are oriented toward populations in need of assistance or
housing stock requiring repair or rehabilitation. The absence of these populations, coupled with
the cost of land and construction in Rolling Hills and the excellent quality of the Cit y’s housing
stock, render the City ineligible for many types of assistance. The only site where State financial
resources could likely be feasible is the PVUSD site, given that it is publicly owned and has
infrastructure and public street access.
In 2017, the State approved SB 2, which established a $75 recording fee on real estate
documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. The State subsequently
established the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant program which provides funding for
local planning activities aimed at supporting housing production. In 2020, the City of Rolling
Hills received a $65,000 LEAP grant, which was used to fund preparation of the Housing
Element. The City may be eligible for future planning grants and other SB 2 funds that facilitate
housing affordability and promote projects and programs to implement the Housing Element.
The California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) provides loans for construction of affordable
housing projects and could be a source of revenue for future affordable housing development in
the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. The State provides a pre-development loan program for low-
income housing projects, and low-interest long-term deferred payment loans through the Multi-
Family Housing Program. These sources could potentially be used on the PVPUSD site. CHFA
also provides financing for rehabilitation of housing by low- and moderate-income households,
which would generally not be viable in Rolling Hills due to housing conditions, costs, and local
income levels.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development provides funding for a variety of
programs to prevent homelessness and assist those who are unhoused. These programs can
fund construction of shelters and provide direct subsidies to individuals. HCD programs also
help support supportive and transitional housing.
4.9.3 Resources for the Private and Non -Profit Sectors
The primary affordable housing financing resources for the private and non -profit sectors are
tax credits and mortgage revenue bonds. Developers can also take advantage of various state
regulatory tools, such as density bonuses and reduced parking requirements for projects
incorporating affordable units.
The federal Low Income Housing Ta x Credit (LIHTC) Program was created by the Tax Reform
Act of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding affordable housing. Each state receives
105
Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-20
a tax credit based on its population—that credit is then used to leverage private capital into
new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation projects. The California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC) competitively administers credits to projects based on priorities they set
each year. Once constructed, a specific percentage of the units must remain rent-restricted,
and occupancy of those units is limited to people meeting specific income criteria.
The California Public Finance Agency administers an Affordable Housing Bond program,
which provides developers with access to tax -exempt bonds to finance lower-income multi-
family and senior projects. A qualified developer can finance a project at a lower interest rate
because the interest paid to bond holders is exempt from federal income tax. This program is
often done in tandem with tax credits.
Individual home buyers may also be eligible for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC), working
through a lender and the Los Angeles County Development Authority. This program provides
a federal tax credit for income -qualified homebuyers equivalent to 15 percent of annual
mortgage interest. Generally , the tax savings are calculated as income to help buyers qualify
to purchase a home. Buyers in Rolling Hills would generally be ineligible due to the very high
income required to purchase a home in the city.
4.9.4 Summary of Prospective Financing Sources
Due to the City’s small population, low density, very high fire hazards, and lack of infrastructure,
government resources for housing are extremely limited. The City’s residents are generally
ineligible for State and federal housing assistance based on income and home ownership status.
The City does not have a housing department, and has no regular local, state, or federal
revenue source for housing. The use of traditional approaches to financing affordable housing
are also limited by the relatively small number of units that would be contained in an individual
development project in the city.
Despite these constraints, the City is amenable to exploring future funding sources and
supporting applications that would facilitate housing rehabilitation and development. Given the
absence of a sewer system in the city, one of the most important financial resources potentially
available to the City is State and federal funding for sanitary sewer and storm drainage
improvements. The City is continuing to pursue grants to extend sewer service and improve
water quality; this could potentially create future housing opportunities on sites that are not
viable today.
Low-income housing tax credits could be considered to facilitate housing on the PVPUSD site.
Eligible projects on this site could also use State density bonus provisions, thereby increasing
the potential number of units. Other programs that could be considered include those that assist
lower income seniors with energy conservation, septic system improvements, and minor home
repair.
106
Housing Constraints Page 5-1
5.0 Constraints to Housing Production
5.1 Introduction
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(5) and (6) require the Housing Element to contain an
analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing for all income levels. Governmental constraints include land use
controls, building codes and code enforcement practices, site improvement requirements, fees
and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any
locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.
Non-governmental constraints include the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of
construction, requests to develop at densities below what is allowed by zoning, community
opposition, and similar factors.
In each case, the Housing Element is required to demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints
that are identified, thus improving the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation. The extent to which these constraints are affecting the supply and affordability of
housing in Rolling Hills is discussed below, along with past (or proposed future) efforts to
eliminate those constraints.
5.2 Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints include activities imposed by local government on the development of
housing. These activities may impact the price and availability of housing, the ability to build
particular types of housing, and the time it takes to get housing approved and constructed.
While these requirements are intended to improve housing quality and protect public safety,
they may have unintended consequences.
5.2.1 Rolling Hills General Plan
Every city and county in California is required to adopt a General Plan for its long-term
development. This Housing Element is actually part of the General Plan but it stands on its own
as a separate document since it is updated on a schedule set by the State of California. The
other elements of the General Plan are updated as needed. Most cities update their plans every
15 to 20 years.
Most of the Rolling Hills General Plan was drafted in 1990. In addition to the Housing Element,
the Plan includes a Land Use Element, a Circulation Element, an Open Space/ Conservation
Element, a Safety Element, and a Noise Element. An update to the Safety Element was
prepared concurrently with the Housing Element, in response to recent State requirements.
The Rolling Hills Land Use Element includes a Land Use Policy Map illustrating the types of uses
permitted throughout the city. When the Map was adopted in 1990, it reinforced existing parcel
patterns and responded to the infrastructure, geologic, wildfire, and environmental constraints in
107
Housing Constraints Page 5-2
the city. Four categories are shown: Very Low Density Residential (2 acres per unit), Low
Density Residential (1 acre per unit), Civic Center, and Publicly-owned Open Space.
Prior to 2020, the City did not allow development at densities greater than one unit per acre and
had no General Plan provisions for multi-family housing. As part of 5th Cycle Housing Element
implementation, the City amended its Land Use Element to add the Rancho Del Mar Housing
Opportunity Overlay designation to the Map (corresponding to the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar
school site). At the same time, the City adopted new Land Use Element standards and policies
allowing multi-family housing in the Overlay area, along with policies allowing a diverse mix of
housing units, as required by state law.
The Land Use Element recognizes Rolling Hills’ heritage as an equestrian community comprised
of large lots on steep terrain. Its policies call for buffering between uses, preservation of views,
and minimizing exposure to landslides, wildfires, and other hazards. These policies remain
appropriate given the safety hazards in the community. The Element specifically discusses the
150-acre Flying Triangle landslide hazard area, noting that the area is subject to a moratorium
due to unstable geologic conditions. It also notes that many existing parcels are constrained by
steep slopes and have only small areas that are suitable for building pads and construction.
Recent amendments to the Safety Element further emphasize environmental hazards in the city,
as well as constraints associated with evacuation, water supply, and emergency vehicle access.
These constraints make most of Rolling Hills poorly suited for additional development or zoning
changes that would result in increased density and population.
As it currently stands, the General Plan is not a development constraint.
5.2.2 Zoning Standards
The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the General
Plan and provides objective development standards for all parcels in the City. There are three
zoning districts in the City:
• Residential Agricultural Suburban 1 (RAS-1), which has a one-acre minimum lot size
• Residential Agricultural Suburban 2 (RAS-2), which has a two-acre minimum lot size
• Public Facilities (PF)
The RAS-1 zone roughly corresponds to the “Low Density Residential” General Plan designation
The RAS-2 zone roughly corresponds to the “Very Low Density Residential” General Plan
designation.1 The PF zone corresponds to the “Civic Center” General Plan designation. Parcels
with a General Plan designation of “Publicly-owned Open Space” are zoned RAS-1 or RAS-2,
whichever is prevalent on private parcels in the vicinity.
There are also two overlay districts. Overlays are mapped “on top” of one of the three base
zones listed above and apply additional regulations specific to subareas of the city. The first
overlay district (OZD-1) provides more lenient setback standards in an area of the city
1 Parcels along Spur Lane and Cinchring Road have a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential but a
zoning designation of RAS-1.
108
Housing Constraints Page 5-3
characterized by smaller lots. Roughly 70 lots along Middleridge Lane, Williamsburg Lane,
Chesterfield Road and Chuckwagon Road, are covered. The second overlay district (RDMO) is
the Rancho Del Mar Overlay, which is mapped on the Rancho Del Mar School site in the RAS-2
district. The RDMO requires the transfer of General Plan density for the property as a whole
(which yields 16 units) to a single location in order to facilitate the production of multi-family
housing. This overlay also includes objective standards for multi-family housing and emergency
shelter, which are permitted by right.
The zoning ordinance includes definitions of terms (Chapter 17.12). At this time there are no
definitions of transitional and supportive housing, both of which must be permitted in every
residential district under state law. An action program in this Element has been included to
make that Code amendment. The definitions expressly acknowledge manufactured and mobile
homes as being the same as detached single family dwellings, provided they are located on a
foundation.
The zoning regulations indicate permitted and prohibited uses in each zoning district. Single
family residences and accessory dwelling units are permitted “by right” in RAS-1 and RAS-2.
The only expressly prohibited uses are short-term rentals (less than 30 days), commercial
cannabis activities and cannabis dispensaries. Numerous types of accessory structures are
permitted by right, including stables, pools, sheds, and small (under 200 SF) cabanas, guest
houses, pool houses, garages, greenhouses, and similar structures. Such structures generally
require conditional use permits when they exceed 200 SF (accessory dwelling units are
excluded from this requirement). Other conditional uses include schools, fire stations, and
similar public buildings and utilities. Site plans are required when development is proposed.
Table 5.1 summarizes the development standards in the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones, starting with
the minimum lot size requirements of one acre and two acres. The Code states that existing
parcels of record that are smaller than the minimum lot size requirements are considered to be
conforming. Minimum dimensional standards are established for new lots, including the ratio of
width to depth and a requirement for a minimum width of 150 feet. There are also standards for
minimum street frontage, keeping in mind that most streets are private and contained within
easements. These standards are more flexible on cul-de-sacs, depending on turning radius.
As indicated in Table 5.1, building coverage is limited to 20 percent of the net lot area in both the
RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones. Total impervious surface coverage (structures and hardscape) is
limited to 35 percent of the net lot area; maximum disturbed area is limited to 40 percent of the
net lot area; and building height is restricted to one story. The code identifies 2:1 (50%) as the
maximum buildable slope. A minimum dwelling size of 1,300 square feet is established for the
primary unit on the site. The Code includes setback standards of 50’ for front and rear yards,
and 20’ for side yards in RAS-1 and 35’ for side yards in RAS-2. Lower standards apply in the
OZD-1 overlay zone and exceptions are provided for lots along street easements.2
The zoning code affirms the one-story construction requirement established by the Rolling Hills
Community Association (the RDM Overlay area is subject to a two-story requirement). The
finished floor of structures must be no more than five feet above grade. Basements are
2 The City is currently developing standards to implement SB 9, which allows the division of existing lots into two
parcels and the construction of two dwellings on each parcel, subject to specific objective standards and other
considerations.
109
Housing Constraints Page 5-4
permitted and storage areas may be located above or below a story. The code also provides
standards for graded building pads and requirements for stables and corral sites.
Table 5.1: Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards(1)
RAS-1 RAS-2 OZD overlay
Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 2 acres N/A
Setbacks
Front 50’ from front easement line (2) 30 feet from front
roadway easement
Side 35 feet (3) 20 feet (3) 20 feet, reduced to 10’ for
street side yards
Rear 50 feet
Structure Coverage (4) 20%
Impervious Surface Coverage 35%
Building Pad Coverage 30%
Maximum Disturbed Area 40% of net lot area (excl. easements)
Maximum Height One-story
(1) Standards for the RDM Overlay Zone and standards for ADUs are addressed in Section 5.3.2 of the Housing
Element.
(2) Most property is Rolling Hills is subject to easements varying in width around each property boundary and road
easements, granted by the property owner to the RHCA, a private corporation, or another person or entity for the
purpose of construction and/or maintenance and use of streets, driveways, trails, utility lines, drainage facilities, open
space, and/or a combination of these uses. The RHCA requires that all easement s must be kept free of buildings,
fences, plantings or other obstructions.
(3) Reduced to 20’ in RAS-2 and 10’ in RAS-1 and OZD if there is a private street along the side property line.
(4) The percentage figures in Table 5.1 apply to the “net lot area” on each parcel, which excludes these easements.
Additional standards in the Zoning Code prohibit reflective outdoor siding, limit outdoor lighting
(to maintain dark skies), and require Class “A” roofing. Conditions are established for specific
accessory uses, such as greenhouses, pools, and playgrounds. This includes a requirement
that guest houses (which are different from ADUs) may not exceed 800 square feet. Whereas
guest houses may not be rented and typically require a conditional use permit, ADUs are
permitted by right and subject to different standards (see P. 5-5).
A minimum of two garage parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling unit. An
additional space is required for homes with guest houses (as noted above, guest houses are
treated differently than ADUs). Homes are also required to have driveways, which are generally
limited to 20 feet in width and one per lot, though exceptions apply. The parking requirement is
not a development constraint and is appropriate given the size of parcels, the high number of
automobiles per household3, and the fact that the streets lack sidewalks and are too narrow to
permit on-street parking. There is also no public transit service in the city.
3 The 2015-2019 US Census American Community Survey indicates that 63% of all households in Rolling Hills own
three or more vehicles.
110
Housing Constraints Page 5-5
The development standards in Table 5.1 do not present constraints to the construction of single
family homes. Even a “small” substandard lot of 200’ x 200’ (40,000) square feet would be
allowed 16,000 square feet of buildable area after required setbacks are subtracted. The
allowable structure coverage on such a lot would be 8,000 square feet, providing more than
enough space for a residence and detached accessory structures. The requirement for single-
story construction has not constrained single family construction, given the ample building
footprint accommodated on each site. In fact, single-story construction has enabled many older
adults in Rolling Hills to age in place.
State law also requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop
housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. No such requests have been
received in Rolling Hills, as development typically occurs on existing lots rather than through
subdivision or multi-unit construction.
5.2.3 Standards for Different Housing Types
Section 65583 and 65583.2 of the Government Code require cities to plan for a “variety of types
of housing, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for
agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy units, emergency shelters,
and transitional housing.” Accordingly, the Rolling Hills Housing Element includes provisions for
each of these housing types in the city, with the exception of housing explicitly reserved for
agricultural employees, since this was not identified as being a need in the city.
Accessory Dwelling Units4
An Accessory Dwelling Unit—or ADU—is an attached or detached dwelling unit that provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a
proposed or existing primary residence. ADUs are commonly known as in-law units, second
units, or granny flats. A “Junior” Accessory Dwelling Unit (or JADU) is an ADU that it is no more
than 500 square feet in size, contained entirely within the footprint of an existing or proposed
single family dwelling, and has an efficiency kitchen. JADUs often have their own bathrooms but
they may also share bathrooms with the primary residence. State law now requires that all cities
and counties permit ADUs and JADUs meeting certain standards “by right”—in other words,
without a public hearing or discretionary approval.
Prior to 2018, ADUs and JADUs were not permitted in Rolling Hills. However, the zoning
regulations allowed the construction of non-rentable guest houses for family members, visitors,
and domestic employees on all residential properties. The large size and high value of
properties in Rolling Hills has supported the development of guest houses in the past, resulting
in a large inventory of structures that could potentially be converted from guest houses to ADUs
in the future. The city also has a large number of accessory structures such as barns, pool
cabanas, studios and workshops that could be converted to ADUs. Because of the single story
4 This text was prepared in December 2021. Subsequent to its initial publication, the City coordinated with HCD to
adopt amendments to its ADU ordinance to ensure that it is fully compliant with State law. These amendments were
approved in August 2022.
111
Housing Constraints Page 5-6
construction requirement, there are also a substantial number of homes with floor plans
conducive to Junior ADUs, as many homes have wings, additions, or rooms that could easily be
partitioned as independent living units.
In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the
construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and
JADUs). Consistent with State law (Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22), the City allows
ADUs and JADUs ministerially (e.g., without a discretionary public hearing) provided the units
meet specific standards and design criteria established in the zoning code. The City has also
created a discretionary review path for projects that do not meet these standards.
Chapter 17.28 establishes that an ADU and JADU may be allowed with a simple building permit
if it is within the space of an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure, including an
allowance for up to 150 additional square feet for ingress and egress. The unit must also have
exterior access independent of the single family dwelling and side and rear setbacks that meet
building and fire codes. In addition, detached ADUs are permitted with a building permit (and no
additional permit) if they are 800 square feet or less, no more than 16 feet tall, and have side
and rear setbacks of at least four feet.
A second permitting path has been created for units that are between 800 and 1,000 square
feet. Such units require an ADU Permit, which like the building permit is issued ministerially,
with no discretionary review. These units are subject to a size limit of 850 square feet for a
studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. If attached to the primary
dwelling, the unit is subject to a requirement that it may not exceed 50 percent of the floor area
of the existing primary dwelling. The ADU may not cause the lot coverage on the property to
exceed 50 percent or cause the FAR to exceed 0.45. Setback standards also apply.
The City’s ADU ordinance incorporates State standards for parking, which waive parking
requirements for JADUs and units created by converting habitable accessory structures.
Parking is also waived for units near public transit stops or car-share vehicles. This is generally
not applicable in Rolling Hills, since the community is not served by transit or car-share services.
Per State law, the Code allows for carports and garages to be converted to ADUs without
replacement parking. Where this situation does not apply, one space is required for each ADU,
and tandem parking is permitted.
ADUs are subject to general requirements, such as fire sprinklers (if the unit is in the primary
residence) and a prohibition on short-term rentals (less than 30 days). They are also subject to
permit streamlining requirements, including a requirement to act on the application within 60
days after it is deemed complete. This time period may be extended at the applicant’s request,
or if the ADU is located within a new single family dwelling on the lot. The City allows both the
ADU and the primary residence to be rented, although there are limitations on renting JADUs if
the primary residence is not owner occupied.5 The City’s Ordinance also prohibits the sale of an
ADU separately from the lot and primary dwelling.
ADUs are also subject to basic architectural standards, including compatibility with the design of
the primary dwelling. This is objectively quantified, for instance by specifying that the roof pitch
5 JADUs (units created within the floorplan of an existing home) are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement
unless the property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization.
112
Housing Constraints Page 5-7
must match the primary dwelling, and that the entry be on the side or rear elevation. The ADU
is also subject to a minimum length and width standard of 10 feet, and a minimum ceiling height
of seven feet. Landscape screening requirements apply to units that are near adjacent parcels.
If the ADU changes the building exterior or involves a new structure, it is subject to design
review by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee (see next section for
further discussion).
ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from all impact fees. Units larger than 750
square feet may only be charged impact fees that are proportionally related to the square
footage of the unit. The Code also includes waivers for utility connection fees for most ADUs,
thereby reducing construction and operating costs. Moreover, the Code provides the option for
a conditional use permit for ADUs that do not conform to the basic development standards of
Chapter 17.28.
Overall, these requirements do not constrain or inhibit ADU or JADU construction. The
regulations reflect State regulations and create ample opportunities for homeowners to earn
extra income while providing a new dwelling unit for a tenant, employee, caregiver or family
member. Given the large lot sizes in the city, the setback standards, FAR standards, and lot
coverage limits still allow for generous ADU footprints. Likewise, the single story requirement is
consistent with the requirement for single family homes. The “bonus” 150 square feet for JADU
ingress/egress creates an incentive for such units. The requirement to provide a parking space
is consistent with State law, since there is no transit in Rolling Hills—and is not a constraint given
the large lot sizes and substantial driveway space available on most lots.
While no constraints have been identified, there are opportunities to provide incentives for ADUs
that have yet to be realized. Because of recent changes to State law, there are opportunities for
ADUs to be conveyed separately or operated by non-profits and/or affordable housing
providers. As noted in Chapter 6, the City will pursue future programs to encourage ADU
construction, including ADUs for very low and low income households. This includes creating a
roster of ADUs and an inventory of units that meet “extremely low income” needs by providing
housing for family members, domestic employees, or other long-term occupants.
Additionally, State law for ADUs was amended in 2020 and 2021. Several provisions in the
City’s regulations must be updated for consistency. This includes eliminating the prohibition on
ADUs with more than two bedrooms, and adding a provision that completed applications be
deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days. The City will work with the State
Housing and Community Development Department to determine if there are other provisions of
the ordinance that require updating. Program 6.10 in Chapter 6 identifies this as a high priority
action, to be completed by October 15, 2022.6
Multi-Family Housing
In February 2021, the City amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family
housing within the City limits. This was a key implementation measure in the Fifth Cycle
Housing Element. New policies in the General Plan Land Use Element expressly support a
range of housing types in the city, including multi-family housing. Chapter 17.19 of the
6 These changes were made and this action was completed in August 2022.
113
Housing Constraints Page 5-8
Municipal Code creates the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Opportunity Overlay Zone, which
has the following objectives:
• Create “by right” opportunities for multi-family housing
• Implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning to
accommodate the City’s current and projected need for housing
• Facilitate well-designed development projects
• Encourage development that provides attractive features that integrate the public realm with
development on adjacent private property.
The zone is mapped on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site, which as noted in Chapter 4
and Appendix B, is the most viable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The zone
allows 16 units of multi-family housing on the site (excluding potential density bonus units), with
a requirement that this housing be constructed at a density of 20 to 24 units per acre. The 20
unit per acre minimum density requirement corresponds to the “default density” under AB 2348,
while the 16-unit requirement is based on the number of units permitted by the underlying
General Plan and RAS-2 zoning designations. It is also a threshold used by HCD to identify
viable housing sites.
Affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in this zone, provided it is affordable to low
and very low-income households and meets objective design standards that are included in the
zoning code. These include minimum dwelling unit sizes of 250 square feet for a studio, 400
square feet for a one-bedroom, 650 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 900 square feet for a
three-bedroom. Higher minimums had been proposed initially but were lowered to the adopted
standards based on direction from HCD that the above figures would not constrain development.
As noted above, the allowable density range for the Zone is 20-24 units per acre. Numerous
projects—both market-rate and affordable—have been developed in this density range in Los
Angeles County in recent years. The range can accommodate apartments, condominiums,
townhomes, row houses, clustered units, manufactured homes, and small detached cottages.
All of these housing types would be permitted under the regulations prescribed by the Overlay
Zone.
Development standards for multi-family housing within the Overlay Zone are conducive to higher
density construction. These standards require 5-foot front and side setbacks and a 10-foot rear
setback. Encroachments such as decks, balconies, awnings, porches, and stairways may
extend into the setback areas, and architectural features such as eaves and cornices are also
permitted in the setbacks. There are no lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratio limits. A 28’
height applies, allowing two-story construction. This is the only place in Rolling Hills where two-
story construction is permitted.
Development is subject to a requirement that 100 square feet of common open space be
provided for each dwelling unit. Thus a 16-unit project would be required to set aside 1,600
square feet of shared open space, which is equivalent to about 5 percent of the development
site (assuming a density of 20 units per acre). When drafting the Ordinance, the City initially
proposed a common open space standard of 150 square feet per unit, but this was reduced to
100 square feet during HCD’s review of the draft to eliminate the potential for a constraint.
114
Housing Constraints Page 5-9
One parking space per unit is required, plus one guest parking space for every 10 units. For
senior housing, one space per unit is required for the first 10 units, and 0.5 spaces per unit are
required for any additional units. The RDMO zone allows surface parking, with no requirements
for garages or carports. At 180 square feet per parking space, the total area dedicated to
parking in a 20 unit per acre project would be 3,240 square feet, or about nine percent of the
site. Even with driveway lanes, the total area of the site required for parking would be small.
Moreover, the ordinance includes provisions for reduced parking where certain conditions exist
(shared parking agreements with nearby uses, available street parking, etc.).
No parking is permitted in the 20’ front setback area (at the driveway location). This would not
be a constraint given the large size of any parcel that would be created in the future to
accommodate multi-family development. Moreover, the front yard setback for structures is only
five feet, which creates more space for the building envelope and encourages parking to be
placed to the rear or side of the parcel, potentially within the setback.
The development standards require that multi-family housing be located at least 50 feet from the
toe of the slope associated with a hillside area within the Overlay District. Figure 5.1 shows the
sloped area and indicates that the linear distance between the toe of the slope and the access
road serving the multi-family development site is 337 feet. Thus the area where structures are
acceptable extends 287 linear feet back from the access road (minus a 5-foot front setback).
While the rear 50 feet may not include structures, it could include open space and other
amenities, including parking and driveways. The 50’ setback does not affect parcel width (i.e.,
the east-west dimension), and still leaves room for a substantial development site on the
property.
Figure 5.1: Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site
115
Housing Constraints Page 5-10
Because affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in the Overlay Zone, the City has
adopted objective design standards to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent
uses. These address residential frontages (facades, etc.), usable open space standards, public
space amenity requirements, and operational standards. Such standards have the potential to
create a development constraint if they are too onerous or add to the cost of housing.
The residential frontage standards require that the ground floor be no more than five feet above
the ground surface. This is easily attained, since the site is relatively flat. The standards
establish a 10’ floor to floor height, which is consistent with the overall 28’ height limit as well as
typical residential construction standards and interior ceiling heights. Entrances and windows
are required along the front façade, and entrances to individual units may either be direct to the
exterior, or to an interior hallway. Stoops and porches may be located on the exterior, and
projecting elements (bay windows, eaves, balconies) may extend into setback areas. Street
tree, landscaping, and lighting requirements apply, but these do not constrain development.
The usable open space standards likewise do not represent a constraint. These requirements
call for an amenity such as a children’s playground or clubhouse in multi-family projects. The
amenity may be indoors or outdoors and may not include parking areas, streets, or driveways.
Projects are also expected to include amenities such as pedestrian walkways, landscaping, bike
storage racks, and screened trash enclosures, and would need to comply with building code
standards for interior noise. These are common requirements in California communities and do
not represent a constraint.
Mobile and Manufactured Homes
As required by State law, the City Zoning Ordinance allows for manufactured housing units to
reduce residential construction costs. Section 17.12.130 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
defines manufactured homes and mobile homes as “single family dwellings”; as such, they are
subject to the same standards as wood-frame construction.
Emergency Shelters
Every city in California is required to identify a zone where at least one year-round emergency
shelter is permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit (Govt Code
Section 65583(a)(4)(A)). The Government Code further requires that emergency shelters be
subject to the same standards that apply to residential and commercial development in that
zone, except that certain objective standards prescribed by the State may apply.
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to permit emergency
shelters “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone. Rolling Hills has adopted
standards for shelters that meet the requirements of the Government Code and facilitate
emergency shelter construction or conversion. The RDMO Zone encompasses over 31 acres of
public property, most of which is underutilized. There are opportunities to create shelters by
converting existing buildings, constructing new buildings, or using temporary facilities such as
portables or tiny homes. This use is permitted by right, with no discretionary permit required by
the City. There are no limitations on where shelters may locate within the boundary of the
RDMO Zone. Since shelter beds do not constitute “dwelling units”, an emergency shelter would
116
Housing Constraints Page 5-11
not be considered part of the 16 dwelling units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not
affect the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone.
The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review in December 2020 and
subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they are compliant with the Government
Code and do not present a constraint to emergency shelter development. The adopted
standards include:
• Shelters may be 300 feet apart, consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(A)(v) One
parking space for each staff person must be provided. There are no supplemental
parking requirements based on the number of beds. The requirements are consistent
with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(V)(A)(ii) and are no greater than those that apply to
other land uses and activities in the RDMO zoning district.
• A maximum of 12 beds applies. This is comparable to the maximums that apply in
nearby cities, including those with unsheltered populations.
• 50 square feet of personal living space is required for each occupant, excluding common
areas.
• The standards allow, but do not require, shelters to include a dining room, commercial
kitchen, laundry room, recreation room, child care facilities, and support services (the
Code indicates these may be provided, but they are not mandatory)
• At least five percent of the shelter area must be dedicated for on-site waiting and intake,
and an equivalent (or larger) area is required for exterior waiting
• Shelters must comply with building code, plumbing code, and trash enclosure
requirements—the same standards that apply to other uses in the Overlay Zone and in
the underlying base RAS-2 Zone.
Consistent with the Government Code, an application to operate an emergency shelter requires
submittal of a management and operations plan that addresses hours of operation, staffing
levels, maximum length of stay, and security procedures. The application would require
approval by the City Administrator, based on satisfaction of the conditions listed above and
review for compliance with Building, Fire, and other applicable regulations.
The regulations do not constrain emergency shelter development and are compliant with
Government Code requirements. As they were just put into effect in 2021, the City will monitor
their effectiveness over the 2021-2029 planning period to determine if changes are needed.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) housing in the RDMO Zone. These are facilities with individual rooms or
small efficiency apartments designed for very low-income persons. There are no limitations on
where SROs may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is
required.
In December 2020, the City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and
subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they do not present a constraint to SRO
development. The adopted standards include:
117
Housing Constraints Page 5-12
• A minimum of six units and a maximum of eight units
• Maximum occupancy of two persons per unit
• Floor area of 250-350 square feet per unit
• Each room must include a water closet (Toilet plus sink)
• Each room must include a kitchen sink with a disposal (but not necessarily a full kitchen)
• Each unit must have a closet
• Full kitchens (i.e., with range, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) and full bathrooms (with
shower/bath) may be provided in each unit but are not required. If these facilities are not
included in each unit, then shared facilities are required on each floor.
• 0.5 parking spaces are required per unit, plus one space for each employee on duty
• Occupancy is for 30 days or more
The City initially proposed including a requirement for 24-hour on-site management, and a
requirement for elevators in the event the building was two stories. Both of these requirements
were removed following HCD’s feedback that they were potential constraints. Requiring 24-hour
management requirement could be a constraint for a 6-8 unit facility. As a result, on-site
management is not required on a 24-hour basis. Given that the building would only be two
stories, the requirement for elevators was removed. Since SRO rooms would not be classified as
independent “dwelling units”, they would not be considered part of the 16 units permitted by the
Overlay Zone and would not reduce the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone.
Supportive, Transitional, and Employee Housing
Supportive housing is a type of rental housing that includes on-site services such as medical
assistance or treatment of chronic health conditions or disabilities. Transitional housing is a type
of supportive housing but is specifically intended for unsheltered residents who are transitioning
to permanent housing. Supportive and transitional housing is not associated with a specific
structure type—single family homes can be used in this manner, and so can multi-family
buildings.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires cities to treat transitional and supportive
housing as residential uses that are only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In other words, a City cannot hold a single
family home used as supportive housing to a different standard for parking, setbacks, floor area,
etc. than a single family home occupied by a family or other type of household.
Public Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 requires the City to treat employee housing for
six or fewer people the same as other single family housing in each zoning district. For example,
if a corporation in another city purchased a home in Rolling Hills and allowed its employees to
live there, the use would be treated like any other single family home.
Rolling Hills presently has no Code language that limits transitional, supportive, or employee
housing or imposes any special restrictions on such housing. However, these housing types are
not expressly acknowledged in the Municipal Code. The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes
an action item to add definitions of transitional, supportive, and employee housing to the
Municipal Code within six months of Housing Element adoption, acknowledging that such
118
Housing Constraints Page 5-13
housing is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential
dwellings of the same type in the same zone, as required by State law.7
Housing Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4) requires the Housing Element to include “an analysis of
potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement of
development of housing…for persons with disabilities. AB 686 also requires the City to
affirmatively further fair housing, which includes housing that meets the needs of persons with
disabilities.
In November 2020, the City Council approved reasonable accommodation procedures,
including application requirements, review procedures, findings, and provisions for noticing and
advertising the opportunity. These procedures establish a process through which persons with
disabilities can request reasonable accommodations (or modifications) to the City’s codes, rules,
policies, practices or services so that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy or use a dwelling.
The City has also adopted a resolution recognizing the Americans with Disabilities Act, including
a commitment to assist disabled residents.
A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or
her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when
the application of a land use, zoning, or building regulation, policy, practice, or procedure acts
as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. The City has posted notices at City Hall informing the
public of its right to make such a request, including application forms for those making a
request. Requests are generally made to the City Manager.
Once a completed application is received, the City Manager has 45 days to make a written
determination. Additional information may be requested of the applicant in order to make an
informed determination. An alternative solution to the one proposed by the applicant may be
considered if it would reduce impacts and still achieve the intent of the request.
The request is granted, with or without conditions, if the City Manager finds that the housing will
be occupied by an eligible individual, the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the
individual with equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, the requested accommodation
would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or fundamentally alter
the City’s zoning or building laws or undermine the General Plan, and there are no other
reasonable accommodation methods that would allow the applicant to enjoy the dwelling that
would be less impactful on the surrounding area.
Conditions of approval may be replaced on the application. These may include periodic inspection
to verify compliance, recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the improvements when
it is no longer needed, time limits, measures to reduce off-site impacts, and measures that respond
to the unique physical attributes of the property. Decisions may be appealed.
Rolling Hills has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code. As long as construction is
consistent with the Building Code, residents are permitted to provide any disabled access or
7 This action was completed in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant.
119
Housing Constraints Page 5-14
amenity improvements necessary to reduce barriers. Access to homes via ramps is permitted.
One-story construction throughout the community removes a major barrier for persons with
disabilities and facilitates access for persons with mobility limitations. Accessibility
improvements, universal design changes, and other accommodations for persons with
disabilities are processed administratively in conjunction with the building permit process and
are permitted in both of the City’s residential zones.
No constraints to housing for persons with disabilities were identified in this analysis. As noted
in Chapter 3, the city’s large population of older adults requires ongoing efforts to facilitate
retrofitting of existing homes for residents with physical limitations, and their caregivers.
Residential Care Facilities and Definition of “Family”
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires that small licensed residential
care facilities for six of fewer clients be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right
in all residential districts. Care facilities with seven or more clients (e.g., “large” residential care
facilities) may be subject to additional requirements but must be treated the same as other
residential uses in that zoning district. Cities that require conditional use permits for large
residential care facilities are required to mitigate this constraint in their housing elements.
At this point in time, the Rolling Hills Zoning Code does not expressly mention or define
residential care facilities, nor does it distinguish between “large” and “small” facilities. The
Code should be amended to expressly indicate that this use is permitted by right in all zones
where housing is allowed, and is subject to the same standards, fees, and procedures as other
residential uses in those zones. This is required by State law. As required by California Health
and Safety Code Section 1566.2, the City does not collect business taxes, registration fees, or
other fees for small residential care facilities.
The Rolling Hills Municipal Code includes a definition of “family” in its zoning regulations. Overly
restrictive definitions may pose a housing constraint, but in this instance the definition is broad
and inclusive. According to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, “family” means:
“one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from
a group occupying a boarding, rooming or lodging house, hotel or club. Family
may include domestic servants.”
5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls
State law requires the City to consider not only the impact of individual development standards,
but also the cumulative effects of these standards on the cost and supply of housing. For example,
it is possible that a particular setback requirement may appear reasonable on its own b ut may
limit development opportunities when combined with height and lot coverage limits. Sometimes,
the combined effect of different development controls can require more expensive construction
or result in frequent zoning variances.
Because of the very large lot sizes in Rolling Hills, the zoning standards do not create an adverse
cumulative impact on development costs or the housing supply. As previously noted (pages 5-2
120
Housing Constraints Page 5-15
and 5-4), a special zoning overlay (OZD-1) was created in 2012 to recognize that some parts of
the city have prevailing lot sizes that are smaller than the one-acre minimum required by the RAS-
1 district. Roughly 10 percent of the City’s parcels are covered by this zone, which allows reduced
setbacks in order to avoid the need for zoning variances.
As noted earlier, the combination of front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a rectangular one-acre
lot would still allow for a buildable area of over 16,000 square feet. Most parcels are considerably
larger than one acre and have buildable areas that exceed 20,000 square feet. FAR and lot
coverage limits likewise allow ample structure coverage, and homes larger than 10,000 square
feet can be built without Variances on most lots. The one-story height limit tends to produce
building footprints that are quite large—but still within the 20% structure coverage requirement.
Each residence is required to have two covered parking spaces (three, if an ADU or guest quarters
are on-site). This requirement is modest given the typically large home size and does not
constrain building construction.
The land use controls also do not present a cumulative constraint to ADU construction. Almost
every parcel in the City has the land area or existing built floor area to support an ADU, and
many homes already have spaces that could be easily converted to ADUs. The ADU and JADU
regulations adopted in 2018 and revised in 2020 were drafted to work in tandem with the
controls for the RAS-1 and RAS-2 districts and have laid the foundation for substantial ADU
production.
There are no cumulative land use constraints to multi-family development. The Rancho Del Mar
Overlay (RDMO) Zone standards have been tested to ensure they are internally consistent and
can support housing in the 20-24 unit/acre range. The RDMO Zone allows multi-family housing
to be either owner or renter occupied. New housing units in this zone must be affordable. The
affordability requirement is not a constraint to development, as the site is publicly owned and
represents a unique opportunity for reduced land and construction costs. There are no
comparable opportunities in the city, as this is the only property in Rolling Hills that is flat,
vacant, served by public sewer, and walking distance from public transit.
Prior to August 2022, one notable omission from the City’s zoning regulations was a provision
for density bonuses. State law requires that the City offer a density bonus for projects that set
aside various percentages of units for affordable housing, senior housing, and other types of
special needs housing. The number of bonus units is based on a sliding scale and can be up to
50 percent above the base density permitted by zoning. For projects where all units are
affordable to low and very low income households, the density bonus rises to 80 percent. A
density bonus could be requested for the Rancho Del Mar site, since the overlay requires that
any multi-family housing is 100 percent affordable. This would allow 28 units on the site instead
of the 16 allowed by the General Plan and zoning. Density bonus provisions were adopted by
Rolling Hills in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant with this requirement.
The Housing Element includes a program recommendation that the City amend the Municipal
Code to adopt density bonus provisions or adopt the State provisions by reference.
121
Housing Constraints Page 5-16
5.2.5 Building Code Standards
The City of Rolling Hills adopted the Building Code for Los Angeles County in effect on January
1, 2020 as its Building Code. A number of local amendments to the Code were made. This
includes an allowance for the City Council to hold a public hearing to review decisions of the
County Board of Appeals, Code Enforcement Appeals Board, or Building Rehabilitation Appeals
Board. Other local amendments include a modified definition of “basement” (to avoid the
appearance of multi-story buildings), adjusted provisions for grading and cut slopes, limits on
driveway slope, and limits on developing slopes over 50 percent. The City has also adopted the
Los Angeles County Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Residential Code, Fire
Code, and Green Building Code.
Effective July 1, 2008, all land in the City of Rolling Hills was deemed to be a “Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, several more restrictive fire safety standards have been
adopted. The City also has adopted standards for hours of construction, and requirements for geological
surveys and investigations.
5.2.6 Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures
Processing and permit procedures can be a constraint to the production and improvement of
housing due to the time they add the development process. Unclear permitting procedures,
layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval
can increase the cost of housing, create uncertainty in the development process, and increase
the financial risk assumed by the developer.
In Rolling Hills, the time required to process a project varies depending on the size and
complexity of the proposal, and the volume of projects being reviewed. Not every project must
complete every possible step in the process. In addition, certain review and approval
procedures may run concurrently.
For smaller projects, permit processing times tend to be faster than in most cities.
Administrative review applications (i.e., those that do not require public hearings) typically take
only a few days to process. However, the City’s capacity is limited, requiring that some permit
processing functions are contracted out. Even smaller projects that are approved ministerially
typically require review by the Rolling Hills Community Association and the Los Angeles County
Building and Safety Department, in its role as the contracted building authority of the City.
The City collects no fees for over the counter review—such fees are assessed when the project
is submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Administrative review processes have
been created for residential additions less than 1,000 square feet, accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units, remodels, foundation repair, and re-roofing. Such projects are
required to submit two sets of plans, various checklists, and calculations of existing and
proposed square footage, lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. The City’s website
provides comprehensive information for applicants seeking permits, including on-line portals for
applications, payment, and checking progress on permit status.
Larger projects such as new homes take longer, but they are less common. New homes in
122
Housing Constraints Page 5-17
Rolling Hills are multi-million dollar projects that often require demolition, site preparation and
grading, and new driveways before construction may begin. Larger projects may also require
review by the LA County Health Department for the adequacy of the septic system, and the Fire
Department for fuel modification.
Unless specifically exempted by State law, large projects such as new homes and residential
additions of 1,000 square feet or larger are subject to Site Plan Review. An initial consultation
with staff is strongly encouraged at the start of the process. Once an application is received, it is
reviewed for completeness, including required calculations, elevations, and site plans. When the
application is deemed complete, it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for a hearing,
including a recommendation from staff.
The Site Plan review process typically takes three to six months from start to finish, including a
field trip by Planning Commissioners to the project site at the start of the process. The process
may be completed in a single hearing but on occasion may take two to three hearings so that
issues raised by the Commission and public can be addressed. Additionally, project applicants
may modify their site plans after approval and return to the Commission for approval of major
revisions.
The Planning Commission has the authority to approve Site Plan Review applications. The
decision of the Commission is considered final unless an appeal is filed with the City Council or
the City Council decides to take the application under its jurisdiction. The decision becomes
effective 30 days after adoption of the resolution.
Approval of a Site Plan Review application requires findings related to compliance with the
General Plan and adopted lot coverage standards, preservation of topography and vegetation,
grading that follows natural contours or does not adversely modify natural drainage channels,
the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, impacts to pedestrian movement, and compliance with
CEQA.
The Planning Commission does not expressly perform design review as part of this process, as
its findings are principally related to address public health, safety, and welfare. Design review
occurs privately, through the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). The RHCA has an
Architectural Committee that reviews plans for new homes and large additions to ensure that
easements are kept free and clear of structures, including fences and other obstructions.8
Projects are submitted to LA County Building and Safety following RHCA review. RHCA
maintains its own design guidelines, covering such topics as roofs, walls, windows, doors, and
lighting. Because RCHA is a non-governmental agency, these guidelines are described later in
this report under non-governmental constraints (see discussion of CC&Rs on page 5-22).
Projects that require Variances to development standards or Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) also
require Planning Commission hearings. CUPs are required for large horse stables and corrals,
detached garages, tennis courts, and a number of other large-footprint site features. From start to
finish, the process from submittal of plans to approval of permits may take six months or longer for
8 School District and City-owned property is exempt from this requirement. Thus, any development in the RDMO
Housing Opportunity Zone would not be subject to RHCA review.
123
Housing Constraints Page 5-18
a brand new home. Applications for ADUs, major remodels, residential additions, and accessory
structures are more common, and are processed more rapidly. ADUs, JADUs, and other
ministerially approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process.
The City regularly seeks ways to expedite processing and improve the timeliness of its services.
At the present time, permitting and processing time is not considered a constraint and the City
complies with the time limit requirements established by Sections 65943 and 65950 of the
Government Code. The Site Plan Review requirements and other permitting requirements are
not a constraint to the development of multi-family or affordable housing as they would not apply
to projects on the Rancho Del Mar site nor would they apply to ADUs that meet the City’s
adopted standards. As such, they have no impact on the cost, supply, timing, or approval
certainty of these projects. For new single family homes, the review requirements result in
processing times that may take several months. However, they do not affect the supply
approval certainty. In a review of applications over the past eight years, only one application was
denied (requesting a height modification to approved addition in 2017) and another application
had a partial denial (for stairs and walls, in 2014).
5.2.7 Site Improvement Requirements
The principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property are the
undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system, and
conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Road and emergency access (fire safety)
improvements may be required for properties that do not have street frontage or have other
access constraints. New development in Rolling Hills consists almost entirely of custom homes
on existing vacant or previously developed lots, rather than subdivision of “raw land,” which
tends to reduce overall improvement requirements. At the Rancho Del Mar affordable housing
site, installation of curb and gutter improvements would be required prior to development, but
the site already has road access, storm drainage, and water and sewer facilities in place. There
would be no special or unique site improvement requirements imposed on development of this
site.
Projects requiring the subdivision of land would be subject to the standards set forth by the
City’s subdivision regulations, which are specified in Title 16 of the Municipal Code. These
standards establish a 24-foot road width for streets. A 32-foot turning radius is required on
dead-end streets, and grades may not exceed six percent. The standards recognize that all
streets in Rolling Hills are private. The City Council has the discretion to require additional site
improvements adjacent to sites where land is being subdivided, including widening existing
roads to meet neighborhood traffic and drainage needs. The subdivider may also be required to
provide drainage improvements, in accordance with standards set by the City Engineer and with
the city’s MS4 permit (see P 5-26). The subdivision ordinance further specifies that water mains
and fire hydrants may be required when new lots are created, and that easements for gas and
electric services may be required.
The cost of installing a new septic system is generally not a constraint for brand new homes but
can be an impediment for ADUs and smaller additions, particularly for homeowners with limited
incomes. At minimum, the County Health Department requires a feasibility study for any project
that could result in septic tank capacity being exceeded. Older homes may face costly septic
124
Housing Constraints Page 5-19
installation requirements that could render a home addition or ADU infeasible. Programs to
assist lower income or senior homeowners with septic tank replacement could be considered,
particularly where an ADU is being added.
5.2.8 Development and Permitting Fees
Fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the costs of processing permits and
providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools, and infrastructure. Most of these fees
are assessed through a pro rata system based on the square footage or value of the project, the
staff time required for processing, and the magnitude of the project’s impact. If fees become
excessive, they can become a constraint on development and make it more difficult to build
housing affordably. They can also place a burden on lower income homeowners seeking to
modify their homes or add an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Table 5.2: City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees1
Fee Type Fee Amount Notes
Site Plan Review $1,500
Conditional Use Permit $1,500
Variance $1,250
Minor Variance
$750 Encroachments from main
structure that do not extend more
than 5’ into required setbacks
Zoning Change or Code Amendment $2,000
General Plan Amendment $2,000
Accessory Dwelling Unit application $375
Major Remodel Review $375
View Impairment Review
$2,000 Processing fee for Committee
review of impacts on trees and
views
Water Efficient Landscape Review $1,500 Unused balance refunded
Traffic Commission Review $300 Required for new driveways
Lot Line Adjustment $1,500 Plus County fee
Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 Plus County fee
Final Parcel Map -- County fee only
Environmental Review Determination $200 Plus Fish and Game Fee
Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee
plus 10%
Only required as needed
Appeal Fee 2/3 of original
application fee
Only required as needed
Source: City of Rolling Hills, 2021. Barry Miller Consulting, 2021
1 This is not a comprehensive list of all fees but covers the major development-related categories in the City’s fee
schedule. The fee schedule also covers records searches, inspections, and review of grading plans.
125
Housing Constraints Page 5-20
A summary of residential development fees charged by the City of Rolling Hills is presented in
Table 5.2. Most projects do not require payment of these fees, as they would not typically
require use permits, Variances, Zoning changes, General Plan amendments, CEQA review, lot
line adjustments, and so on. However, Site Plan Review is commonly required for all new
homes and major additions, and ADU permits are required for larger ADUs. For projects
complying with City standards and requirements, the fees are not a development constraint.
Rolling Hills is one of 13 cities that contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety (LACDBS) for plan checking, building permits, and building inspection. The
County issues building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits on the City’s behalf. The
cost schedules for the incorporated cities served by LACDBS are higher than the schedules for
the unincorporated area but are comparable to nearby cities with full-service building
departments. A residential project with an assessed valuation of $100,000 would be subject to a
plan check fee of $3,413 and a permit fee of $4,029. This includes required energy and
disabled access checking costs. As the value of a project increases, the fees decline as a
percentage of total project costs. They represent 7 percent of a $100,000 project but less than
5 percent of a $500,000 project.
The fee schedules for other permits varies by type. Electrical permits are subject to a base fee
of $74.70, plus a cost per square foot ($0.20/SF for multi-family and $0.50/SF for single family
and duplexes). Separate fees are collected for swimming pools, branch circuits, lighting
fixtures, appliances, and electrical plan checking. Mechanical permits are collected for HVAC
systems, compression units, boilers, refrigeration systems, etc. Plumbing permits are based on
the number of fixtures and also cover projects requiring connection to septic tanks and work
such as solar water heaters, sprinkler systems, and backflow protection devices. Relative to the
other 12 cities that contract with Los Angeles County, the fee schedule in Rolling Hills is slightly
higher. However, the fees are lower in Rolling Hills than in nearby Rolling Hills Estates.
The County also collects fees for projects requiring geotechnical review. This would apply to
most new housing units in Rolling Hills. The fee ranges from $2,752 to $17,746, with the actual
amount based on 0.50% of the value of the proposed structure. Additional fees are charged for
geotechnical site inspections and geotechnical review of grading plans.
Los Angeles County typically updates its fees annually based on the consumer price index and
other factors. The increase in 2021 was 2.2 percent for all cities served by the County. Rolling
Hills updates its fee schedule less frequently, although fees are considered as part of the annual
budgeting process. Some of the City’s fees—such as the fees for parcel maps and lot line
adjustments—have not been updated in many years.
There are no local surcharges or special fees associated with multi-family housing. On a per unit
basis, permitting costs would be substantially lower for multi-family units than for new single family
units. This is due to the smaller size of multi-family units and to multi-family housing being
permitted “by right” within the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, with no applicable administrative
fees. The City’s fee structure has not historically distinguished between single and multi -family
construction, as multi-family housing only recently became a permitted use.
126
Housing Constraints Page 5-21
A number of other fees apply in Rolling Hills; these are typically associated with new residences
and are intended to offset the additional cost of providing services. These include:
• A Park and Recreation Fund Fee, which is equivalent to 2% of the first $100,000 in
building evaluation, plus an additional 0.5% of the remaining balance. The fee for a $1
million construction project would be $6,000. This fee is only charged for new primary
homes---ADUs are exempt.
• A School Impact Fee, which is paid to the Palos Verdes Unified School District. In
2020, the fee was $3.79 per square foot for new residential construction.
• A fee collected by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), equivalent to $0.20
per $100 of assessed valuation (i.e., $2,000 for a project with a construction value of
$1,000,000)
• Additional architectural review fees collected by the RHCA, including a $165 flat fee
plus $1 per square foot for new construction, additions and major remodels. In
addition, RHCA collects fees ranging from $25 to $500 for individual features such as
swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, and new roofs.
There are no sewer connection fees in the city, since there are no sewers. There is no water
connection fee; water service charges are determined by the size of the meter and the number
of fixtures, plus the amount of water used. The City likewise has no impact fees for housing,
transportation, public art, or other services. Projects in the RDMO Zone would be exempt from
the RHCA fee, since they are outside the HOA boundary.
In total, fees for a typical new home are roughly equivalent to 7-8 percent of total construction
costs. This is comparable to other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, though somewhat
higher than in other urbanized parts of Los Angeles County. The higher fees are associated in
part with the terrain and hazards in Rolling Hills and the size and complexity of applications for
new homes, many of which require extensive grading and multiple inspections. Fees do not
constrain development in Rolling Hills, but they do add to the cost of housing, which is already
expensive in the City. Programs to reduce processing and permitting fees for ADUs could be
considered, as they could incentivize ADU production.
5.2.9 Other Local Ordinances and Disclosure Requirements
No other local ordinances were identified that could present potential constraints to housing
needs. The City does not have an inclusionary zoning requirement, growth control ordinance or
limits on the number of units that may be constructed in a given year, or other locally-imposed
requirement impacting the cost of residential development. The City prohibits the rental of
rooms and houses for periods of less than 30 days, effectively disallowing short-term rentals.
This supports the City’s goal of using Accessory Dwelling Units as rental housing, rather than for
transient occupancy.
The City also complies with AB 1483 (2019), which requires that agencies publish specific
information on their websites starting January 1, 2021. This information includes:
• All current fees and exactions applicable to housing
• All zoning ordinances, design and development standards
127
Housing Constraints Page 5-22
• Current and five previous annual financial reports
• An archive of nexus studies for impact fees conducted after January 1, 2018
The City of Rolling Hills maintains a Planning and Community Services landing page on its
website that contains all of this information. This landing page includes a link to all planning and
development fees, the Zoning Map, the Municipal Code (which includes the zoning ordinance
and all applicable development standards), the General Plan, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,
Landscape Design Standards, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Planning and
Development forms and application materials, the Planning Commission calendar, technical
information for developers (related to stormwater management), permitting requirements,
guidelines for equestrian facilities, information on solar panels and rainwater harvesting, and
guidance on septic system installation. The City is also updating its environmental programs
page. An action program in the Housing Element calls for this information to be reorganized and
updated, with new information added on Accessory Dwelling Units and links to the RHCA Design
Guidelines.
Every annual budget and audited financial report for the City since 2010 is available on the
City’s website. There have been no nexus studies for impact fees since 2018, but such studies
would be posted if conducted in the future.
Disclosure requirements related to SB 35 also apply to Rolling Hills. In 2018, California adopted
SB 35, which establishes streamlining provisions for multi-family projects meeting certain criteria
related to affordability and payment of prevailing wages to construction workers. As of 2021,
projects in Rolling Hills in which 10% of more of the units are affordable are eligible for SB 35.
Article III Section 300 (b) of HCD’s Guidelines for SB 35 requires that cities in this situation must
provide “information, in a manner readily accessible to the general public, about the locality’s
process for applying and receiving ministerial approval, materials required for an application as
defined in Section 102(b), and relevant objective standards to be used to evaluate the
application.” An action program in this Housing Element recommends creating an SB 35
information sheet and application and including it on the Planning and Community Services
Website.
128
Housing Constraints Page 5-23
5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints significantly affect the affordability of housing in Rolling Hills.
Specifically, the high cost of real estate in the city, its heritage as a rural, gated equestrian
community, and its limited infrastructure and severe environmental constraints, make it
extremely challenging to build traditional affordable housing units. The city is one of the most
expensive and highly constrained communities in California. To be economically viable,
affordable housing must be tailored to community context—for example, through accessory
dwelling units.
5.3.1 Land Costs
Land in Rolling Hills is expensive. The city features dramatic topography, with sweeping views
of the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles basin. Property in the city is marketed as a location for
prestigious estates. The supply of acre-plus homesites on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is limited,
making demand for such properties very strong. A scan of Zillow.com in Fall 2021 shows two
vacant lots for sale in the city—one for $7.5 million and another with geologic constraints for $1
million. Data on recent sales shows a vacant single family parcel that sold for $6.85 million in
November 2020 and another that sold for $1.84 million in 2019. These properties have been
marketed and sold as sites for large single family homes.
The economic viability of affordable housing on these sites is further challenged by the cost of
the site improvements that would be required to facilitate safe development. The vacant parcels
described above lack public sewer; are accessed by narrow, winding, private roads traversing
an area with very high wildfire severity; and have slopes that exceed 50 percent in some cases.
The cost of road widening, grading and earth movement, and installation of community-wide
sewer and storm drainage construction make most types of multi-family housing economically
infeasible. There is no public revenue source to make these improvements. The absence of
commercial land uses in the city limits the City’s ability to sponsor programs that would reduce
or underwrite land or site improvement costs.
5.3.2 Construction Costs
The cost of construction, including labor and materials, is a significant constraint to housing
development in Rolling Hills. While high costs have impacted the entire state, Rolling Hills is
particularly impacted by the high cost of mitigating environmental constraints, including fire and
geologic hazards. New home construction requires grading and earth movement, often with
costly retaining walls and engineered drainage systems. Many homes in the city feature high-
end finishes, as well as amenities that result in higher costs. The city is also vulnerable to
elevated or inflated costs that reflect its reputation as a high-end, high-income market.
In 2014, the Rolling Hills Housing Element estimated that construction costs were approximately
$330 to $500 per square foot. Based on recent projects in the city, costs have doubled since
then. The National Association of Homebuilders estimated that costs increased 26 percent
between June 2020 and June 2021 alone. There have been rapid increases in the price of
lumber, copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, and other building materials, resulting in some
129
Housing Constraints Page 5-24
projects being placed on hold and others being cancelled altogether. Construction costs for
home additions now regularly exceed $800 per square foot.
Construction of septic tanks represents a unique expense in Rolling Hills that is not common in
surrounding cities. Anecdotally, homeowners in the city report costs of well over $25,000 to
install new septic systems, which in some cases can be an impediment to adding an accessory
dwelling unit or expanding an older home.
5.3.3 Financing
Financing is not a constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills, but the high cost of housing
makes it infeasible for most households to buy a home in the community. Home mortgage
interest rates were low at the time the Housing Element was drafted, with rates at around 3.0
percent for a 30-year mortgage in Fall 2021. Income and down payment requirements have
become more stringent than they were following the mortgage crisis of a decade ago, and there
are fewer flexible loan programs to bridge the gap between the amount of a required down
payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds.
Given the very high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, significant capital is required to purchase a
home. A 20 percent down-payment on the median priced home in the City would be nearly
$750,000, with monthly mortgage payments of nearly $19,000. A very high income would be
required to qualify. First time buyers face particular challenges in the city, given the lack of
equity from prior home ownership.
5.3.4 Delays Between Approval and Construction
Given the high cost of construction and rising interest rates, there may be delays between the
time a project is entitled and when it is actually constructed. Applicants may postpone their
projects due to high material costs, supply shortages and shipping delays, and a lack of skilled
construction workers and contractors. Rising interest rates can also add to the cost of a project,
leading to postponement. The economic uncertainty and upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic
has also caused some projects to stall over the last two years. In some cases, projects may be
cancelled altogether, or the property may be sold to a new owner who may modify or abandon
previously approved plans.
These factors are out of the City’s control but can have a real impact on housing supply and
construction. The City is particularly interested in the completion of permitted ADUs, as these
units are critical to achieving affordable housing goals. As noted in Chapter 6, Rolling Hills
intends to establish a monitoring program for permitted ADUs to facilitate their construction.
This would include reaching out to those who receive ADU permits and monitoring construction
progress on those units. The monitoring program includes follow-up conversations with any
applicants who do not complete their projects to understand the factors leading to that decision,
and any steps the City can take to improve completion rates.
Another issue that could potentially hinder housing production is the length of time between
receiving approval for a project and issuance of a building permit. As noted in Section 5.2.6,
130
Housing Constraints Page 5-25
approval resolutions for projects that require discretionary action do not become final for 30
days. Approval by the RHCA also occurs after City approvals. The total required time between
City approval and application for a permit is typically 30 to 90 days. Planning entitlements are
valid for two years and may be extended, so this time interval does not hinder construction.
The time between submittal of an application for a building permit and issuance of the permit
depends on the complexity of the project. As noted in Section 5.2.6, building permits are issued
by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Division (Building and Safety). Typical
processing time for complex projects is less than nine months.
The City does not receive notification from Building and Safety when permits are issued, and the
County’s on-line record-keeping system does not consistently reflect current permit status. An
action program in this Housing Element calls for Rolling Hills to work with the County to receive
regular updates on active building permits. This will allow the City to track the status of
development projects and follow up when necessary.
5.3.5 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both municipal zoning and privately enforced
CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are considered a non-governmental constraint because they are enforced
by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a private entity. The CC&Rs were
established by the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1936 upon the initial development of the
community. They apply to all property in the city except the City Hall Campus, Tennis Court
Facilities, PVP Unified School District site (Rancho Del Mar), and Daughters of Mary and Joseph
Retreat Center. The RHCA does not have design review or building permit review authority on
these sites.
Elsewhere in Rolling Hills, the CC&Rs restrict the development and use of property to single
family homes and limited public uses. They do not allow multi-family housing, commercial, office
or industrial activity. One of the stated purposes of the CC&Rs is to preserve and maintain the
rural character of the community, including regulating the architectural design of structures.
The CC&Rs authorize the RHCA Board to appoint and maintain a five-member Architectural
Review Committee to carry out this objective. The Committee is comprised of three Association
members and two licensed architects.
The RHCA Board has adopted a Building Regulations manual that is used by homeowners and
their architects/ contractors, and by the Committee to evaluate projects. Committee review is
required for all new residences and accessory structures, and for all projects that modify the
exterior of existing structures. Committee meetings occur twice monthly, on the first and third
Tuesdays. The meetings are not considered “public hearings” since RHCA is not a public
agency, but they are open to all members of the Association and are subject to Association
bylaws.
RHCA’s Building Regulations require that all homes under RHCA’s jurisdiction be one-story,
ranch-style construction. The Regulations identify three permissible style types: traditional
ranch, contemporary ranch, and early California Rancho. Specific standards are provided for
each style, including allowable exterior siding materials, roof materials (and colors), roof pitch,
131
Housing Constraints Page 5-26
building height (25 feet), and floor to ceiling plate heights (8’6” maximum in at least 50 percent
of the structure). Regardless of style, all buildings must be painted white, conform to the natural
grade, and have consistently designed doors and windows. A minimum floor area of 1,300
square feet, plus a two-car garage, is required for all residences.
The regulations align with the City of Rolling Hills zoning regulations—in fact, the CC&Rs
expressly state that the Architectural Committee must comply with applicable provisions of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code. This includes allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are
not mentioned in the Association’s Building Regulations. Under AB 670 and AB 68 (effective
January 2020), CC&Rs may not be used to deny ADU applications, and prohibitions on ADUs by
homeowner associations are not enforceable.
State law does allow homeowner associations to review the design of ADUs, provided their
process is fair, reasonable, and expeditious. This has been occurring in Rolling Hills for the last
three years with no adverse effects on ADU construction.
As noted earlier in this chapter, the City has developed a ministerial process for ADU approval
as required by state law. Projects meeting the dimensional requirements in the Municipal Code
(which are consistent with State standards) are approved without a public hearing or
discretionary review by the City. If an ADU does not affect the exterior of a home (for instance,
a Junior ADU entirely within the footprint of an existing home, or the conversion of a detached
guest house to an ADU), then no RHCA review is required. The Architectural Committee does
review ADUs that modify the exterior, add square footage to a structure, or result in a new
accessory structure. The purpose of this review is to verify that the structure meets the
objective design requirements in the RHCA Building Regulations rather than to evaluate the
merits of the project or its off-site impacts. According to the Committee’s own guidelines, it “will
not require modifications to working drawings that materially change the massing of the
project.”
City staff has worked closely with RHCA staff to ensure that their design review process is
coordinated with City permitting, streamlined, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on
applicants. The RHCA office is adjacent to City Hall and there is ongoing coordination between
the two entities. When an application for an ADU is submitted to the City, the City advises the
applicant to proceed to RHCA immediately afterwards to initiate project review. Projects are
typically forwarded to the RHCA Architectural Committee within two weeks and are typically
approved at the initial meeting; if modifications are required, the plans are typically approved at
the second meeting two weeks later. The review occurs concurrently with the City permitting
process, avoiding potential delays.
In practice, every ADU application approved by City staff has subsequently been approved by
the RHCA Architectural Committee. Nonetheless, an action program in this Element
recommends that the City work with RHCA to update the 2017 Building Guidelines to
acknowledge ADUs and provide guidance for homeowners seeking to add an ADU.
132
Housing Constraints Page 5-27
5.3.6 Infrastructure
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the limited availability of infrastructure,
specifically streets, sewer, storm water and water facilities.
Streets
Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Since the 1930s, the community’s internal street
network has been designed to establish a rural, equestrian character. This historic aspect of the
city’s infrastructure is one of Rolling Hills’ defining features. The road network is typified by
winding roads with a 15- to 25-foot paved cross-section and no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or
streetlights. Narrow road width, coupled with steep grades and very low densities, effectively
precludes public transit within the city. Access is also gate-controlled at three entry points.
The city's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes, such
as higher-density housing. Given the entire city’s designation as a very high wildfire hazard
severity area, the capacity to evacuate the population is also a limiting factor. Most streets in the
community are “dead ends” without emergency vehicle access alternatives in the event that
ingress and egress is blocked.
A number of properties—including City Hall, the Retreat Center, and the PVUSD site, are
accessed from roads outside the City gates. These parcels are less constrained by street access
but could require ingress and egress improvements (resurfacing, driveways, etc.) in the event a
change of use was proposed. Such improvements are typical for any development and would
not adversely affect expected construction costs.
Wastewater Disposal
With the exception of the school site and thirteen residences that have individually or collectively
(through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction's sewer
systems, there is no sanitary sewer system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual
septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single family residences
and are not conducive to multi-family housing. This is particularly true given the geologic, slope,
and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. To meet water quality and runoff requirements, high-density
housing typically requires a viable sewer connection.
Over the past 35 years, the City has conducted multiple sewer system feasibility studies. In
2019, the City received approval from the Los Angeles County Public Works and Sanitation
District to discharge effluent from up to 235 existing homes in Rolling Hills. The City is in the
process of completing design drawings for Phase One, which is a 1,585-foot long 8-inch
diameter sewer line along Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road. This will provide service to
City Hall, the RHCA offices, and the Tennis Courts. Future phases of the project could provide
service to residences but would require significant grant funding and potentially special
assessments.
In 2021, the City surveyed all households to determine the level of support for developing a
sewer system. Roughly 16 percent of the City’s households participated. The survey found that
about three-quarters of the residents’ septic tanks were more than 20 years old. More than 80
133
Housing Constraints Page 5-28
percent supported construction of a sewer system, though many responses were contingent on
the cost. Past engineering studies have concluded that the terrain and unstable geological
conditions in the city make a conventional gravity sewer system infeasible in the city, meaning
the cost to property owners could be significant.
The Palos Verdes Unified School District site is an exception. It is connected to a wastewater
treatment line that was installed when the school was initially constructed. Collection lines were
sized to accommodate a school campus with several hundred students, and associated
maintenance facilities—a higher level of demand than is associated with current uses on the
site. Given the availability of sewer service to this site and the high cost of extending sewer
services elsewhere, it is the most suitable property for multi-family housing in the City.
In some instances, septic systems may present a constraint to ADU development. This is
generally not an issue for JADUs or smaller ADUs that repurpose existing habitable space, but a
new detached ADU that adds floor space may require increasing the capacity of a septic
system. As noted earlier in this chapter, a program in this Housing Element proposes further
evaluation of this constraint, and possible ways to assist homeowners in addressing it.
Storm Water Run-off
As a rural community without public streets, Rolling Hills does not have a municipal storm sewer
system or continuous network of storm drains. Drainage follows topography, with stormwater
flowing into steep ravines through the community. Water percolates into the ground along
canyon bottoms, with runoff flowing to the ocean, or to larger streams and detention basins
downstream, depending on location.
To comply with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements
and maintain its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the City is required to
screen and monitor its runoff to avoid compromising downstream water quality standards. It
also required to implement a number of programs, such as an Illicit Discharge Elimination
Program. The City also requires Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction in order to
avoid erosion, pollution, sedimentation, and runoff that would degrade water quality. These
requirements are not a development constraint but may add to the cost of construction.
Moreover, the lack of a municipal storm drainage system represents another constraint to higher
density housing in most of the city.
The Rancho Del Mar site is outside the area covered by the MS4 monitoring program and drains
west toward Rancho Palos Verdes. Unlike the rest of Rolling Hills, it is served by an improved
storm drainage system. A 2017 facility evaluation reported the storm drains and inlets on the
site as being in good condition.
Water
Water infrastructure in Rolling Hills is owned, maintained, and operated by California Water
Service (CalWater). The city is within CalWater’s Palos Verdes District, which also serves the
other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Facility planning is governed by an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP), which evaluates anticipated demand and the water resources
available to meet that demand.
134
Housing Constraints Page 5-29
Projections of future water use are based in part on expected population growth, which is
derived from SCAG forecasts and local general plans. Water demand is projected to increase
by 6 percent by 2045, reflecting very slow population and housing growth in the Peninsula cities.
Development beyond that anticipated by SCAG forecasts could reduce water pressure,
compromise firefighting capabilities, and curtail domestic water availability. This is a problem
throughout California, made worse by persistent drought conditions. The UWMP provides water
shortage contingency plans, including measures to reduce demand and procure emergency
supplies.
Water storage facilities and pipelines in Rolling Hills are generally adequate to meet local needs.
However, many of the city’s water facilities are aging and the system as a whole is vulnerable to
damage during earthquakes and landslides. Storage and distribution facilities reflect the rural
density of the city and are not sized to accommodate significant growth. The Palos Verdes
Unified School District site provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as its water system was
designed for a public school campus with several hundred students.
The introduction of ADUs in Rolling Hills could potentially impact water demand in the City. The
California Water Company has no plans to upgrade the aging water system. As ADUs are
created, it will be important to consider potential impacts on water distribution lines and fire
fighting capacity. Several factors work to mitigate the impacts of ADUs on the water system.
First, the population of Rolling Hills has declined by roughly 300 since 1980. Thus, the addition
of 40 or so ADUs over eight years may not increase the total number of residents in the City.
Second, water conservation measures have been implemented—and continue to be
implemented—to reduce water flows and water demand. These measures include water-
efficient landscaping requirements, as well as requirements for more efficient plumbing fixtures.
Dry Utilities
Rolling Hills residences are also served by dry utilities. Electric services are generally provided
by Southern California Edison while natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas
Company. A range of private vendors provide phone, internet, and cable services. Capacity is
available to serve new development, and all of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in
Chapter 4 would have access to these services if they were developed. The Rancho Del Mar
site currently has access to these services as it is a former school.
135
Housing Constraints Page 5-30
5.3.7 Environmental Constraints
Rolling Hills has severe environmental constraints to development. Slopes exceeding 25
percent are present on almost every remaining undeveloped parcel in the city. Geotechnical
studies are required when new homes are constructed, and mitigation is often required to
reduce the potential for future damage. The City’s Site Plan Review Process and grading
requirements are intended to strictly limit recontouring of existing terrain. Most grading occurs
through “cut and fill” procedures that retain materials on site. This adds to local housing costs
and limits the viability of multi-family housing on most properties in the city.
Landslide Hazards
Figure 5.2 shows landslide zones in Rolling Hills, as mapped by the California Geological Survey
(CGS). Large portions of the city are considered hazardous and major slides have occurred in
the past. This includes the Flying Triangle Landslide, which has impacted roads, homes, and
properties in the southern part of the city for the last 50 years. These areas are poorly suited for
development and are susceptible to slope failure. Human modifications to slopes (through
development) can exacerbate the problem and the risk.
Building at the head of a landslide can decrease the bedrock strength along an existing or
potential rupture surface and “drive” the landslide down slope. Improper grading practices can
also trigger existing landslides. Because of these geologic hazards, the City limits land
disturbance and other actions that would exacerbate soil instability. Ground instability would
contribute to potential risks to human life as well as to physical structures. The Safety Element of
the General Plan sets forth policies to restrict new development and expansion of existing
development in areas susceptible to landslides.
Earthquake Hazards
Like most of Southern California, Rolling Hills is vulnerable to earthquakes. Large earthquakes
can cause building damage and collapse, as well as damage to roads and utilities. The City of
Rolling Hills is crossed by the Cabrillo Fault, which is part of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone. It is
also vulnerable to earthquakes on the Whittier Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Malibu
Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Redondo Canyon Fault. The location of these faults is shown
on Figure 5.3.
The Whittier and Newport-Inglewood Faults are considered capable of generating earthquakes
with magnitudes greater than 7.0 and have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. In the
event of a major earthquake on either fault, the city of Rolling Hills would be vulnerable to
ground shaking. Secondary hazards include liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and
differential settlement. Fault rupture is not a significant hazard in the city, and there are no
Alquist Priolo “special studies” zones within the city limits.
Wildfire
As shown on Figure 5.4, the entire city of Rolling Hills has been designated a “Very High Wildfire
Hazard Severity Zone” by CalFire. The city’s terrain creates challenges for vegetation
management and presents conditions where a fire can travel quickly up and down canyon
136
Housing Constraints Page 5-31
slopes. Despite defensible space requirements, the city’s rural nature and equestrian heritage
means that extensive areas are covered by dense scrub and brush. The Palos Verdes
Peninsula has a history of destructive wildfire, including fires that destroyed homes in 1973,
1993, 2009, and 2018.
The City has taken measures to reduce fire hazards, including preparing a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan in 2020. The Plan outlines measures to harden infrastructure, improve
vegetation management, underground electric power lines, and improve inspections and
enforcement. It also includes provisions for evacuation. Additionally, the City (and Los Angeles
County) require special building safety measures, including standards for roofing, eaves,
exterior finishes, and buffer zones that respond to the higher fire hazard levels.
Despite these measures, the risks of wildfire cannot be eliminated entirely. Moreover, the city
continues to face evacuation constraints resulting from its narrow roads, limited ingress and
egress points, and the presence of livestock on many properties.
Biological Resources
Rolling Hills supports a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some that are listed or
under consideration for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the
California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and
Brackishwater snail. Development that could adversely impact the habitat of these species must
undergo review and approval by the overseeing federal and state agencies. Typical mitigation
measures include preservation of habitat, further restricting the potential land available for
development. This constraint is likely to continue throughout the planning period.
137
Housing Constraints Page 5-32
Figure 5.2: Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills
Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2022
138
Housing Constraints Page 5-33
Figure 5.3: Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity
Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021
139
Housing Constraints Page 5-34
Figure 5.4: CalFire “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021
140
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-1
6. Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs
Chapter 6 provides the City’s housing plan for the next eight years. The plan has three
components:
• A statement of the City’s goals and policies for housing. The goals and policies balance
State mandates and Government Code requirements with local needs and priorities.
• An action program. The action program identifies the specific, measurable steps the City
will take during 2021-2029 to implement the policies.
• Measurable objectives for housing production. These objectives correspond to the
City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and also include numeric targets for
housing rehabilitation and conservation.
6.1 Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support
residential development and plan for the City’s fair share of regional housing needs:
GOAL 1: Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of existing and
future Rolling Hills' residents.
Policy 1.1: Accommodate Rolling Hills’ share of the region’s housing needs in a way that
protects public safety, responds to infrastructure constraints and natural hazards,
recognizes market conditions, and respects the historic context and land use
pattern in the city.
Policy 1.2: Allow the development of a variety of housing types in the city, including multi-
family housing. While Rolling Hills will remain a rural equestrian community,
housing opportunities will be provided for all income groups as required by State
law.
Policy 1.3: Facilitate development on the remaining vacant buildable lots in the city in a
manner consistent with adopted zoning standards.
Policy 1.4: Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(JADUs) in all residential zones. Maintain objective standards to ensure that
ADUs and JADUs are compatible with the community; minimize visual, parking,
traffic, and other impacts; and respect neighborhood context.
Policy 1.5: Explore incentives to create and maintain Accessory Dwelling Units that are
affordable to low and very low income households.
Policy 1.6: Encourage the conversion of existing guest houses and other habitable
accessory buildings into legal ADUs.
141
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-2
Policy 1.7: Work with other governmental entities and the non-profit community to support
the development of affordable or senior housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula
and in nearby South Bay cities.
Policy 1.8: Maintain planning and building procedures that maximize efficiency and reduce
permit processing times and high fees. Encourage public understanding of the
planning and building processes to reduce project costs and delays.
GOAL 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in
Rolling Hills.
Policy 2.1: Encourage and facilitate the maintenance and improvement of existing homes.
Policy 2.2: Ensure that new housing and home improvements comply with building code and
fire safety requirements.
Policy 2.3: Maintain a code enforcement program, including procedures to remediate
violations.
Policy 2.4: Require the design of home improvements, additions, ADUs, and infill housing to
minimize impacts on existing residences. Include objective standards in the
zoning ordinance that protect visual quality, privacy, and community character.
Policy 2.5: Mitigate hazards that could potentially cause a loss of housing units in the city,
including wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes. Encourage home hardening and
defensible space to minimize the potential for housing loss during a natural
disaster.
Policy 2.6 Prohibit the use of ADUs as short-term rentals in order to maintain their viability
as permanent housing units.
Policy 2.7: Encourage weatherization, energy conservation, and renewable energy to
increase energy efficiency and reduce home energy costs.
GOAL 3: Address the housing needs of older adults and others in the
community with special housing needs.
Policy 3.1: Provide reference and referral services for seniors, such as in-home care and
counseling for housing-related issues.
Policy 3.2: Support shared housing programs and room rentals as options for seniors to
remain in the community without financial hardship.
Policy 3.3: Encourage housing opportunities for live-in care givers, domestic employees, and
family members who may assist elderly or mobility-impaired residents who wish
to age in place.
142
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-3
Policy 3.4: Consider participation in state and federal programs that assist lower income and
senior households in home repair and maintenance.
Policy 3.5: Strive to meet the needs of extremely low-income Rolling Hills residents,
including seniors on fixed incomes.
Policy 3.6: Encourage the retrofitting of existing Rolling Hills homes so they are accessible to
the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities. Provide
reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and procedures for
disabled persons to ensure equal access to housing.
Policy 3.7: Participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents
and others who may need emergency housing assistance.
GOAL 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national
origin.
Policy 4.1: Affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that housing opportunities for
persons of all income levels, races and ethnicities, and physical abilities are
available in Rolling Hills.
Policy 4.2: Enforce all applicable laws and policies pertaining to equal housing opportunity
and discrimination. Maintain third party agreements to follow-up on and correct
alleged violations.
Policy 4.3 Make information on fair housing laws available to residents and realtors in the
City by providing information on the City’s website and print media at the City
Hall public counter.
Policy 4.4: Ensure effective and informed community participation in local housing decisions.
This should include special efforts to include traditionally underrepresented
groups, including persons working or providing services in Rolling Hills.
Policy 4.5: Distribute affordable housing opportunities around the city by focusing on ADUs
as a housing strategy.
Policy 4.6: Participate in regional forums and initiatives to promote fair housing.
143
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-4
6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029
The goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element will be implemented through a series of
housing programs. Some of these programs are already underway and others will be
implemented over the next eight years. This section of the Housing Element provides a brief
description of each program, including measurable objectives, responsible entities, and
implementation timeframes. Each of these programs has been developed consistent with HCD
guidelines and State Government Code requirements.
Program 1: Annual Progress Report
As required by State law, the City will prepare and file an annual report on the progress made
toward implementing its Housing Element using forms and definitions adopted by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Guidance on the content of the
report is provided by the State Office of Planning and Research. It documents the City’s
progress toward meeting its share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove government
constraints to housing production. The report must be presented to the City Council prior to its
submittal (it may be approved as a consent item).
Quantified Objective: Provide one report per year
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: File by April 1 of each year
Program 2: Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring
In February 2021, the City adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Rancho
Del Mar (RDM) campus owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. As documented in
Chapter 4 and Appendix B of this Housing Element, large parts of the RDM site are unimproved
and vacant. The new zoning permits 16 affordable multi-family units on the site, which may be
developed “by right” at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.
The City Manager will meet at least once annually with the School Superintendent to discuss the
future of the site, including future development opportunities. Next steps to be pursued on the
site include:
• Subdividing the site to create a separate parcel west of the PVPTA transit facility. This
site could potentially be more easily marketed as a development opportunity than the 31-
acre site as a whole.1
• Preparation of a “fact sheet” for the site, for review by the School Superintendent and
School Board, highlighting the potential for multi-family housing
• Further discussions with the School Board regarding opportunities for teacher housing
and/or senior housing on the site.
1 Subdivision is not required to develop the site—it can also be developed “as is” in 2022. However, subdivision could provide an
incentive for future development during the planning period.
144
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-5
• In collaboration with the School District, make information on the site (e.g., the “Fact
Sheet”) available to affordable housing developers.
• Further discussions with non-profit developers regarding the opportunity to construct
housing on the site, including technical assistance to developers where requested.
• Consideration of permit streamlining, CEQA clearance, and fee reductions for future
affordable housing development on the site. Multi-family housing is already permitted
“by right” subject to objective design standards adopted in February 2021, but further
steps could be taken to reduce future development costs.
Quantified Objectives: (1) 16 units of affordable housing on the RDM site
(2) Annual meeting between the City Manager and School
Superintendent
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: (1) Meeting with School Superintendent by end of 2022 and once
annually thereafter
(2) Preparation of site “fact sheet” for review by School District
and School Board by June 2023
(3) Subdivision creating “western” parcel by end of 2023, subject
to School Superintendent and Board approval
Program 3: No Net Loss Monitoring and Other Multi-Family Housing Opportunities
The City has identified adequate capacity to accommodate 45 units of housing, as required by
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Sixteen of these units are on the Rancho Del Mar Site.
Five are new single family homes on vacant lots (three of which are already approved). The
remainder are Accessory Dwelling Units. Rolling Hills will continue to maintain General Plan and
zoning designations that facilitate development of the required number of units and will continue
to comply with the Housing Accountability Act in the event projects are proposed.
SB 166 (2017) requires that every city maintain “adequate sites” to accommodate its RHNA by
income category at all times during the eight-year Housing Element period. If a designated
housing opportunity site becomes unavailable, the city must demonstrate that it still has
adequate capacity on its remaining sites (e.g., “no net loss”). In the event the Rancho Del Mar
site becomes unavailable to produce the housing units envisioned by the overlay zone, the City
would need another suitable site to accommodate those units.
Cities generally meet the no net loss mandate by providing one or more “buffer” sites in addition
to their primary sites. These sites must meet HCD criteria, including the ability to accommodate
16 units at a density of at least 20 units per acre. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, due to the lack
of sewer and the community’s natural hazards, Rolling Hills does not have a buffer site available.
The City will continue to explore potential housing sites that could supplement the RDM site,
particularly where sanitary sewer service could be made available in the future. The City will
continue to rely on accessory dwelling units to meet the balance of its lower-income housing
assignment, regardless.
145
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-6
Quantified Objectives: No net loss of housing capacity to meet RHNA at all times
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Continuous through 2029
Program 4: Add Definitions of Transitional and Supportive Housing, Residential
Care Facilities, and Employee Housing, to Municipal Code
This action was completed in August 2022.
To comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), the City of Rolling Hills was required to
clarify that residential care facilities, transitional housing, and supportive housing are considered
residential uses and are subject to the same restrictions that apply to the other residential uses
that are allowed in a given zoning district. In other words, a single family home used as a group
home for persons with disabilities is subject to the same planning and zoning requirements that
apply to a single family home used by a traditional family. Most local governments have
addressed this requirement by adding definitions to their zoning codes for transitional and
supportive housing, as well as large and small residential care facilities.
The purpose of this program was to add those definitions to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
(Chapter 17). The definitions acknowledge that such housing is permitted in the same manner
as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone as required by State law. The
recent Code amendments also explicitly state that supportive housing shall be a use by-right in
zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones
permitting multi-family uses. The amendments ensure that no special requirements are placed
on residential care facilities with seven or more occupants, as required by State law. Definitions
of low barrier navigation centers also have been added to the Code and referenced in other
zoning regulations, as required by State law.
This program also included a Municipal Code Amendment to add a definition for employee
housing in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). HSC Section 17021.5
states that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer people shall be
deemed a single family structure with a residential land use designation. It further states that
employee housing may not be considered a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory,
or similar term that implies that such housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other
way from a single family dwelling. State law precludes a city from requiring a conditional use
permit, zoning variance or other zoning variance for such housing, and stipulates that the use of
a single family dwelling for six of fewer employees does not constitute a change of occupancy
for building code purposes. As of August 2022, the City fully complies with this requirement.
Quantified Objectives: N/A (program completed)
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney
Implementation Time Frame: Completed in August 2022
146
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-7
Program 5: Density Bonus Ordinance
This action was completed in August 2022.
Section 65915 of the California Government Code establishes mandatory statewide provisions
for density bonuses for affordable and senior housing projects. Prior to August 2022, Rolling
Hills did not currently have density bonus provisions in its Municipal Code. Historically, the City
has not had multi-family housing, nor any site where multi-family housing could be constructed.
With the creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, a developer could request a density
bonus and related concessions from a developer. State standards would apply in this instance.
The City has adopted provisions in its Municipal Code acknowledging the applicability of State
density bonus laws in the event a request is received.
Quantified Objectives:
Application of density bonus to future affordable rental housing on
Rancho Del Mar Overlay site (up to 12 additional units, assuming
100% affordable project on the site)
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Ordinance Adopted in August 2022
Program 6: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production, Monitoring, and Incentives
As noted in Chapter 4, the City intends to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 29
lower income units through a combination of affordable housing on the Rancho Del Mar site (16
units) and privately constructed and rented ADUs on scattered sites throughout the city. At
least 13 ADUs should meet affordability thresholds for low and very low income households.2
Creating opportunities for lower income households on scattered sites supports one of the main
objectives of the State’s Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, which is to
avoid the concentration of lower income housing in a single location. An ADU-centered strategy
also responds to the lack of sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and public streets in Rolling Hills
and the community’s rural densities and absence of supportive services.
As stated in Chapter 4, the City approved nine ADUs in 2021 alone, including two that are
projected to be affordable to lower income households based on their small size. Thus, creating
another 11 ADUs affordable to lower income households over the next eight years is an
attainable goal. The Annual Housing Progress Report should address the City’s progress
toward meeting this goal; if the City is falling short after two years, the strategy should be
revisited and additional incentives should be developed.
2 Two ADUs meeting affordability criteria for low/very low are already under construction (see Table 4.1), leaving a balance of 11
needed.
147
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-8
Program 6 includes a number of specific elements, which are listed below:
6.1 Develop Citywide ADU Registry. The City developed an ADU registry in October 2021
and will expand it as new units are created. Currently, the registry (or data base) contains
fields such as Address, Owner, month approved, square footage, and a description of each
unit. This should be expanded to include information on whether the unit is occupied, the
number of occupants, and the rent charged—this information would be requested from
homeowners on a voluntary basis. Tracking occupancy and affordability is intended to
determine how many units are serving very low- and low-income households, and to
demonstrate that the City is meeting its RHNA.
6.2 Annual ADU Survey and Monitoring. The City will send an annual letter to households on
the ADU roster requesting information on the status of the unit. The information will be used
to prepare a summary that can be referenced as part of the City’s Annual Progress Report.
As part of this task, the City will also identify instances where very low or extremely low
income households (including family members, domestic employees, caregivers, etc.) are
residing on Rolling Hills properties and paying below market rent (or no rent). To the extent
these households are occupying independent living quarters, this data provides evidence
that the City is accommodating its RHNA target for very low income households.
As part of this effort, the City will also implement an annual monitoring program to ensure
that the Housing Element targets for ADUs are being achieved. A determination of the City’s
progress toward meeting its RHNA target of 40 units over 2021-2029 shall be made once
per year. In the event the City is not on track to meet its target, it will consider alternative
means of meeting its RHNA goals within six months of this determination. These could
include additional ADU incentives, modifications to the affordable housing overlay zone, and
other actions that would facilitate production of additional affordable units.
6.3 Develop Inventory of Potential ADUs. Over time, the City will develop a parcel data base
of potential (or “unintended”) ADUs, which are existing habitable spaces that could
potentially be converted into independent dwelling units. This would include guest houses,
pool houses, and similar accessory structures that are used by the primary residence. As
the inventory is completed, owners would be advised of the opportunity to convert the space
into a legal ADU.
6.4 Incentives for ADU Construction. The City will develop incentives for ADU construction.
Different incentives may be developed for those building new homes (i.e., reduced fees for
including an ADU in a new residence), those adding a new ADU on their property, and those
converting existing habitable floor space into an ADU. In accordance with California Health
and Safety Code (HSC), Section 65583(c)(7) (effective January 1, 2021), the City will
explore the use of State CalHome, LEAP, REAP, and SB 2 funding to help local homeowners
build or finance ADUs on their properties. Access to these funds typically requires rents that
are affordable to low and very low-income households.
6.5 Pre-Approved ADU Plans. The City will determine its eligibility for State grant funding to
develop “pre-approved” plans for ADUs that can be used by Rolling Hills residents. These
architect-developed plans would be specifically tailored to meet the RHCA design guidelines
and would respond to the topography and access constraints found on most Rolling Hills
148
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-9
lots. Enabling homeowners to use pre-approved plans may reduce architectural design
costs, and potentially reduce construction costs. This can make ADUs more feasible and
allow them to be rented more affordably.
6.6 Coordination with RHCA. The City will coordinate with the Rolling Hills Community
Association to ensure that RHCA’s design review practices and procedures do not constrain
ADU construction or add to their costs. City staff will meet with RHCA staff and the RHCA
Architectural Committee regularly to coordinate review, advise RHCA of State laws relating
to ADUs, and address any issues that may arise in the future. The City will also work with
the Rolling Hills Community Association to explore reduction of annual HOA fees for
property owners agreeing to limit rents on their ADUs.
6.7 Septic Tank Replacement Grants or Financial Assistance. The City will pursue funding
for a grant which can be used to assist homeowners with septic tank replacement when
paired with the addition of an ADU. The grants would be targeted to lower income seniors
who may seek to add an ADU but lack the financial resources to replace their septic tanks.
6.8 Non-Profit Construction of ADUs. The City will explore the possibility of engaging a non-
profit housing developer in a program to develop ADUs in partnership with interested Rolling
Hills property owners. Participation could be limited to qualifying lower income residents, or
to homeowners who agree to limit rents to levels that are affordable to lower income
households. Such a program was successfully implemented by the City of Santa Cruz, in
collaboration with Habitat for Humanity, and could be considered locally.
6.9 Monitor Best Practices in ADUs. The City will continue to track statewide and national
trends in ADU management, incentives, and regulations. The focus will be on cities in
California that are comparable to Rolling Hills in density, character, and constraints, with an
eye toward cities that are relying on ADUs to meet a substantial share of their RHNA for
lower income households. Programs that are potentially transferable to Rolling Hills will be
considered for local implementation. The City is currently working with the South Bay Cities
Council of Governments on an ADU research study, including a state-funded “ADU
Acceleration Project” to explore ways to promote ADUs in southern LA County cities.
6.10 Update Municipal Code Provisions for ADUs. This action was completed in August
2022. The City has updated its ADU ordinance to reflect changes to State law made since
the last revision to the ordinance in February 2020. This included eliminating references to
a maximum bedroom count in an ADU and including provisions for complete applications to
be deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days.
6.11 Outreach to ADU Permit Recipients. The City will monitor ADU approvals, including six-
month “check-ins” with all applicants receiving ADU permits until the units are completed.
These check-ins will include status updates on the projects, including whether a building
permit has been issued and what progress is being made. In the event an applicant
chooses not to follow through on an approved ADU, staff will make an effort to document
the reasons and evaluate any changes that might be made to the City’s ADU program to
improve completion rates. This information should be part of the City’s annual housing
progress report.
149
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-10
In addition to the specific measures listed above, City staff will continue to assist homeowners
who are interested in adding an ADU, and will work with applicants to facilitate ADU review,
permitting, and approval.
Quantified Objectives: (1) Citywide ADU registry of 40 ADUs by 2029, including at least
13 ADUs rented at levels meeting affordability criteria for lower
income households
(2) ADU Survey, administered once a year
(3) Inventory of potential ADUs
(4) ADU Incentives
(5) Two to four pre-approved ADU architectural plans
(6) Municipal Code Revisions (see 6.10 above) -- Completed
(7) 100% completion of ADUs receiving permits
Funding Source: City General Fund/ State grants
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney
Implementation Time Frame: (1) Rosters and Surveys prepared by 2022 and updated annually
(2) ADU incentives by 2023
(3) Approved architectural plans by 2024, or as funding allows
(4) Amend Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 (Accessory Dwelling
Units) for consistency with State law by August 2022 (this action
has been completed)
(5) Establish protocol for 6-month check-ins with ADU permit
recipients by January 1, 2023
(6) Annual monitoring report on ADU production
150
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-11
Program 7: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Outreach, Education, and Information
Program 7 addresses public outreach, education, and information on ADUs. Like Program 6, it
has multiple elements.
7.1 Biennial Mailing. The City will send or help coordinate a mailing to all households in
Rolling Hills at least once every two years advising them of the opportunity to create an
ADU, the potential benefits of having an ADU, and potential incentives in the event the
ADU will be occupied by a household worker, caregiver, family member, or other
household meeting the definition of a low or very low income household. The mailing
may consist of an article in the City’s monthly newsletter, or could be included as a
component of the South Bay Cities COG efforts to encourage ADU production. The City
is one of 15 cities participating in this program.
7.2 Website. The City will develop a landing page on its website with information on ADU
opportunities (“Thinking about building an ADU?”). The website landing page will
include information on the types of ADUs an owner may consider (detached, attached,
junior, etc.), the typical cost and cost considerations, financing options, tax implications,
development standards, tenant selection, and so on. The information should also be
provided in printed form for interested homeowners.
7.3 RHCA Design Guidelines Update. The City will work with the Rolling Hills Community
Association to facilitate an update of the RHCA Design Guidelines so that they address
ADUs. Currently, the Guidelines do not acknowledge ADUs at all. The Update would
provide objective design standards for ADUs that are consistent with Rolling Hills zoning
standards as well as the design guidelines that currently apply.
Quantified Objectives: (1) Outreach mailer to 639 households (at least once every 2
years)
(2) Creation of 40 new ADUs by 2029 (5 per year)
Funding Source: City General Fund, State grants
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: (1) First mailing by March 2023
(2) Website update by June 2023
(3) Update of design guidelines by 2024
151
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-12
Program 8: Assist Senior and Disabled Households
The City will continue to address the housing needs of seniors and persons with disabilities by
connecting those in need with social service agencies, non-profits, volunteer organizations, and
other service providers, and by coordinating with the RHCA in the services and programs it
provides. As noted in the Needs Assessment, more than one-third of the city’s residents are
over 65 and about 10 percent have one or more disabilities. The City will work with seniors,
especially those on fixed incomes, to evaluate housing needs and resources. Within 18 months
of Housing Element adoption, the City Council will convene a study session jointly with the
RHCA Needs of Seniors Committee and at least one local non-profit serving seniors (such as
Peninsula Seniors) to discuss the needs of Rolling Hills seniors and potential programs to
address these needs.
Several of the programs listed elsewhere in this Element (shared housing, assistance with home
maintenance, reduced utility rates, etc.) are primarily intended to benefit lower income seniors.
The City also will support expanded opportunities for persons with disabilities, including the use
of universal design principles and accessibility standards in new construction and ADUs. As
part of this program, Rolling Hills will also work with the Harbor Regional Center to implement
outreach services to Rolling Hills families on services available to persons with developmental
disabilities. The City’s website will be updated to include links to housing and supportive
services for seniors and disabled persons.
Quantified Objectives: Website landing page with senior housing resources
Facilitate age-in-place retrofits for 10 senior households
City Council study session on needs of seniors and potential
actions to assist Rolling Hills seniors
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: June 2023 (for website)
Council Study Session before December 2023
Program 9: Assist Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely Low Income (ELI) households have incomes that 30 percent or less of the County
median. In 2021, the income thresholds for ELI were $24,850 for a household of one; $28,400
for a household of two; $31,950 for a household of three; and $34,450 for a household of four.
Based on CHAS data, there are 25 ELI households in Rolling Hills, representing about 3.5
percent of the city’s households. The CHAS data indicated that all 25 of these households were
homeowners, suggesting they are primarily seniors on fixed incomes. The City will explore ways
to assist elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance, repair, and
retrofit activities. It will also direct these households to appropriate resources, such as shared
housing services and programs to reduce utility costs.
There are additional ELI households in Rolling Hills that may not be counted in the Census data,
including extended family members living in independent quarters on a property, or domestic
employees (housekeepers, au pairs, personal assistants, etc.) living in guest houses, accessory
152
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-13
buildings, or in separate quarters within the primary residence. The City will address the needs
of these households by prioritizing applications for ADUs and encouraging homeowners to
create opportunities for domestic employees and family members to live “on site.”
A study sponsored by SCAG in 2020 determined that 15 percent of the ADUs in the coastal Los
Angeles area were likely to be available at rents affordable to Extremely Low Income
Households.3 A 2018 study further found that 17% of the ADUs in Portland, Seattle, and
Vancouver were occupied by a friend or family member for free.4 A 2014 study found that 18%
of the ADUs in Portland were occupied for free or extremely low cost.5 A 2012 UC Berkeley
publication indicates that up to half of all ADUs are occupied at no cost.6
Based on these analyses, the City is estimating that seven “rent free” or extremely low income
rentals will be added to the Rolling Hills housing stock by 2029. It will seek to document and
measure progress toward this objective by soliciting voluntary reporting of such units by
individual homeowners. As noted in Program 6.2, an annual survey is proposed to be
adminstered to all registered ADU owners in the city. This would enable tracking of rent-free or
reduced rent ADUs.
Quantified Objectives: Provide seven housing units affordable to Extremely Low Income
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Prepare inventory of Extremely Low Income (ELI) units by 2024,
update annually
Facilitate housing assistance to at least three ELI senior
homeowners by 2025
Program 10: Support Regional Efforts to End Homelessness
Extremely low-income persons also include those who are homeless or may be at risk of
becoming homeless. Although the point-in-time surveys for the last five years have not counted
any homeless residents in Rolling Hills, the City recognizes that homelessness is a regional
problem that requires regional solutions. Rolling Hills will continue to allow emergency shelters
and single room occupancy hotels in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone and will monitor the
effectiveness of its regulations in its Annual Housing Progress Report.
The City will continue to work with adjacent communities on emergency shelter referrals. As a
member of SCAG and the South Bay Cities COG, staff and elected officials participate in forums
and discussions of homelessness, and potential programs and resources to end homelessness
and increase the supply of shelter, transitional, and supportive housing in Greater Los Angeles.
3 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020
4 Jumpstarting the Market for ADUs. Terner Center (for ULI), San Francisco, 2018
5 ADUs in Portland OR. Environmental Solutions Management, 2014
6 Scaling Up Secondary Unit Production in the East Bay. Berkeley Institute of Regional Development, 2012
153
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-14
Quantified Objectives: Participation in point in time surveys; participation in at least one
regional meeting annually on strategies to end homelessness
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029
Program 11: Permit Streamlining
The City will continue its efforts to expedite permit processing, ensure efficiency, and reduce
administrative and processing costs for new development. This could include provisions for
reduced fees for ADUs that are rented at below market levels, or occupied by qualifying lower
income households. As part of the annual budgeting process, the City will ensure that fees are
appropriate for the services provided, and will consider ways to improve the permitting and
entitlement processes.
This program includes working with LA County Building and Safety to receive periodic updates
on the status of active building permits in Rolling Hills. While this data is available on-line
through the County’s website, it is not consistently updated or made available in a format that
allows the City to easily track the status of entitled projects. The City will use this data to identify
approved housing units (including ADUs) that have been entitled but not yet constructed so that
it may follow up with owners in the event of permitting delays.
Quantified Objectives: Compliance with all provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director/ Planning and Community
Services Department/ LA County Building and Safety
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029
Program 12: Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers,
Developers, and Advocates
The City of Rolling Hills periodically receives requests from housing advocates, non-profit
developers, and service providers to disseminate information on affordable housing needs and
opportunities and work collaboratively to address housing issues. City planning staff regularly
field requests from for-profit and non-profit developers, participate in regional housing meetings
and discussions, and work with other cities to explore creative, effective ways to meet housing
needs. In the event a non-profit agency or developer wishes to submit a grant application that
will increase housing affordability for senior or low income Rolling Hills residents, staff will
provide administrative support wherever possible.
Quantified Objective: Hold at least one meeting a year with one or more non-profit
housing sponsors to discuss housing opportunities and needs in
Rolling Hills
See also Programs 8, 13, and 15
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Convene one meeting before December 2022. Convene additional
meetings at least once a year from 2023 to 2029.
154
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-15
Program 13: Home Sharing
Shared housing enables homeowners to offset their housing costs by receiving rent, or get
additional help in managing housing duties. It also creates a resource for lower income
households in the community, including college-aged students and young adults, caregivers,
domestic workers, landscapers and building industry workers, child care workers, teachers, and
other public service employees. It can also be a resource for seniors, some of whom may no
longer wish to live alone or lack the financial resources to live alone.
Residents in Rolling Hills have access to two nearby home sharing programs: Focal Point at the
South Bay Senior Services Center in Torrance and the Anderson Senior Center in San Pedro.
Both these centers offer resources to assist seniors locate roommates interested in sharing
housing. These programs make roommate matches between seniors based on telephone
requests.
Numerous other home sharing services have emerged over the last decade. These include
SHARE! Collaborative Housing, a public-private partnership supporting shared single family
housing for persons with disabilities in Los Angeles County; Affordable Living for the Aging,
which matches younger single tenants with seniors in Los Angeles County; and Los Angeles
County HomeShare, which serves residents of all ages throughout the County. There are also
private services such as Silverleaf (Long Beach) that facilitate home sharing for a fee.
The City will continue to apprise residents about shared housing programs by providing information
at the public counter and online, including an article in the City Newsletter in 2023. It will also
proactively meet with at least one non-profit home-sharing service provider in 2023 to discuss
opportunities in Rolling Hills.
Quantified Objectives: Continue to provide informational brochures advertising shared
housing programs at City Hall and on the City’s website
At least five Rolling Hills households participating in a non-profit
managed home sharing program by 2029
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Provide article and meet with home sharing service in 2023
155
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-16
Program 14: Sewer Feasibility Studies and Phase One Construction
As indicated in Section 5.3.5 of this Housing Element, Rolling Hills does not have a sanitary
sewer system. With a few exceptions, the entire city is served by private septic systems. Septic
system installation is costly and requires customized design to reflect steep terrain. The cost of
installing sanitary sewers and storm drains would be even more costly, as it would likely require
easements, force mains, and lift stations.
The City recently completed design drawings for a sanitary sewer extension through adjacent
Rolling Hills Estates that will bring service to Rolling Hills City Hall and the Tennis Courts. A
future phase of this project could continue southward along Portuguese Bend Road, allowing
some Rolling Hills homes and a number of vacant properties to be served by sewer. A survey
done by the City in 2021 indicated there was strong support for a sewer extension project,
contingent on the cost to each homeowner. There is currently no funding source for such an
extension. Grant funding would be required, as it would reduce the cost burden on
homeowners and make the project more feasible.
The City will continue to work toward addressing this constraint during the 2021-29 planning
period. This includes:
• Developing the initial phase of the project, serving City Hall and the Tennis Courts
• Conducting feasibility and cost studies for a future phase to serve privately owned
homes and parcels in the northern part of Rolling Hills
• Pursuing funding for future phases
• Continuing to poll Rolling Hills residents on their level of support for the project
In addition, the City continues to monitor water quality issues related to its MS 4 permit for
stormwater discharge. Efforts to address runoff quality and implement best management
practices to reduce pollution are ongoing and will continue.
Quantified Objective: (1) Complete 1,585-foot sanitary sewer extension to City Hall/
Tennis Courts (Phase I)
(2) Complete feasibility / cost study of sanitary sewer extension
(3) Obtain grants for Phase I project construction
(4) Updated “Will Serve” letter from the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District, indicating ability to accept effluent from 235
existing homes upon completion of future phase sewer system
Funding Source: General Fund/ State grants
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Complete Phase I by 2024
Determine viability of future phases and available grants by 2023
156
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-17
Program 15: Pursue Grants for Minor Home Repair Program
At least once every two years, the City should re-evaluate the feasibility of joining the Los
Angeles Urban County CDBG program in order to create a funding source for home
improvements for qualifying lower income Rolling Hills residents. In the event the City finds that
the amount of funding it will receive exceeds the costs of administering the program (including
staffing and reporting requirements), the City will participate in the program. Available funds will
be used to improve housing conditions for lower income and senior Rolling Hills residents,
including:
• Grants for minor home repair and rehabilitation projects, including electrical, plumbing,
and heating repairs; health and safety improvements; and energy efficiency
improvements;
• Grants to facilitate “aging in place” for lower income seniors and residents with
disabilities;
• Grants for septic system repair for lower income homeowners seeking to add an ADU
If the City determines that CDBG participation is not viable, it will pursue other funding sources
that could support a similar grant program for lower-income Rolling Hills homeowners. This
could include administration of home repair grants by another entity (such as South Bay Cities
COG) or a local non-profit.
Quantified Objectives: Minor home repair/ age-in-place/ septic tank replacement
assistance to at least ten lower-income or senior Rolling Hills
households
Funding Source: LA Urban County CDBG Program/ State grants
Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director
Implementation Time Frame: By 2023, and every two years thereafter
Program 16: Code Enforcement
The City will continue code enforcement and nuisance abatement activities to ensure the safety
and habitability of housing in Rolling Hills. While property maintenance in Rolling Hills is
excellent, there is a need for ongoing enforcement of planning and building codes. The City has
a “Code Enforcement” webpage with online forms for reporting suspected violations, including
those relating to vegetation management and outdoor lighting as well as unpermitted
construction or nuisances. Periodic information on code enforcement resources and
requirements is also provided to residents through the City’s monthly newsletter.
Quantified Objective: Respond to 100 percent of resident Code Enforcement inquiries
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029
157
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-18
Program 17: Reduce Home Energy Costs
Energy bills can be a significant cost burden, particularly for households on fixed incomes with
large homes to heat and cool. The City has adopted the Green Building Code and enforces Title
24 energy efficiency requirements through its contract with the Los Angeles County Department
of Building and Safety. New residential projects, including new homes, ADUs, renovations, and
additions, will continue to be required to meet Title 24 standards. These requirements result in
energy savings which reduce gas and electric consumption and home utility bills.
Rolling Hills also works with Southern California Edison to distribute information to residents on
energy conservation and weatherization, including information on financial assistance and lower
utility rates for low-income customers. The City will provide links on its website to assist lower
income residents in accessing information on reduced utility rates. Rolling Hills is also a
member of the South Bay Environmental Services Center, which provides information on energy
incentives, audits and rebates. These programs will continue in the future.
The City will also support resident installation of solar energy systems. A growing number of
Rolling Hills homeowners have installed photovoltaic panels, increasing energy independence
and resilience while reducing home energy costs.
Quantified Objective: (1) Provide links on City website related to energy conservation,
weatherization, and financial assistance
(2) Adopt updated Building Code standards for energy efficiency
Funding Source: General Fund, LIHEAP
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Website Update, with links: Complete by January 2023
Program 18: Facilitate New Construction and Home Improvements
The City will continue to work with property owners, architects, and builders to enable new
housing to be built in the City. Continued cooperation and communication between City staff,
applicants, and neighbors will facilitate the construction of new housing. The City is committed
to efficient planning, building, and inspection procedures, and regularly seeks ways to improve
the process and reduce delays.
With few vacant lots remaining, most construction projects in Rolling Hills consist of home
additions, repairs and modernization, or replacement of existing dwellings. Continued
investment in Rolling Hills housing stock is strongly encouraged and will continue to be
supported in the future. Although the City does not provide direct financial assistance to lower
income homeowners, it assists owners in keeping costs down through permit streamlining and
fees that are generally below average compared to other cities in Los Angeles County.
Quantified Objective: 5 new single family homes (above moderate income)
Funding Source: Private Funds (Permitting Fees)
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department, LA County
Building and Safety
Implementation Time Frame: Objective covers the period from 2021 through 2029
158
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-19
Program 19: Remediate Geologic Hazards
The City will continue to explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems. Grading,
new structures and additions typically require a soils and geology report along with grading and
building permits. The City has developed strict grading practices that limit grading to no more
than 40 percent of the lot and require maintenance of natural slopes. These practices are
necessary to safeguard the public against ground instability.
The City will support repair work on landslide-damaged homes and hillsides that have been
damaged or compromised by past landslides. The City will strive to avoid further loss of its
housing stock as a result of natural disasters, including landslides and wildfires.
Quantified Objective: Geologic studies for new development and major grading permits
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: On-going, 2021 to 2029
Program 20: Fair Housing Services Program Administration
The City will complete a Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement Options Memorandum to
determine options for ensuring that existing and prospective residents have access to fair
housing services, and that property owners are apprised of Fair Housing laws and practices.
This could include an agreement with a third party fair housing services provider to promote and
affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, disability, or other characteristics
protected by state and federal fair housing law. Other alternatives for outreach, education, and
enforcement also may be considered. Based on the findings of the Memorandum, the City will
implement Fair Housing measures, including Programs 21 and 22 described below.
Quantified Objective: 100% response rate for any fair housing complaint
received by the City
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Complete memorandum by June 2023
159
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-20
Program 21: Fair Housing Outreach and Affirmative Marketing
The City will provide information on fair housing resources on its website, including links to fair
housing services. Other outreach measures to be implemented include posting regulations
regarding housing discrimination, as well as phone contacts, at City Hall and periodically
providing this information in the City’s newsletter.
The City will also provide a referral process for any person who believes they have been denied
access to housing because of their race, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status or disability. In the event a complaint is received, the City will refer the party to a
fair housing service provider for follow up and work with the complainant to resolve the issue.
In addition, the City will affirmatively market future housing opportunities in the city by:
• Requiring an affirmative marketing plan for any affordable multi-family development created
in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. Such a plan would be prepared by the project’s
developers and would ensure that future units are marketed to attract occupants who are
demographically diverse, including lower-income households in other parts of the South Bay
and Los Angeles County.
• Developing materials for Rolling Hills residents who may be seeking tenants for their ADUs,
which will be provided to ADU applicants at the time they apply for a building permit or ADU
permit. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing
service providers and non-profit housing organizations that serve lower-income tenants in the
surrounding region. Interested residents can use these materials to find prospective tenants
in a larger market area than the Palos Verdes Peninsula, including residents of all races,
ethnicities, ages, and abilities.
Quantified Objective:
(1) At least 50% of future occupants of affordable
housing created on the RDMO site are from outside
Rolling Hills.
(2) At least 50% of future ADU occupants are from
outside Rolling Hills (to be measured through the ADU
survey described in Program 6.2)
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager, Planning and Community Services Director
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029. Website update by December 2022.
160
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-21
Program 22: Fair Housing Training for Staff
At least one City staff member will attend an on-line fair housing certification training class on an
annual basis. These classes are typically three-hour sessions in which participants are informed
and educated about federal and California fair housing laws, compliance, and illegal housing
practices. The trainings cover prohibited and best practices, including language guidance for
advertising housing for sale or for rent, and protected classes under federal and California law.
In addition, the City will regularly evaluate the need for multi-lingual services, including
translation of material on its website into other languages. It will also continue to implement its
reasonable accommodations ordinance and monitor data on persons with disabilities in the city
to ensure that barriers to mobility are eliminated to the greatest extent possible.
Quantified Objective: (1) At least one Rolling Hills staff member participates in on-line
Fair Housing training each year through 2029
(2) At least one presentation on fair housing is delivered to the
City Council in a noticed public hearing, attended by at least 10
residents
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: 2023
Program 23: Written Procedures for SB 35 Projects
As required by State law, the City will prepare written procedures and application materials for
projects seeking to use SB 35. Affordable multi-family housing development on the Rancho Del
Mar site would be potentially eligible. The procedures would follow the provisions established
by the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, and include the objective standards and application
procedures identified when that zone was adopted. Once completed, the information will be
included as a PDF link on the Planning and Community Services Department website for easy
access.
Quantified Objective: Posted information on SB 35, including application
form
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2022
161
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-22
Program 24: Updating of Linked Files on Planning and Community Services
Department Landing Page
AB 1483 requires that every city post current information on fees, zoning standards, design
guidelines, processes and procedures, nexus studies and other pertinent information on its
website. Although Rolling Hills complies with this requirement today, reorganization of the
material could provide greater clarity and easier access to this information. For example, the
website could include a link to the RHCA design guidelines, as well as updated flow charts and
graphics showing approval processes. As noted under Program 7.2, the website also should
include dedicated information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the steps residents
can take to add an ADU on their property.
Quantified Objective: Reorganized and updated Planning and Community
Services Department website
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2023
162
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-23
6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives
Table 6.1 provides quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and
conservation by income group. The new construction objectives align with the RHNA numbers
that appear earlier in the Housing Element. The rehabilitation objective aims to assist 10 very
low-income senior households over the eight year period. The conservation and preservation
objectives correspond to the approximate number of households in Rolling Hills by income
group based on Census data. The objectives aim to preserve housing for 100 percent of these
households. There are no housing units in Rolling Hills that are at risk of conversion from
affordable to market-rate.
Table 6.1: Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills (20 21-2029)
Income Category New
Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely Low [1] 7 5 25
Very Low 13 5 45
Low 9 45
Moderate 11 25
Above Moderate 5 500
Total Housing Units 45 10 640
Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012)
[1] City’s RHNA for “Very Low” income is 20 units. This has been allocated proportionally to “Extremely Low” and “Very
Low” based on Table 3.8, which indicates the current proportion of “Very Low” income households in these two groups.
Extremely low income households represent 35% of the “very low” total.
Table 6.2 summarizes the 24 Housing Element programs listed in this chapter. It includes a
quantified objective and timeframe for each program, as presented above.
163
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-24
Table 6.2: Housing Element Action Plan Summary
# Program Timing Quantified Objective
1 Prepare Annual Progress Report on
Housing Element implementation
Annually, by April 1 One Report per year
2 Facilitate affordable housing on Rancho
Del Mar Housing Opportunity site
• Annual meeting with
School Superintendent
• Subdivision by 2024
16 lower-income units by
2029
3 No net loss monitoring/ other housing
opportunities
Continuous, through
2029. Address in
Annual Report.
No net loss of housing
capacity for duration of
planning period
4 Add definitions of transitional,
supportive, employee housing and
residential care facilities to Municipal
Code
August 2022 Council action adopting
definitions and
identification of permitted
uses (COMPLETED)
5 Adopt density bonus provisions in
Municipal Code
August 2022 • Council action adopting
density bonus
provisions
(COMPLETED).
• 12 density bonus units
by 2029 (on Rancho
Del Mar site)
6 Accessory Dwelling Unit production,
monitoring, and production
• Updated ADU
ordinance by August
2022
• ADU Roster in 2021
• Annual ADU survey,
starting in 2022
• Pre-approved plans in
2024
• ADU incentives in
2023
• Annual monitoring
program (2023)
40 ADUs by 2029,
including at least 13 ADUs
affordable to lower income
households
7 Accessory Dwelling Unit Outreach,
Education, and Information
• First biennial mailing
by end of 2022
• Website update by
6/23
• Update of design
guidelines by 2024
• Outreach mailer to 639
households
• ADU website landing
page
• ADU section added to
RHCA Guidelines
8 Assist senior and disabled households • Website update by
6/23
• Housing assistance
during 2021-2029
Assist 10 lower income
senior households with
age in place retrofits
9 Assist extremely low income households • Prepare inventory of
ELI units by 2024
7 ADUs affordable to ELI
households
164
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-25
# Program Timing Quantified Objective
10 Support regional efforts to end
homelessness
Ongoing • Participate in point-in-
time surveys
• Attend one mtg a year
11 Permit streamlining Ongoing Compliance with Permit
Streamlining Act
12 Facilitate communication with affordable
housing service providers, developers,
and advocates
By December 2022 • Convene at least one
meeting a year
• See Programs 8, 13, 15
13 Home Sharing By December 2022 • Provide information on
website, plus print media
resources
• Five shared housing
arrangements
14 Sewer feasibility studies and Phase I
construction
Phase I construction
(serving City Hall) by
2024
• Sewer extension to City
Hall/ Tennis Courts
• Feasibility study for
sewer extension
• “Will serve” letter for 235
existing homes
15 Consider participation in Urban County
CBDG Program
By 2023 Minor home repair/septic
tank replacement
assistance to 10 lower
income or senior
households
16 Code enforcement Ongoing 100% follow up
17 Reduce home energy costs By 2023 Website update
18 Facilitate new construction and home
improvements
Ongoing 5 market-rate single family
homes (including 3 already
approved)
19 Remediate geologic hazards Ongoing Geologic studies for new
development
20 Fair housing program administration Develop fair housing
compliance program by
December 2022
100% response to all Fair
Housing complaints
21 Fair housing outreach and affirmative
marketing
Website update by
December 2022
• At least 50% of future
occupants of affordable
housing created on the
RDMO site are from
outside Rolling Hills
• At least 50% of future
ADU occupants are from
outside Rolling Hills
165
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-26
# Program Timing Quantified Objective
22 Fair housing training for City staff Initiate in 2022 • Training for one staff
member annually
• Noticed presentation to
City Council attended
by at least 10 residents
23 Prepare written instructions for SB 35
applications
Complete by December
31, 2022
Guidance memo and
application form
24 Update Planning and Community
Services website
Complete by December
31, 2023
Updated website
166
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-1
Appendix A:
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Evaluation
Overview
In 2018, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 686, adding a requirement that local housing
elements address each community’s obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing.” AB 686
defined this is as:
“taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome
patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically affirmatively
furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together,
address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity,
replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living
patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into
areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights
and fair housing laws.”
In April 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development issued
its formal guidance memo on how local governments should address this new
requirement in their housing elements. The guidance memo indicates the ways in which
the AFFH mandate affects outreach and community engagement, data collection and
analysis, the site inventory, identification and prioritization of “contributing factors,” and
the goals, policies, and programs of the housing element. It also includes data sources
and other resources for local governments.
Chart A-1 summarizes the AFFH mandate; the requirements are extensive. As a result,
the City of Rolling Hills has provided this appendix to address the mandatory components
rather than including this information in the body of the Housing Element. The findings of
this assessment have informed the policies and programs in the Housing Element.
There are limitations to the analysis presented here. Rolling Hills is a small community,
comprised of a single Census Tract Block Group. It is affluent and homogenous and does
not have pockets of poverty or notable disparities between its neighborhoods. Many of
the AFFH maps developed by HCD simply affirm this, rather than revealing spatial
patterns within the city limits. The underlying goal, which is to reduce impediments to fair
housing in the city and improve housing opportunities for lower-income households,
remains relevant.
In addition, Rolling Hills does not participate in the federal CBDG program as a member of
the Los Angeles County Urban County designation. As such, it is not directly covered by
the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices prepared by the County Community
Development Commission and Housing Authority. Some of the findings of the County
Analysis are cited here, as they apply more broadly to the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling
Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes are both members).
167
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-2
Chart A-1: Summary of AB 686 Requirements
Source: HCD, April 2021
168
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-3
The remainder of this report provides the data that is generally referred to as the AFFH analysis.
This includes trends and patterns related to segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated
areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity (including persons with disabilities), and
disproportionate housing needs. Unless otherwise indicated, all maps in this chapter were
prepared using the AFFH data viewer from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
Duty of All Public Agencies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Federal law already requires that federal agencies administer programs in a way that
affirmatively furthers fair housing. This also extends to all local governments receiving funds
from the federal government. AB 686 further extended the obligation to all public agencies in
the State of California. This mandate applies to administration of all programs and activities
relating to housing and community development. The statute requires an examination of
policies, programs, rules, practices, and activities, and where necessary, changes to promote
more inclusive communities.
Outreach
The City of Rolling Hills has worked to engage all economic segments of the community in the
Housing Element Update process. This included conducting more than 11 housing-focused
public meetings on Zoom in 2020 and 2021, delivering newsletters with information on the
Housing Element to every household in the city, and providing housing-related surveys (both
paper and electronic) to every housing unit in Rolling Hills. By reaching out to every household
in the city, Rolling Hills has engaged its lower income residents in the process.
Meetings have been held in the evenings to facilitate participation. The public was invited to
participate in each meeting as “panelists” rather than “attendees,” giving them equal footing to
staff and Councilmembers/ Commissioners rather than the more limited opportunities offered by
webinars. Drafts of the Housing Element were made available at City offices and on-line, with at
least 30 days provided between the release of the Draft and action by the City Council.
Site Inventory
AB 686 requires that a jurisdiction identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is
consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The sites identified by the City must
work to replace segregated living patterns with integrated living patterns. Rolling Hills has done
this by focusing on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to meet its housing needs, rather than by
zoning scattered sites throughout the city for multi-family housing. By definition, ADUs provide
an effective way to achieve economic integration as they enable low and very low income
households to live throughout the community rather than in segregated living patterns.
As noted throughout the Housing Element, the City currently has no multi-family housing units—
thus, the designation of the Rancho Del Mar property as an affordable housing opportunity zone
would not constitute a “concentration” of poverty. As the only site in the city that has sewer and
storm drainage, flat buildable land, road and transit access, and relatively few natural hazards, it
is the only suitable site in the city for multi-family housing (see Chapter 4). Placing multi-family
169
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-4
housing elsewhere in Rolling Hills---on hazardous sites prone to landslides and wildfires, without
public street access or sewer facilities—would be inconsistent with the objectives of AB 686.
Fair Housing Enforcement
Fair housing enforcement is presently handled on a case-by-case basis. The State of California
has an Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FEHO) that enforces the Fair Housing Act
and other civil rights authorities that prohibit discrimination. In the event a fair housing
complaint is received by the City, the involved party would be referred to FEHO for investigation.
There are no pending lawsuits, enforcement actions, judgements, settlements, or findings
related to fair housing and civil rights in Rolling Hills. There are currently no local fair housing
laws in the City, but Rolling Hills complies with all applicable state and federal laws. These
include:
• The federal Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., which the City complies
with by ensuring that housing is available to all persons without regard to race, color,
religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex.
• The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which the City complies with through its
building code, permit review procedures, and reasonable accommodation procedures
• The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which the City complies with through its
protocols for hiring, decision-making, staff training, advertising, and legal counsel
• Government Code Section 65008 and 11135, which guide the City’s procurement protocols,
provide preferential treatment for affordable housing, provide equal access to housing
assistance, and ensure that multi-family housing is treated fairly relative to single family
housing
• Government Code Section 8899.50, which specifies AFFH requirements
• Government Code Section 65913.2, which precludes excessive subdivision standards
• Government Code Section 65302.8, which precludes certain types of municipal growth
control laws (the City has none)
• Government Code Section 65583, which includes the requirement to have a housing
element
• Housing Accountability Act, which is implemented through the City’s development review
and zoning procedures
HCD’s AFFH data viewer reports that there were zero (0) fair housing enforcement and outreach
inquiries in Rolling Hills between 2013 and 2021. The City is unaware of any fair housing cases
that may have occurred without being formally reported, and has not received complaints or
inquiries from residents. The City is likewise unaware of any Section 8 housing choice vouchers
in use within Rolling Hills, or any instance of a prospective applicant being denied the
opportunity to use a voucher within the city.
Due to the small size of the City’s staff, there is not a formal fair housing training program and
there is limited expertise on fair housing issues. An action program in this Element directs the
City to provide fair housing training to staff, and to improve web-based and print media
resources to inform residents of their rights and obligations under the Fair Housing Act. Fair
housing information will also be included in the City’s newsletter.
170
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-5
Integration and Segregation
Race and Ethnicity
Chapter 3 of the Housing Element provides an overview of the racial composition of Rolling Hills
and the surrounding region. In addition, Table A-1 below shows race and ethnicity data for
Rolling Hills and the region (in this case Los Angeles County) for 2010 and 2020.
Relative to Los Angeles County and the greater Los Angeles region, Rolling Hills has a higher
percentage of White and Asian residents, and a lower percentage of Black and Hispanic
residents. This is also true of the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Rolling Hills has
have seen an increase in Asian and multi-racial residents over the last 20 years, but the
aggregate Black and Hispanic population is 8.3 percent compared to a countywide figure of 55.6
percent. The percentage of residents who are two or more races more than doubled in Rolling
Hills between 2010 and 2020, which is a much faster rate of increase than the county as a
whole. However, given the city’s small population, even a few households can cause
percentages to shift noticeably. The most significant change is that the number of White, Non-
Hispanic households in the city declined from 74.1 percent to 64.9 percent over the decade.
Countywide, this percentage dropped from 27.8 percent to 25.6 percent, a smaller rate of
decrease.
Table A-1: Population Share by Race and Ethnicity, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Percent of Residents by Race
in Rolling Hills
Percent of Residents by Race
in Los Angeles County
2010 2020 2010 2020
White Non-Hispanic 74.1% 64.9% 27.8% 25.6%
Hispanic/Latino 5.5% 7.0% 47.7% 48.0%
Black 1.5% 1.3% 8.3% 7.6%
Native American 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%
Asian 16.2% 20.4% 13.5% 14.7%
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%
Other 0.2% 0.7% 0.3% 0.6%
Two or More Races 2.4% 5.6% 2.0% 3.1%
Sources: US Decennial Census, 2010 and 2020.
171
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-6
Since the City is comprised of a single Census tract block group, this data is most useful on a
regional basis. Census tracts located several miles to the east and north of Rolling Hills, in
Lomita, and in the San Pedro and Wilmington neighborhoods of Los Angeles, are more diverse.
Some of the Census tracts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have larger percentages of Asian
residents, making them majority non-White.
Figure A-2 shows the “diversity index” for Census tract block groups in and around Rolling Hills.
The index is an indicator of racial and ethnic diversity within a given geographic area. It
considers both race and ethnicity (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic). The higher an area’s number, the
more diverse it is. The index ranges from zero (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). An
area’s diversity is 100 when the population is evenly divided into different race/ethnic groups.
The Table indicates an index of 48.4 for Rolling Hills, indicating it is somewhat diverse. The
rating is comparable to many other census tracts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Some tracts in
Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes are more diverse, while several tracts in Palos
Verdes Estates are less diverse. The diversity index is considerably higher in the more
urbanized tracts in San Pedro and the Harbor neighborhoods to the east.
Persons with Disabilities
Chapter 3 of the Housing Element provides information on the number of people with disabilities
by disability type in Rolling Hills. Roughly 10.6 percent of the city’s population has one or more
disabilities compared to 9.9 percent in Los Angeles County as a whole. The higher local
percentage is likely a result of the older population in Rolling Hills, where the median age is 55
compared to the County average of 36.5. This is further supported by the data shown in Table
A-2, which indicates that the percentage of residents with a hearing disability and an ambulatory
disability is higher in Rolling Hills than in the county as a whole. Conversely, a smaller
percentage of Rolling Hills residents have cognitive disabilities, vision disabilities, and self-care
limitations.
Figure A-3 shows census tract maps for Rolling Hills and the surrounding area indicating the
percentage of residents who are disabled. As Figure A-3 indicates, Rolling Hills appears within
the 10-20 percent interval on the map, which is comparable to the percentage in Rancho Palos
Verdes, Lomita, and the San Pedro and Wilmington neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Most of the
other Census tracts in the vicinity, including those comprising the majority of Rolling Hills
Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and Torrance, are in the less than 10 percent interval. However,
the difference is marginal, with Rolling Hills being less than one percentage point above the 10
percent threshold. Given that the population of Rolling Hills is significantly older than the county
as a whole, the rate of disability in the city is relatively low. Compared to the disabled population
in the region at large, the city’s disabled residents have greater access to medical care and
supportive services as a result of higher household incomes and the generational wealth
accrued through home ownership and equity.
The special housing needs of persons with disabilities are addressed in Section 3.3.2 of the
Housing Element.
172
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-7
Table A-2: Percentage of Residents with a Disability, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Percent of Residents
in Rolling Hills
Percent of Residents
in Los Angeles County
2010 2020 2010 2020
Total with a Disability N/A 10.6% 9.3% 9.9%
Hearing N/A 3.7% 2.3% 2.5%
Vision N/A 1.3% 1.8% 2.0%
Cognitive N/A 2.1% 3.6% 4.1%
Ambulatory N/A 6.9% 5.2% 5.8%
Self-Care N/A 2.3% 2.6% 3.0%
Independent Living N/A 5.0% 4.1% 5.6%
Sources: US Decennial Census, American Community Survey, Five Year Averages for 2010 and 2020. ACS 2010 indicates no data
for Rolling Hills (“X”).
173
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-8
174
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-9
175
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-10
176
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-11
Familial Status
The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of familial status. This refers
to the presence of children in a household, regardless of the relationship of the child to the adult
members of the household. It also includes pregnant women and persons in the process of
obtaining legal custody of a child. Housing that is exclusively reserved for seniors is exempt
from these requirements.
Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to someone because they
have a child or are a single parent, evicting a tenant if they have a child, or requiring families
with children to live in a specific part of a multi-family building. Advertising that prohibits
children also is prohibited.
Relative to Los Angeles County as a whole, Rolling Hills has about the same percentage of
married couples with children but much lower percentages of single parent households. The
2015-2019 ACS indicated there are five single parent female households with children in Rolling
Hills. Despite the small number, single parent households may have special needs due to
having only one income, as well as greater needs for child care and other supportive services
(see Housing Element Section 3.3.4). These obstacles can limit net income and prevent most
single parents from being able to live in Rolling Hills.
Table A-3 shows familial status in Rolling Hills relative to Los Angeles County. The table
compares the percentage of households in different categories, including families, married
couples, other households, and non-families (including persons living alone).
Table A-3: Population by Familial Status, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Percent of Total
in Rolling Hills
Percent of Total in
Los Angeles County
2010 2020 2010 2020
Family Households 81.9% 78.7% 67.3% 66.4%
Married Couples (75.2%) (68.5%) (44.5%) (44.8%)
With children
under 18 at home 30.1% 17.8% 21.6% 18.8%
Without children
under 18 at home 45.1% 50.7% 22.9% 26.0%
Other Families (6.7%) (10.2%) (22.9%) (21.5%)
With children
under 18 at home 2.8% 3.1% 11.2% 8.8%
Without children
under 18 at home 2.9% 7.1% 11.7% 12.7%
Non-family Households 18.1% 21.3% 32.7% 33.6%
Sources: American Community Survey, Five Year Averages for 2010 and 2020. All percentages refer to the percentage of total
households in Rolling Hills in the listed category. Because the categories are “nested”, the numbers add up to more than 100
percent.
177
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-12
Relative to Los Angeles County as a whole, Rolling Hills has a much higher percentage of
married couples. However, the percentage of married couples with children at home is about
the same as the countywide average, and has declined substantially since 2010. More than half
of the city’s households are married couples with no children living at home, compared to 26
percent countywide. Only 10 percent of the city’s households are “other” families (mostly single
parent households), which is less than half the countywide average. Rolling Hills also has a far
smaller percentage of non-family households than Los Angeles County, representing 21 percent
of the city compared to 34 percent countywide. The city’s demographics are indicative of a
relatively stable, older population with smaller households than the county as a whole.
Figure A-4 shows familial status in Rolling Hills and surrounding areas. As the map indicates,
the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula is in the same category as Rolling Hills, which corresponds to
80 percent or more of all children living in married couple households. The rate is considerably
lower in adjacent cities in Los Angeles County but is still at least 60 percent in most of the South
Bay cities. Rates below 60 percent occur in some of the census tracts in the Harbor area of Los
Angeles, including San Pedro. Rates below 60 percent are also found beyond the South Bay, in
locations such as Compton, Inglewood, Carson, Northern and Central Long Beach, and South
Central Los Angeles. These are generally lower resource areas, with higher rates of poverty
and unemployment, and lower rates of home ownership.
Income Level
Activities funded by federal community development and housing programs are typically
designed to benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons. For example, activities qualify for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding if they benefit the residents of a primarily
residential area where at least 51 percent of the residents are low- and moderate-income.
Accordingly, HCD has used Census income data to map these areas by Census block group.
This is shown in Figure A-5.
The Figure illustrates that there are no LMI areas in Rolling Hills or in any of the adjacent
communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Fewer than 25 percent of Rolling Hills’ residents
are LMI. While there are a few block groups in Rancho Palos Verdes that are 25-50 percent,
none exceed 51 percent. There are multiple LMI block groups in San Pedro and the Harbor
neighborhoods east of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. There are also LMI areas in Lomita and
Torrance to the north.
Figure A-6 shows median income by Census block group. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is one of
the most affluent parts of Los Angeles County, with Rolling Hills among the highest income
census tracts in the County.
Figure A-7 shows median income for a larger geographic area, including most of the urbanized
part of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. At the regional level, the Palos Verdes Peninsula
stands out as an affluent area with incomes above $100,000. The Beach cities of Manhattan,
Hermosa, and Redondo Beaches are also in this category, as are numerous census tracts on the
west side of Los Angeles, the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, and Orange County. The
lower income areas are generally located in central and south Los Angeles County, East Los
Angeles, the southeast part of the San Fernando Valley, and the older suburbs in Orange
178
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-13
County. Many of these areas include high concentrations of persons of color who historically
faced discrimination in the housing market.
Comparative income data between the city and region is shown in Table A-4. As the table
indicates, Rolling Hills has a substantially higher income profile than the county, with well over
half of its population earning over $200,000 a year, compared to 11 percent in the county as a
whole. By contrast, only 15 percent of the city’s households earn less than $50,000 a year,
compared to 36 percent countywide. However, it is notable that the percentage of households
in Rolling Hills earning less than $25,000 a year grew from 4.5 percent of the population in 2010
to 6.4 percent in 2020. This is likely due to the growing number of households aging in place
and living on fixed incomes. Countywide, the percentage of households in this category
declined over the decade, from 24 percent to 18 percent.
Table A-4: Household Share by Income, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Percent of Residents by Income
in Rolling Hills
Percent of Residents by Income
in Los Angeles County
2010 2020 2010 2020
Less than $10,000 1.5% 1.5% 6.8% 5.5%
$10,000-$14,999 0.7% 2.7% 6.1% 4.6%
$15,000-$24,999 2.3% 2.2% 11.1% 7.8%
$25,000-$34,999 4.8% 4.7% 9.7% 7.6%
$35,000-$49,999 2.5% 4.5% 13.5% 10.7%
$50,000-$74,999 4.9% 3.3% 17.4% 15.8%
$75,000-$99,999 4.9% 3.5% 11.7% 12.3%
$100,000-$149,999 14.1% 12.0% 12.8% 16.3%
$150,000-$199,999 11.0% 12.0% 5.3% 8.2%
$200,000 or More 53.3% 53.6% 5.5% 11.1%
Median Income $219,688 $250,000+ $52,684 $71,358
Sources: American Community Survey, Five-Year Averages, 2010 and 2020
179
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-14
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence
Racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty –or R/ECAPs—are census tracts identified by
HUD with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and poverty rates that
exceed 40 percent or are three times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area,
whichever is lower. Figure A-8 shows the location of R/ECAP areas in southern Los Angeles
County, including the City of Los Angeles.
The largest concentration of R/ECAP areas in the County are in and around Downtown Los
Angeles, the neighborhoods south of Downtown, and a few tracts in the Harbor area and Long
Beach. There are no R/ECAP areas on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
HCD also has identified “racially concentrated areas of affluence” (RCAAs). These are areas
that exhibit both high concentrations of White residents and high concentrations of wealth. With
a population that is 70 percent White, Non-Hispanic and a median income of over $250,000, all
of Rolling Hills is considered an RCAA. Large areas of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills
Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes also meet the RCAA criteria. Other parts of Los Angeles
County considered to be RCAAs include Malibu, Santa Monica, Bel Air/ Brentwood, Westwood,
Beverly Hills, and adjacent parts of the West Side, as well as La Canada-Flintridge and several
other outlying communities.
180
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-15
Figure A-4:
Familial Status
181
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-16
182
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-17
183
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-18
184
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-19
185
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-20
Historic Context
Like many communities in Southern California, Rolling Hills reflects cultural and social norms of
the era in which the city was founded and initially developed. These norms predated the Fair
Housing Act and civil rights movement and included practices that excluded certain racial and
ethnic groups from purchasing property.
As Table A-5 indicates, Rolling Hills is almost exclusively comprised of single family homes.
Even between 2010 and 2020, the composition of the City’s housing stock did not change
significantly. In Los Angeles County, fewer than half of the housing units are single family
detached homes and more than one-third are in multi-family buildings. The county as a whole
has seen the share of multi-family units go up over time. By contrast, the California Department
of Finance reports that 99.9 percent of the dwelling units in Rolling Hills are single family homes.
Table A-5: Housing Units by Type, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Number/Percent of Total
in Rolling Hills
Number/Percent of Total
In Los Angeles County
2010 2020 2010 2020
Single Family Detached 715
99.9%
718
99.9%
1,717,448
49.9%
1,732,045
48.2%
Single Family Attached 0 0 228,560
6.6%
234,107
6.5%
2-4 units 0 0 282,178
8.2%
295,700
8.2%
5+ units 1(*)
0.01%
1(*)
0.01%
1,156,648
33.6%
1,270,425
35.4%
Mobile Homes 0 0 58,253
1.7%
58,297
1.6%
TOTAL 716 719 3,443,087 3,590,574
Source: California Dept of Finance Table E-5, 2010 and 2020.
Note: (*) The State’s data indicates that there is a building with five or more units in Rolling Hills. This is incorrect, as there are no
multi-family units in Rolling Hills at this time.
The history of Rolling Hills is linked to broader early 20th Century efforts to develop the 16,000-
acre Palos Verdes Peninsula as a master planned community. Prior to 1910, the entire area was
farm and ranchland. Several development concepts were proposed in the 1910s and 20s,
including a plan to divide the peninsula into large estates (Vanderlip, 1914) and the “Palos
Verdes Project,” which eventually became the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Long before Rolling
Hills was subdivided, the Peninsula had gained a reputation as the “Riviera of America” and was
renowned as an exclusive and beautiful place to live.1
1 Morgan, Delane. The Palos Verdes Story, 1982
186
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-21
A.E. Hanson became manager of the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1931. He laid out the
boundaries of a development named Rolling Hills, just beyond the boundaries of the Palos
Verdes Project. The community was initially marketed to residents of Los Angeles and Beverly
Hills as 10 to 50 acre “dude ranches.”2 In 1936, it was reimagined as an equestrian community
of one- to five-acre homesites. The initial development included 100 homesites on 600 acres.
All homes were required to be one-story ranches, painted white, a requirement that remains in
place today. The Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were a strong part of the
community’s appeal, as they assured maintenance and uniformity throughout the years.
Rolling Hills was subdivided by a single large owner. In that respect, it is more akin to a large
residential subdivision, rather than a traditional city or town with multiple land uses, developers,
and housing types. Moreover, its first generation of housing consisted of modest one-story
ranch-style homes, including homes smaller than 2,000 square feet. Multi-family housing was
excluded from the community to retain its rural, equestrian character and to recognize what was
then a remote and rugged location with no services. As a community of small horse ranches
with no sewer system, high fire danger, and private streets, construction of multi-family housing
would not have made economic sense.
As the Palos Verdes Peninsula was built out at suburban densities in the 1950s and 60s, Rolling
Hills retained its very low density zoning. Some of the adjacent cities on the Peninsula added
multi-family housing, but the established lot pattern in Rolling Hills and its CC&Rs made this
infeasible. In this respect, the CC&Rs had an exclusionary impact on the community. The City
incorporated in 1957 to further protect its very low-density character. As this became a rarer
commodity in southern Los Angeles County, real estate values increased substantially. Much of
the original 1930s and 40s era housing stock was replaced with newer, larger housing with
many more amenities. The city became a “location of choice” and became less affordable.
These changes were largely economic and driven by the dynamics of the private real estate
market. They occurred after the passage of the Fair Housing Act and the era of redlining.
However, the conditions were compounded by historic inequities in access to capital among
racial monitories and a legacy of discriminatory lending practices in the United States. Housing
opportunities for lower income households have not historically existed in the city. The city’s
identity and history is rooted in its low density, rural character and equestrian heritage.
Fair housing solutions that reflect the City’s history and character can and should be pursued.
These include creating housing opportunities on the recently rezoned Rancho Del Mar site, and
encouraging greater production of accessory dwelling units in the community. They also
include enforcement of fair housing laws and increased awareness of fair housing rights and
practices, as well as the history of housing practices in California.
2 Rolling Hills General Plan Land Use Element, 1990
187
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-22
Access to Opportunity
California HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened a task
force to advance fair housing through research and policy recommendations. One of the
products of this effort was a series of “opportunity maps” that identify resource levels across the
state. The intent of these maps is to improve the eligibility of “high resource areas” for low-
income housing tax credit funding. Improving access to these funds makes it more viable to
build affordable housing in these areas.
The opportunity maps depict composite data on environmental conditions (vulnerability to
pollution, etc.), economic conditions (poverty, job proximity, home values), and educational
conditions (graduation rates, math and reading proficiency, etc.). HCD has made these maps
available through its AFFH data viewer. Conditions in Rolling Hills are depicted in Figures A-9
through A-12. On all of these maps, each census tract is assigned a value based on its level of
resources. The higher the value, the more positive the outcome.
TCAC Environmental Outcomes
In this context, environmental conditions refers to environmental health and exposure to man-
made hazards such as vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and cancer-causing chemicals. It
does not refer to natural environmental hazards such as wildfire and landslides.
Figure A-9 indicates that outcomes in Rolling Hills are positive, as the community does not have
industrial land uses or major pollution sources. Rolling Hills has an environmental score of 0.97,
which is close to the highest possible score of 1.0. All of the Census tracts on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula have scores of 0.75 or greater. Rolling Hills Estates also receives a 0.97 rating, while
Rancho Palos Verdes varies from 0.82 to 0.98. Just two miles east of the city limits, near the
Phillips 66 refinery, the environmental score is 0.03. Refineries and heavy industrial uses along
the 110 Freeway and in the Port of Los Angeles vicinity result in low environmental rankings in a
number of Census tracts around San Pedro and Wilmington. Scores are also below 0.50 around
the Zamperini Airfield in Torrance, and in parts of Downtown Long Beach.
The City also is in the highest-ranking category using the Cal EnviroScreen maps and is highly
ranked on the Public Health Alliance of Southern California “Healthy Places Index.”
Environmental outcome values are also high in the other Peninsula cities. Exposure to
environmental hazards is much higher along the freeways and in the Harbor area, where
industrial uses and refineries are more prevalent.
TCAC Economic Outcomes
Figure A-10 shows economic outcomes in southern Los Angeles County. This is generally a
measure of wealth and access to jobs. Rolling Hills and all of the Peninsula cities are in the
highest category, reflecting high rates of home ownership, high home values, and high incomes.
The census tracts to the east have more diverse ratings, with low ratings in Northwest San
Pedro and Wilmington.
The TCAC Opportunity Score for Rolling Hills is 0.86, which is in the highest of the four quartiles
shown on the opportunity map. Neighboring census tracts in Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho
188
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-23
Palos Verdes have comparable scores, generally ranging from 0.75 to 0.95. Just to the east, in
the Harbor neighborhoods of Los Angeles, the economic index is as low as 0.04 in some census
tracts. Areas of strongly positive and much less positive economic outcomes exist in close
proximity in this area, a legacy of historic land use and development patterns. To the north of
Rolling Hills, the City of Torrance has economic opportunity scores that are comparable to the
Palos Verdes Peninsula, despite a more moderate-income profile. Torrance is predominantly
White and Asian, while the Harbor neighborhoods are primarily Latino, an indication that race
and ethnicity have influenced economic opportunity in the area.
TCAC Educational Outcomes
Educational outcomes are shown in Figure A-11. Rolling Hills is in highest quartile, with positive
educational outcomes. The City’s score is 0.96, on a scale of zero to 1.0. This reflects the
community’s high wealth and access to education. Adjacent neighborhoods in Rolling Hills
Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes have identical scores, while scores in the beach cities to the
north are even higher. Conversely, scores step down in several bands moving to the east, with
the third quartile just east of Rolling Hills, then the second quartile, and then the lowest quartile
in San Pedro roughly four miles east. Low outcomes also appear in Wilmington and the
neighborhoods around the Port of Los Angeles.
Transportation
Public transportation to and from Rolling Hills is poor and there is no transit service at all within
the city limits. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority operates buses along Palos Verdes
Road North, which serve the northern edge of the city and provide service to the Peninsula’s
commercial centers as well as San Pedro. Connecting service is available along those routes to
other transit systems (including the Metro Silver Line in San Pedro), providing connections to
Los Angeles and other regional destinations. However, given the distance and travel time, these
are not generally viable means of transport to workplaces. US Census data indicates that zero
percent (0.0%) of the city’s residents use public transit to commute to work.
189
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-24
Composite Opportunity Map
Figure A-12 is a composite of the TCAC analysis, taking the three above variables into
consideration. The Figure affirms what is shown in Figures A-9, -10, and -11. Rolling Hills is a
high-resource, high opportunity area, with positive environmental health indicators, positive
economic outcomes for its residents, and access to quality education. Because of the city’s
small size, these opportunities are homogenously distributed across the community. The same
conditions are found in the other Palos Verdes Peninsula neighborhoods, some of which have
even higher composite scores than Rolling Hills.
Figure A-12 provides a more regional perspective than Figures A-9, -10, and -11. The pattern
immediately evident on this map is that the coastal communities of Los Angeles County are
almost all in the highest resource category. There is a swath of moderate and low resource
neighborhoods extending from Downtown Los Angeles southward to the Port of Los Angeles.
Areas extending from Central LA southward are highlighted on the map as having high
segregation and poverty rates, corresponding with the lowest level of opportunity. Moving
further east, the pattern becomes more diffuse, with a patchwork of high, moderate, and low
resource areas extending toward the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County.
The high opportunity ranking given to Rolling Hills was part of SCAG’s rationale for assigning the
city a large allocation in the 6th Cycle RHNA. The base number of units assigned to the city by
SCAG was calibrated upward based on their “social equity adjustment,” resulting in Rolling Hills’
45 units (compared to six units in 2013-2021). This reflects several mandated objectives of the
RHNA methodology, including promoting socio-economic equity and balancing disproportionate
household income distribution across the region.
As indicated earlier in this analysis, the Rancho Del Mar School site provides the best location to
improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing within Rolling Hills. The site
has the potential to improve economic outcomes for lower income households by providing
affordable housing in a high-resource area.
190
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-25
191
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-26
192
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-27
193
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-28
194
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-29
Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs” refer to conditions in which members of a protected class
within a defined geographic area experience much higher housing needs than the population at
large.3 Following HCD guidance, the analysis to identify disproportionate needs considers cost
burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions. Much of this data also is contained
in the Housing Element Needs Assessment (Chapter 3), but the focus here is on extremely low-
income residents, tenure, and persons of color. As noted in earlier sections of this Appendix,
the analysis for Rolling Hills is hampered by the small size of the community and the fact that it
contains only one Census Block Group. The margin of error for American Community Survey
(ACS) data for the city is high, and the number of residents in protected classes is small. Where
available, maps are used to compare data for Rolling Hills with data for surrounding
communities.
Tenure and Tenure by Race
Table A-6 shows tenure in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County as a whole. Relative to the
region, Rolling Hills has a much higher rate of homeownership. The rate exceeded 95 percent in
2020, compared to 46 percent regionally. As in the County, the percentage of renters increased
slightly between 2010 and 2020, but the number remains very small.
Rates of home ownership often vary by race and ethnicity. Regionally and nationally, the rate of
home ownership is substantially lower for Black/African-American households than it is for White
households. This is not the case in Rolling Hills. The 2015-2019 ACS indicates that 100 percent
of the Hispanic, Black, and multi-racial households in the city are homeowners. For White
households, 95 percent are homeowners and 5 percent are renters. Among Asian households,
98 percent are homeowners and 2 percent are renters.
Table A-6: Housing Tenure in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Percent of Households
in Rolling Hills
Percent of Households
in Los Angeles County
2010 2020 2010 2020
Owners 96.9% 95.1% 46.9% 46.0%
Renters 3.1% 4.9% 53.1% 54.0%
Sources: American Community Survey Five-year averages for 2010 and 2020
3 The protected classes are race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability.
195
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-30
Cost Burden
As noted in Chapter 3, a household is considered cost burdened if more than 30 percent of its
income is spent on housing (including utilities). Figures A-13 and A-14 depict the incidence of
cost burden for owners and renters in Rolling Hills and surrounding communities. Table 3.9 (in
Chapter 3) indicates the percent of income spent on housing for homeowners with a mortgage,
homeowners without a mortgage, and renters. Roughly 31 percent of the city’s households are
considered cost-burdened, but most have above moderate incomes.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes data on the number of
households that are cost-burdened in each community using federally-defined income
categories. This is referred to as the CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy)
data. According to the CHAS 2014-2018 data, there are 100 low- and very low-income
households in Rolling Hills (i.e., earning 80 percent or less of the areawide median income
[AMI]). These households include 83 who were cost-burdened, including 65 who were defined
as being “severely” cost-burdened (spending more than half their incomes on housing).
CHAS data indicates that 78 of the cost-burdened lower-income households were homeowners
and the remainder were renters. The relatively high number of cost-burdened low-income
homeowners is likely associated with retired seniors on fixed incomes, who must still pay
property taxes, utilities, insurance, HOA dues and other housing costs—even after their
mortgages are paid off. These expenses may be several thousand dollars a month. In fact, the
CHAS data indicates that there are 25 extremely low-income households in Rolling Hills (earning
less than 30% of AMI), all of whom are homeowners. The most recent available CHAS data
indicates that there are no extremely low-income renters in the city.
CHAS data identifies 10 very low-income renter households in the city (30-50% of AMI), along
with 30 very low-income owners. Seventy-five percent of these households pay more than 30%
of their incomes on rent.
As illustrated in Figures A-13 and A-14, the incidence of cost burden is somewhat lower in
Rolling Hills than it is in adjacent communities, including those on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Figure A-13, which is based on American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2015-2019,
identifies Rolling Hills as being in the 20-40% overpayment interval for homeowners. In other
words, between 20 and 40 percent of its owner-occupied households spend more than 30
percent of their incomes on housing. The city is surrounded on all sides by census tracts with
rates in the 40-60% interval. This is not an indication that homes in Rolling Hills are more
affordable, but rather a reflection of the length of residency and the large number of
homeowners in Rolling Hills who have no mortgages. About 37 percent of the city’s
homeowners have lived in their homes for over 30 years. Rates of homeowner overpayment are
higher in the San Pedro area of Los Angeles, several miles east of Rolling Hills and in lower
income census tracts throughout Central Los Angeles County. On the other hand, the rate in
Rolling Hills is comparable to many cities in the county, including Torrance, Carson, Palos
Verdes Estates, and the Beach cities to the north.
Figure A-14, which is also based on ACS data for 2015-2019, identifies Rolling Hills as also
being in the 20-40% overpayment interval for renters. However, this is based on a sample of a
very small demographic, since there are only 27 renter households in the entire city. As Figure
196
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-31
A-14 indicates, the rate of overpayment is significantly higher in the portion of Rancho Palos
Verdes located immediately east of the city, and in the portion of Rolling Hills Estates located
immediately west of the city. There are also nearby tracts with overpayment rates that are less
than 20 percent. On a regional basis, the percentage of renter overpayment in Rolling Hills is
low. Most tracts in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the larger suburban cities have rates in the 40
to 60 percent range. Rolling Hills renters tend to be more affluent, and are typically renting
single family homes rather than apartments.
Cost-burden data is also shown in Table A-7 below. As the table indicates, most extremely low-
income households in Rolling Hills were considered severely cost-burdened in both 2010 and
2020. Most lower income homeowners and many lower income renters (i.e., those earning 80
percent of areawide median or lower) were also cost-burdened. Rates of cost-burden were
even higher in Rolling Hills than in the county as a whole. However, the data for Rolling Hills in
Table A-7 is based on a very small number of households, leading to a high statistical margin of
error (for instance there are only 10 lower income renter households in the city). At a
countywide level, about 63 percent of all low-income homeowners and 75 percent of all low-
income renters are cost-burdened.
Table A-7: Percentage of Cost-Burdened Households, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles
County
Percent of Households
in Rolling Hills (*)
Percent of Households
in Los Angeles County
2008-2012 2014-2018 2008-2012 2014-2018
Cost-burdened households earning less than 80% AMI (low income)
Owners
Paying > 30% 78.8% 86.7% 66.3% 63.1%
Paying > 50% 61.2% 66.7% 44.3% 40.2%
Renters
Paying >30% 100.0% 80.0% 73.3% 75.1%
Paying > 50% 0% 40.0% 43.0% 44.5%
Cost-burdened households earning less than 30% AMI (extremely low income)
Owners
Paying > 30% 100.0% 76.0% 74.7% 75.4%
Paying > 50% 100.0% 60.0% 62.4% 63.0%
Renters
Paying > 30% 100.0% 0% 82.4% 81.7%
Paying > 50% 0% 0% 70.4% 70.2%
Sources: CHAS HUD User website, data for 2008-2012 and 2014-2018. Data for Rolling Hills indicates 4 lower income renter
households in 2008-2012 and 10 lower income renter households in 2014-2018
197
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-32
Overcrowding
As noted in Chapter 3, a household is considered overcrowded it the housing unit it occupies
has more than one person per room, excluding kitchens and bathrooms. As noted on page 3-
11, only one percent of the city’s households meet this definition. There are no households in
the city that meet the definition of “severe” overcrowding, which is more than 1.5 persons per
room. Moreover, the data indicates that none of the renter-occupied households in the city
were overcrowded. There were six owner-occupied units with more than one person per room.
Figure A-15 shows this information spatially, illustrating that units on the Palos Verdes Peninsula
are generally not overcrowded. All of the tracts in all four Peninsula cities have overcrowding
rates below 8.2 percent, which is the statewide average. Units in the more urbanized areas to
the east, with higher percentages of renters and smaller housing units, are more likely to be
overcrowded. Tracts in the Wilmington and San Pedro areas have rates exceeding 20 percent
in some cases. Further north, tracts in South Central Los Angeles, Compton, Southgate,
Lynwood, Compton, and other more diverse and lower income communities have higher rates
of overcrowding.
Table A-8 shows household overcrowding in Rolling Hills and the region.
Table A-8: Overcrowded Households, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County
Percent of Households
in Rolling Hills
Percent of Residents
in Los Angeles County
2010 2020 2010 2020
Owner Households
Less than 1.0
persons per room 99.5% 99.4% 93.9% 94.3%
1.01-1.50 persons
per room 0.5% 0.6% 4.6% 4.1%
1.51-2.00 persons
per room 0 0 1.1% 1.1%
2.01 or more
persons per room 0 0 0.3% 0.5%
Renter Households
Less than 1.0
persons per room 100.0% 100.0% 82.4% 84.0%
1.01-1.50 persons
per room 0 0 9.8% 8.5%
1.51-2.00 persons
per room 0 0 5.2% 5.3%
2.01 or more
persons per room 0 0 2.6% 2.2%
Sources: American Community Survey Five-Year averages for 2010 and 2020
198
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-33
Table A-8 confirms that rates of overcrowding are much lower in Rolling Hills than in Los
Angeles County, with no overcrowded rental units and only 0.5 percent of the owner-occupied
units meeting the Census definition of overcrowding. Moreover, the data indicates almost no
change between 2010 and 2020. By contrast, the countywide data shows that about 6 percent
of owner-occupied units and 16 percent of rental units are considered overcrowded. In most
cases, the percentages did not change significantly between 2010 and 2020.
Housing Problems
The HUD CHAS data indicates how many households in each community experience one of four
specific housing problems—these problems are (a) lack of a complete kitchen; (b) lack of
complete plumbing facilities; (c) overcrowding; and (d) severe cost burden (paying more than 50
percent of income on housing). According to CHAS data for 2014-2018, there are about 110
owner-occupied households in Rolling Hills and four renter households in Rolling Hills with one
or more of these problems. Since all housing units in the city have kitchens and baths, and only
six are overcrowded, the primary problem experienced is a severe housing cost burden. The
CHAS data indicates there are 105 owner-occuped households with a severe housing cost
burden. Most of these are lower-income senior households
Figure A-16 shows this data on a regional level. The rate of housing problems is higher in
Rolling Hills than it is in the other Palos Verdes Peninsula cities, due to the high percentage of
senior homeowners living on fixed incomes and paying substantial portions of their incomes on
housing. However, the city’s rate is comparable to other affluent areas on the west side of Los
Angeles and is lower than in the neighborhoods and communities immediately south and
immediately east of Los Angeles.
199
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-34
200
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-35
201
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-36
202
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-37
203
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-38
Displacement Risk
Figure A-17 illustrates “sensitive communities” in the southern half of Los Angeles County.
These are communities with relatively high risks of displacement due to rising rents and a lack of
tenant protection. None of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities are shown as vulnerable. On the
other hand, most of the tracts in the City of Los Angeles, including the San Pedro and
Wilmington communities, are shown as vulnerable. The entire South-Central area of Los
Angeles is vulnerable, as are nearby communities such as Compton, Inglewood, and Hawthorne.
As depicted on Figure A-17, vulnerable communities are communities in which at least 20
percent of the population is low income and two or more of the following conditions are present:
• Renters are over 40% of all households
• People of color are 50% or more of the population
• Share of severely cost-burdened very low income renters is above county median
• Rents have been increasing at faster rate than county median
• Larger than average gap between local rents and rents in surrounding tracts
These conditions are not present in Rolling Hills.
Figure A-17: Sensitive Communities
Census tracts in
purple are
designated as
“vulnerable” due
to displacement
risk
ROLLING HILLS
204
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-39
Due to the very high percentage of home ownership, Rolling Hills does not face displacement
risk. Displacement may occur due to other reasons, such as an aging household unable to
maintain their property or afford the modifications needed to age in place.
Homelessness
Homelessness in Rolling Hills is addressed in Section 3.4.8 of the Housing Element (Chapter 3).
As indicated there, the annual point-in-time count for Los Angeles residents identified no
unhoused residents in the city in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020. Figure A-18 shows the
spatial extent of homelessness at a regional level based on data provided by the County of Los
Angeles. The table shows that there were three unhoused residents per square mile in all four
of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities. The density is highest in Downtown Los Angeles, Venice,
and various neighborhoods on LA’s West Side and South Central areas. Some of these areas
have more than 500 unhoused residents per square mile. The relatively low densities on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula reflect the absence of shelter facilities, supportive services, non-
residential land, and public lands where outdoor camping might occur.
Other Populations with Special Needs
Chapter 3 of the Housing Element identifies special needs populations in Rolling Hills. The
principal special needs group is older adults, with one-third of the city’s population over 65. As
noted in Section 3.3.1, 56 percent of the households in Rolling Hills include at least one person
who is 65 or older. Most of the persons with disabilities and all of the extremely low income
households in the city are seniors. Rolling Hills has a very small number of single parents and
large households, and it does not have farmworkers.
205
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-40
206
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-41
Other Relevant Factors
The State’s guidance for AFFH requires that other relevant factors contributing to fair housing
issues be evaluated as part of this analysis. As explained in the next section, the principal
contributing factor is that Rolling Hills was developed as an equestrian community in which
multi-family residential uses were not permitted. The city’s single family character was
reinforced by minimum lot size requirements (one acre) and a (now repealed) prohibition on
Accessory Dwelling Units which made it difficult for low and moderate income persons to afford
housing in the community. These requirements effectively limited the rental housing supply to
very expensive single family homes and resulted in a tenure pattern in which more than 97
percent of the households in the city are homeowners.
Governmental spending on affordable housing and the implementation of housing programs is
severely limited by the small size of the city (fewer than 700 homes), the lack of any tax-
generating land uses other than housing, the high cost of land and construction, and severe
environmental hazards in the community. Historically, there have no instances of transportation
or infrastructure improvements causing the displacement of lower income households. As
documented in Chapter 5 of the Housing Element, there are no public streets in the city and
almost no properties served by sanitary sewers. This has been an impediment to the
development of multi-family housing.
The high cost of housing in Rolling Hills has historically precluded low- and moderate-income
households from living in the city, unless they were home care providers, domestic employees,
persons renting a room, family members, or seniors without a mortgage. Additionally, lending
practices historically favored White borrowers, making the city less diverse than the county and
region. This has changed in the past few decades and Rolling Hills has become more racially
diverse. However, the city has not become economically diverse.
Based on Census (ACS 2015-2019) data, there are not significant differences in the rates of
home ownership among different race and ethnic groups in Rolling Hills. As shown in Table A-9,
the data indicates that all Black and Latino households in the city are homeowners, and that all
renter households in the city are White or Asian. However, the findings are based on sample
data and the sample sizes are very small. The greater takeaway is that housing in the city
continues to be affordable only to very high income households.
Table A-9: Rolling Hills Home Ownership Rates by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Owners Renters Total % Owners
White, Non-Hispanic 360 8 368 98%
Asian, Non-Hispanic 101 16 117 86%
Black, Non-Hispanic 9 0 9 100%
Hispanic/Latino 28 0 28 100%
Two or more races 35 3 38 92%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (2022)
207
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-42
Local Data and Knowledge
HCD’s guidance for the AFFH analysis indicates that cities should use local data and knowledge
to analyze fair housing issues, including information obtained through community participation
or consultation. The regional demographic data help show spatial patterns but do not expressly
explain why problems exist. An additional screen of local insights is necessary to complement
federal and state data sources.
While there is no specific local data on fair housing, the circumstances behind the spatial
patterns shown throughout this analysis are mostly self-evident. The city was master planned
more than 80 years ago as a low-density equestrian community with large parcels marketed to
prospective homeowners. Rental housing was not included in these plans and CC&Rs were
drafted and enforced to maintain single family character. The lack of sewers, risk of wildfire and
landslides, and absence of public streets created further disincentives for multi-family housing,
while also increasing construction costs. More recently, the high cost of land has made
affordable housing construction economically infeasible, which will continue to be an
impediment in the future.
Rolling Hills is also an entirely residential community. There are no private businesses in the city
limits, except for a handful of home-based occupations. Employment is associated with the
PVPTA maintenance yard, the Rancho Del Mar school building, the Fire Station, and the City
Hall/ Rolling Hills Community Association buildings, which collectively employ just over 100
people. Housing demand is not generated by businesses within the city. There are no
underused commercial sites to be repurposed for housing, since there have never been
commercial land uses in the city.
Rolling Hills does generate demand for services that create jobs, including low-income jobs.
Local homeowners provide employment for caregivers and home health care workers, au pairs
and home child care providers, landscapers and domestic workers, personal assistants, and
those in the construction trades. Housing for this workforce has been largely unavailable in the
city, although some of these employees may live on-site and are considered part of the primary
household.
Local data and knowledge supports a fair housing strategy that is heavily focused on housing
this population in ADUs, potentially at reduced rents. The service industry population is
generally more racially and ethnically diverse than the city at large. Providing additional ADU
and JADU opportunities would help contribute to the State’s integration and equity goals while
improving access to housing in a high-resource area. It can also reduce commuting and
associated congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
208
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-43
Distribution of Proposed Housing Sites
This section of the AFFH analysis evaluates the City’s site inventory to ensure that the
distribution of sites does not exacerbate patterns of segregation, access to opportunity, and
disproportionate housing needs. The site inventory must be consistent with each community’s
duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
Rolling Hills presents a unique situation in this regard, as the entire city consists of just one
census block group. Data for this one tract indicates that the entire city is in the highest
resource category. The land use pattern is homogenous and consistent in all parts of the city,
and there are no observable disparities in housing condition, demographics, or income at the
neighborhood level.
Additionally, the city’s lower income RHNA is 29 units. While the State mandate calls for
distributing opportunities on multiple sites in each city, the economics of affordable housing
development make this impractical in Rolling Hills. The City is more likely to see affordable units
developed on a single site capable of supporting a critical mass of at least 16 units than on
multiple sites capable of accommodating a few units each.4 The City will distribute affordable
opportunities through a strategy that relies on its housing opportunity site and about a dozen
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on scattered sites.
The development of affordable housing on the Rancho Del Mar site furthers the goals of AB 686
by providing a viable opportunity for affordable housing in a very high resource area. This
opportunity did not exist prior to 2020 when the site was rezoned. Moreover, the City has
adopted provisions to allow the development “by right” creating a path to expedited approval.
As documented in Chapter 4, this is the only viable site in Rolling Hills for higher density housing
given the lack of sewer and a public road system. It is also one of the few sites that is accessible
to transit and evacuation routes.
Meeting the remaining lower income need for affordable units through ADUs is a practical,
effective way to meet the intent of AB 686 while dispersing opportunities across a large
geographic area. By definition, ADUs distribute affordable housing opportunities across the
community rather than concentrating them in a single location. They are also responsive to very
real opportunities in Rolling Hills, resulting from large house sizes, numerous accessory
buildings, a large number of one- and two-person households, and an aging population. The
City’s new ADU program has a demonstrated track record of success, with nine units permitted
in 2021. Continued efforts to support ADUs will allow Rolling Hills to achieve AFFH goals in a
way that is realistic, practical, responsive to local conditions, and produces real results.
4 While the base density for the Rancho Del Mar site is 16 units, the City requires that the site be developed with 100% affordable
housing. Thus, it will be eligible for an 80% State density bonus which would enable 29 units in total.
209
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-44
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors
“Contributing factors” are the underlying forces that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or
increase the severity of fair housing issues. In its AFFH Guidance Memo (2021), HCD has
identified eight contributing factor topic areas, including general outreach, fair housing
enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty, disparity in access to opportunity, disparity in access for persons
with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs and displacement risks, and the site inventory.
Under each of these topic areas, the Guidance memo lists individual issues which can
potentially be addressed by a Housing Element action.
AB 686 requires that the City strategically prioritize the contributing factors and develop
programs that mitigate these factors through its goals, policies, and actions. . HCD generally
groups these actions into the following four categories:
• Housing Mobility Strategies, which consist of removing barriers to housing in areas of
opportunity
• New Housing Choices and Affordability, which include strategies to promote more
housing supply and choices in areas of high opportunity and outside areas of
concentrated poverty
• Place-based strategies to Encourage Community Conservation and Revitalization, which
include approaches to conserve and improve assets in areas with concentrated poverty
and lower opportunities
• Protecting Residents from Displacement, which includes strategies to preserve housing
choices and affordability for residents within low and moderate opportunity areas.
Given that Rolling Hills is a high-resource, high-opportunity area, all of the City’s AFFH strategies
fall in the first two of these categories.
Following is an assessment of factors that could contribute to fair housing issues in Rolling Hills,
along with strategies that mitigate these factors.
Priority 1: Address Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factors:
• Land Use and Zoning Laws
• Lack of Public Investment in Services and Amenities
The City’s highest AFFH priority is to address disparities in access to opportunity. These
disparities have been created primarily by land use and zoning laws, coupled with economic
conditions and environmental hazards that precluded multi-family housing in Rolling Hills.
The City historically has had no rental housing and no housing opportunities for lower and
moderate income households. It has begun to remove land use and zoning barriers by allowing
and encouraging accessory dwelling units, promoting home sharing, rezoning land for multi-
family and special needs housing, and supporting public investments in infrastructure that will
210
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-45
facilitate future housing development. The 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies additional
steps the City will take to mitigate this contributing factor.
Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at mitigating land use and zoning as a
contributing factor include:
• Program 2 supporting the development of affordable multi-family housing on the
Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Site
• Program 4 adding definitions of transitional and supportive housing to the Municipal
Code, to clarify that these uses are subject to the same standards that apply to the other
residential uses in each zoning district
• Program 5 adopting a density bonus ordinance
• Program 6 creating incentives for ADUs
• Program 7 promoting community education on ADUs
• Program 12 supporting outreach to affordable housing service providers and
developers
• Program 13 supporting a shared housing program
Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at mitigating lack of public investment in
services and amenities as a contributing factor include:
• Program 14 calling for sewer feasibility studies and phase one construction of a
sanitary sewer system that would serve City Hall and the community tennis courts and
potential future expansions
• Program 15 calling for potential participation in the CDBG Urban County program,
which could provide a public funding source for infrastructure and housing
improvements
This contributing factor is also mitigated by the designation of the Rancho Del Mar site for multi-
family housing, since this is the only site in the city that has sanitary sewers and access to a
public street. As noted throughout the Housing Element, most of Rolling Hills does not sewer or
public street access.
All of the above programs fall into the “New Housing Choices and Affordability” category, as
they promote more housing supply and choices in areas of high opportunity.
Priority 2: Increase Fair Housing Outreach, Education and Enforcement Capacity
Contributing Factors:
• Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement
The second AFFH priority area is to improve fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement
capacity. While public agencies do not directly control the actions of private property owners
related to fair housing, they can influence outcomes. Rolling Hills has limited staff (6 FTEs) and
a severely constrained budget, no tax-generating commercial land uses, and limited revenue to
fund new programs. The capacity to do pro-active outreach and enforcement of fair housing
complaints is constrained. As a result, owners seeking to rent property may be unaware of fair
211
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-46
housing laws and discriminatory practices. Likewise, tenants (or prospective tenants) may be
unaware of their rights and may face discrimination without awareness of the opportunity for
recourse. At present, there is not a formal private fair housing outreach and enforcement
program and resources for such a program are limited.
Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at increasing fair housing outreach,
education, and enforcement include:
• Program 20 recommends that the City increase its capacity for fair housing outreach,
education, and enforcement. This would include education to those choosing to rent
their homes or ADUs regarding state and federal laws on discrimination and the
acceptance of housing vouchers.
• Program 21 calls for increased information on fair housing on the City’s website,
including a dedicated landing page with fair housing information and links to fair housing
resources.
• Program 22 calls for fair housing training for City staff.
All of the applicable strategies to address this priority fall are in the “Housing Mobility” category,
in that they are aimed at removing barriers in a high opportunity area.
Priority 3: Disparities in Access for Persons with Disabilities
Contributing Factors:
• Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications
• Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services
As noted earlier in this Appendix and in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element, more than one-third
of Rolling Hills residents are over 65 and most of the City’s households include at least one
person over 65. This demographic has the highest rate of disability in the city, primarily
associated with mobility limitations. Sight and hearing impairments and cognitive impairments
also may affect older adults. As a rural community with very large lots and no public
transportation, persons with these limitations and impairments may face housing challenges as
well as other challenges such as the ability to evacuate in an emergency.
Specific Programs (described in Chapter 6) aimed at reducing disparities in access for persons
with disabilities include:
• Programs 6 and 7 supporting ADU development, including units for live-in caregivers
and health care providers
• Program 8 to assist senior and disabled households, including home retrofits for aging
in place. This also includes housing resources for persons with developmental
disabilities.
• Program 12 supporting home sharing, especially for senior and disabled households
All of the above programs fall into the “New Housing Choices and Affordability” category, as
they promote better choices in high opportunity areas.
212
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-47
Summary
Table A-10 summarizes AFFH priorities, contributing factors, fair housing issues, and applicable
housing programs.
Table A-10: Fair Housing Priorities, Issues, Contributing Factors and Strategies
Priority Fair Housing
Issue
Contributing
Factors
Program
Category
Relevant Program (see Chapter 6)
1 Disparities to
Access in
Opportunity
• Land Use and
Zoning Laws
New
Housing
Choices and
Affordability
• Program 2: Affordable multi-family housing
development on Rancho Del Mar site
• Program 4: Definitions of transitional and
supportive housing in the Municipal Code,
• Program 5: Density bonus ordinance
• Program 6: ADU incentives
• Program 7: ADU education and outreach
• Program 12: outreach to housing service
providers
• Program 13 supporting a shared housing
program
• Lack of Public
Investment in
Services and
Amenities
• Program 14: sewer feasibility studies
• Program 15: CDB Urban County Program
2 Fair Housing
Outreach,
Education,
and
Enforcement
• Lack of local
private fair
housing
outreach and
enforcement
Housing
Mobility
• Program 20: Increase capacity for fair
housing outreach, education, enforcement
• Program 21: Increased fair housing
information on City’s website
• Program 22: Fair Housing training for staff
3 Disparities in
Access for
Persons with
Disabilities
• Lack of
assistance for
housing
accessibility
modifications
• Lack of
affordable in-
home or
community-
based
supportive
services
New
Housing
Choices and
Affordability
• Program 6: ADU incentives
• Program 7: ADUs outreach for live-in
caregivers and health care providers
• Program 8: Assistance to senior and
disabled households
• Program 12: Home sharing
213
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-48
Summary of Fair Housing Issues and Additional Fair Housing Concerns
According to the California Code of Regulations, a land use practice has a discriminatory effect
where it actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of individuals, or creates,
increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns, based on membership in a
protected class. Such practices may still be lawful--however, the State has determined that they
should be mitigated to the extent that they increase, reinforce, or perpetuate segregated
housing patterns. In this context, the State has found that single family zoning itself has had
unintended (and in some cases, intended) discriminatory effects. In response, the legislature
has taken steps requiring local governments to accommodate additional housing units on single
family zoned sites.
Rolling Hills has adopted regulations permitting accessory dwelling units and is currently
considering legislation reflecting recently adopted SB 9. Both of these measures provide
potential opportunities for rental housing, smaller units, and more affordable units that did not
previously exist in the city. New ADU production and affordability programs affirmatively further
fair housing and promote new housing opportunities throughout the community.
Strategies to enhance mobility (i.e., transit access to Rolling Hills), preserve existing affordable
housing, and protect residents from displacement are less applicable in Rolling Hills. However ,
the City’s policies and programs do aim to address disparities and create new affordable
housing opportunities in high-resource areas. The City has required that any multi-family
construction be affordable to low and very low income households, ensuring opportunities for
economic diversification rather than further concentration of affluence. Allowing market-rate
multi-family housing would only exacerbate existing concentrations of affluence and run counter
to the purpose and intent of AB 686.
Rolling Hills also has made fair housing outreach and education a priority, not only for Rolling
Hills residents but for those who may seek to move to Rolling Hills in the future. Current efforts
will be expanded in the future by making more information available and strengthening
communication with fair housing service providers.
214
APPENDIX B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-1
APPENDIX B
Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site
(APN 7569-022-900)
The intent of this Appendix is to provide supplemental analysis supporting the designation of the
Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) site as an opportunity site for “by right” affordable
housing in the City of Rolling Hills. This analysis was requested by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development to demonstrate the site’s capacity to provide 16 multi-
family units at a density of 20 units per acre. Land use regulations supporting such
development are required to meet the City’s 6th Cycle affordable housing allocation. Based on
existing land uses, access, infrastructure, topography and hazards, land ownership, and site
utilization, the City has determined that this represents the most viable site in Rolling Hills for
such development.
The 31-acre property is also known as the Rancho Del Mar site, as it is home to Rancho Del Mar
High School, a small continuation school with an enrollment of 32 students in 2021. The Beach
Cities Learning Center (17 students) also occupies a portion of the school building. Excluding
the adjacent playing fields and lawn, the school campus occupies just six percent of the 31-acre
site. The only other active use on the property is a Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority
maintenance facility. A majority of the site is vacant.
Location and Surroundings
The PVUSD site is located at 38 Crest Road. Figure B-1 provides an aerial photo of the site to
provide context, orientation, and an overview of adjacent uses. Figure B-2 is an assessor parcel
map. Its exact area is 31.14 acres, including a 3.56-acre street internal to the site that provides
access to Crest Road, at a point outside the controlled access entryway to the Rolling Hills (but
within the city limits). The net acreage of the site without the street is 27.58 acres.
The site is oblong in shape, with a panhandle area at its western edge that extends to the Crest
Road access point. Excluding this panhandle area, the site extends roughly 2,600 feet from east
to west and averages more than 600 feet from north to south. Within this area are numerous
flat, graded surface areas with no structure coverage and minimal programmed activities.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes lies immediately south and west of the site. The area to the
south is developed with single family homes at densities of 2-3 units per acre. This area is
roughly 80 to 100 feet higher in elevation than the site itself, as there is a graded downslope
between the residential neighborhood and the school property (the downslope is on the school
property). Residential uses also abut the west side of the site, with densities around 3-4 units
per acre.
There are no road or driveway connections between the PVUSD site and the Rancho Palos
Verdes neighborhoods to the south and west. A 15’ riding and hiking trail easement exists along
the southern and western edges of the site but it is undeveloped. The difference in topography
reduces the potential for visual impacts associated with future development.
215
APPENDIX B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-2
The entire northern perimeter of the site is defined by the Crest Road right-of-way. There are
large lot homes on the northern side of Crest Road, set back more than 100 feet from the
School District property line and more than 200 feet from the improved area of the PVUSD site.
The area to the north is well buffered not only by large setbacks and Crest Road, but also by an
internal street on the PVUSD property. Effectively, there are two streets between homes in
Rolling Hills and the developable area—Crest Road, and the parallel internal street within the
PVUSD site.
On its eastern edge, the site is abutted by large lot residences. The home closest to the site is
heavily screened from the PVUSD site by vegetation, as well as a private tennis court between
the residence and the property line. The residence itself is more than 200 feet from the PVUSD
ballfield and more than 550 feet from the school.
The site context creates effective buffering from adjacent uses, mitigating land use compatibility
concerns such as privacy, noise, and visual impacts. At the same time, the site is easily
accessible from Crest Road and is outside of the gated area of the city. A fire station is located
1,000 feet to the east, and major shopping facilities and services are located just over a mile
away in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Crest Road is one of Rolling Hills’ major thoroughfares
and one of the few “through-streets” that bisects Rolling Hills and connects the city to adjacent
cities and regional highways.
History of the Site and Current Uses
The site was initially home to Cresta Elementary School, which was constructed in 1960. A
School District warehouse and maintenance facility was part of the original campus. The school
closed in the early 1980s and was repurposed as Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School,
which opened in 1986. At the time, there were discussions between the City and the School
District to rezone the property and sell the site for residential development. However, Rancho
Del Mar has remained on the site for the last 35 years. Given the value of the land and the low-
intensity and limited extent of the existing use, residential development remains viable, even if
the school does not relocate.
The Rancho Del Mar Campus consists of three one-story buildings totaling 20,000 square feet of
floor area. Figure B-3 shows the campus layout, as well as six photos of the school and adjacent
areas. The campus consists of an L-shaped building (divided by a breezeway) with eight
classrooms, a rectangular building with a classroom, multi-purpose room restroom, and
custodial area, and a small building facing the parking lot with the main office. Classrooms at
the school are open to the exterior and there are no interior hallways. The PVUSD shares its
classroom and administrative facilities with the Beach Cities Learning Center. The Learning
Center has 17 students aged 11-18 with emotional, behavioral, and learning challenges.
216
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-3
217
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-4
218
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-5
219
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-6
Rancho Del Mar itself serves students ages 16-18 who were unsuccessful in a traditional high
school setting. Students are referred to the school for a myriad of reasons, including poor
attendance, personal crisis, behavioral issues, or other factors creating a high risk of drop-out.
Enrollment at Rancho Del Mar has been steadily declining and was just 32 students in the
2020-21 school year. Enrollment was 79 students in 2014-15, 72 students in 2015-16, 69
students in 2016-17, 58 students in 2017-18, 47 students in 2018-19, and 46 students in
2019-20. There are also six teachers on site and three other personnel.
Thus, the combined enrollment (Beach Cities and Rancho Del Mar) is fewer than 50 students on
a 31-acre site. By contrast, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School and Palos Verdes High School
enroll roughly 2,300 and 1,700 students respectively, on sites of similar size. Sale of the school
property could generate significant revenue for the School District. Sale of a portion of the
property also is possible, as the site is configured in such a way that easily facilitates its
subdivision.
A comprehensive structural evaluation of the school was completed in 2016 as part of the
PVUSD Facilities Master Plan. Beach Cities Learning Center likewise prepared a facility
condition status report in 2019 as part of its annual reporting requirements. Both evaluations
found the building(s) to be in good condition. The buildings were last renovated in 2008. The
2016 evaluation called for resurfacing the parking area, upgrading the HVAC system, and
upgrading the electrical system. Total capital needs were estimated at $1.9 million. All utilities
were found to be in good condition, and drainage issues were minimal.
The school campus is adjoined by an approximately 100-space parking lot on its north and east
sides. To the west of the buildings, there is a large flat lawn area. To the east, there is an
athletic field area that includes a basketball court and ballfield. The 2016 facility evaluation
determined that the Floor Area Ratio of the school campus was just 0.03, as it defined the
campus area as being 15.2 acres (including athletic fields, lawns, and other open areas on the
perimeter of the site). The square footage of floor space per student is well below District
averages.
Beyond the 15.2-acre area associated with the school, the PVUSD has leased approximately 4.5
acres of the site (roughly 15 percent of the 31 acres) to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit
Authority. The PVPTA facilities include maintenance buildings and administrative offices and are
self-contained in the west central part of the site. The Housing Element analysis presumes this
part of the site will not be available for development and that the transit district will remain a
long-term tenant. However, the PVPTA site could potentially be sold and redeveloped in the
future, leased to a new third party, or repurposed by the School District.
Potential Development Areas
Figure B-4 shows potential development areas on the Rancho Del Mar site. These are
summarized below:
220
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-7
• Area 1 is located between the transit facility and the school campus. It is an unimproved,
almost completely flat rectangular area of 1.6 acres. Its dimensions are approximately
250 x 300, with 250 feet of frontage along the internal access street. The site is well
situated for multi-family development and has no visible physical constraints.
• Area 2 is located immediately adjacent to the school and is 1.0 acre. The dimensions
are approximately 200 x 200, with a “stem” area providing access to the interior street.
The area is currently an unimproved lawn with a few mature trees. It is almost
completely flat and has no physical development constraints. The site could easily
support up to 16 to 20 multi-family units at a density of 20 units per net acre.
• Area 3 is the school itself, which occupies roughly 1.75 acres including parking,
landscaped areas, courtyards, and classroom buildings. This option would be most
viable if the school relocates and the site is sold, as co-location of a school and multi-
family housing or emergency shelter would be unlikely. However, certain special needs
housing types (such as housing for teachers) would be viable in this setting.
• Area 4 includes the area east of the school. It includes approximately three acres of
level ground, with 0.5 acres of parking, a two-acre ballfield serving the school, and other
paved areas used for basketball and recreation. There are several areas within the three
acres where 16-20 units could be built without impacting use of the site for parking and
school recreation.
• Area 5 includes approximately four acres and is located west of the PVPTA facility. It is
regarded by the City as the best location on the 31-acre site for multi-family housing, as
it would have the least impact on the school campus and transit facility. It is also the
largest of the five areas and the most buffered from adjacent development. There are a
number of extant foundations on the site from prior uses, and internal roadways that are
not in use. The area has gently sloping terrain and has not been improved for school
use, parking, or recreation, as the other portions of the site have.
Figures B-5 through B-7 provide a bird’s eye view of each of the five areas.
Physical Constraints to Site Development
Approximately nine acres of the 31-acre site consists of a graded slope along the south side of
Altamira Canyon. This area is shown in Figure B-8. The slope exceeds 30 percent, making it
poorly suited for development. The sloped areas also have the potential for landslides and other
seismic stability issues, which limit their suitability for further grading and construction. The
sloped area is not considered suitable for multi-family development or special needs housing. It
occupies roughly 29 percent of the site, all of which has been excluded from consideration in
the definition of Areas 1-5 above.
221
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-8
222
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-9
223
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-10
224
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-11
225
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-12
226
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-13
The central portion of the site has historically been used for general maintenance activities, first
by PVUSD and more recently by PVPTA. A search of the California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker data base identified two leaking underground storage
tanks (LUST sites) at this location. The sites were determined to contain gasoline and
hydrocarbons resulting from leaking underground storage tanks. Both sites have been cleaned
per SWRCB standards and are now designated by the SWCRB as "complete” and “case
closed.”
As noted elsewhere in the Housing Element, the City of Rolling Hills—including the PVUSD
site—has been designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the State of California.
Rolling Hills is implementing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan to mitigate this hazard and is
implementing vegetation management measures and programs to make structures more
resilient. In the event of a housing proposal on this site, the need for an emergency-only access
connection between the existing access road and Crest Road would be assessed.
An analysis of infrastructure and utilities on the site conducted as part of the Housing Element
found no constraints associated with redeveloping this site with residential uses or special needs
housing. The site is used less intensively now than when it was actively used as an elementary
school and school maintenance facility. Water, drainage, and wastewater facilities are adequate
to support the number of units contemplated by the Housing Element.
Importantly, this is one of the only sites in the City of Rolling Hills that has access to a public
sewer system. As such, it is much more conducive to multi-family housing that sites elsewhere
in the city that are served by private septic systems.
Regulatory Constraints to Site Development
Prior to December 2020, the PVUSD opportunity site was subject to a range of planning and
regulatory constraints that limited the feasibility of multi-family housing. The site has historically
had a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and a zoning designation of
RAS-2 (Residential Suburban 2-acre minimum lot size), which effectively limited uses to existing
community facilities or new large-lot residential development. While Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) could conceivably be incorporated in new homes, the site would not have met State
requirements for the Housing Element.
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to
allow multi-family housing and other special needs housing types “by right” on the PVUSD
property, subject to specific development standards. As noted elsewhere in the Housing
Element, the amendments included:
• Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to create the Rancho Del Mar
Housing Opportunity Overlay. The Land Use Element now explicitly states that multi-
family housing and emergency shelter are permitted by right in this area, subject to
objective development standards. The number of units on the site is based on a transfer
of the allowable General Plan density to a clustered area where 16 to 20 units could be
added.
• Amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) to create the Rancho
Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay, and to map this Overlay on the entire PVUSD site.
227
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-14
The Overlay establishes a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum density
of 24 units per acre. Affordable housing is permitted “by right” subject to objective
development standards defined in the Ordinance. The Ordinance identifies the area
west of the PVPTA site as the location for future housing.
• Amending the Zoning Regulations to allow emergency shelter on the property by right,
subject to specific development standards specified in the Code.
• Amending the Zoning Regulations to allow single room occupancy (SRO) units on the
site, with a conditional use permit.
Other Constraints to Site Development
Development of multi-family housing, emergency shelter, or SRO uses on the PVUSD site could
occur either:
• by the School District itself (on its own or through a public-private partnership)
• through a long-term lease; or
• through sale of all or part of the property
The City has met with the School District and reviewed Board Policies and Codes. Current
policies accommodate all of these options—and that there are no prohibitions or limitations on
multi-family and special needs housing. Moreover, the School District has expressed interest in
developing housing for teachers in the past; such units would meet income criteria for low or
very low income units. There are ample opportunities for such housing on the property that
would not impact operations at either Rancho Del Mar School or PVPTA. Rancho Del Mar is a
logical location for these activities, given the size of the site and its significant underutilization.
The District is less likely to pursue development of an emergency shelter or SRO on its own, as
these are not as clearly mission-aligned. However, it could sell or lease property to a third party
who could develop these uses. SROs and emergency shelters would be unlikely to co-locate in
the school building or on the 1.75-acre school footprint area, given the possibility for use
conflicts. However, the 31-acre PVUSD property is large enough to accommodate multiple
uses. There are developable areas on the site that are 1,500 feet away from the school. The
District has already set a precedent by leasing a large portion of this site to a transit agency; it
could do the same for a social service agency or another agency providing a public benefit
service to the community.
Like most School Districts in California, the sale or lease of PVUSD property is subject to action
by the School Board. Section 3280 of the Board’s Policies allows the Superintendent or
designee to study the existing and projected use of facilities to ensure the efficient utilization of
space. A Board Committee is typically created prior to the sale of land (although teacher
housing is specifically exempted by Board policy from any Committee requirements). A Board
vote is required to approve the sale or lease terms. There are also requirements for how the
proceeds of a sale or lease may be used.
Once property is sold, the School District Board has no land use or decision-making authority
over a site. Thus, the District could sell all or part of the PVUSD site to a non-profit housing
228
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-15
developer, for-profit housing developer, social service provider, or other third party who could
develop housing “by right” without further oversight by the Board or City Council. Subdivision
of the property would be required, creating a new legal parcel on which housing could be
developed.
Given its large size, the most likely scenario is only that a portion of the site would be sold,
rather than the entire site. In effect, the Housing Element is creating a unique opportunity for
the District to sell a vacant or underutilized subarea on its 31-acre site to a third party, who can
then produce teacher housing, senior housing, affordable family housing, or another type of
housing that meet local needs.
There are a number of examples of successful small affordable housing projects in the Los
Angeles region that meet the density and height criteria established for this site. For example,
Habitat for Humanity is currently developing a 10-unit affordable two-story townhome project in
Long Beach on a 0.5-acre site. Similar two-story projects by Habitat have been developed in
Lynwood, Burbank, Bellflower, and Downey.
In the event that the Rancho Del Mar School itself is closed in the future, the building could be
sold and repurposed for other uses. Once sold, the floor space could be reconfigured for
alternative uses, including special needs housing. The project would be subject to the objective
standards prescribed by the zoning regulations (covered elsewhere in this Housing Element),
but approval of the development would be ministerial.
229
Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-16
/intentionally blank/
230
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-1
APPENDIX C:
Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Analysis
In Fall 2020, the City of Rolling Hills surveyed its residents to determine the viability of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a future affordable housing strategy. The survey was
formatted as an 11 x 17 folded sheet printed double-sided (four 8.5 x 11 pages) and was mailed
via the US Postal Service to approximately 700 addresses in the city. Return postage was
provided so the survey could be easily returned. Residents had roughly one month to complete
and return the survey. An option was provided to reply electronically via SurveyMonkey.
Approximately 190 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 27 percent.1 Another seven
surveys were received by SurveyMonkey, bringing the total response rate to 28 percent. The
survey represents the views and experiences of more than one in four Rolling Hills households.
This is a high response rate and is indicative of the community’s strong interest in the subject.
Demographic information about the respondents was collected as part of the survey.
Respondents tended to be older than Rolling Hills residents as a whole and were mostly long-
time residents. About two-thirds of the respondents were 65 or older and 25 percent were 50-
64. By contrast, about 42 percent of the City’s adult residents are over 65 and 36 percent are
50-64. About 42 percent of the respondents had lived in Rolling Hills for more than 30 years
and only 20 percent had lived in the city for less than 10 years. By contrast, about 27 percent of
all residents have lived in Rolling Hills for more than 30 years and 31 percent have lived in the
city for less than 10 years.
The distribution of respondents by household size was close to the citywide average.
Approximately 65 percent lived in one and two person households, which is similar to the
citywide average. Only seven percent lived in households with five or more residents, which is
just below the citywide average. Of the 194 respondents who indicated their housing tenure,
192 were owners and two were renters. This is equivalent to one percent of the respondents,
whereas renters represent about five percent of Rolling Hills households.
Figure C-1 compares demographics for the survey respondents and residents in the city as a
whole.
Responses to the survey was completely anonymous. Respondents were given the option of
phoning the City if they had questions or wanted more information about ADUs.
1 This estimated return rate was based on 700 households. In August 2021, Census data indicated there were 637
households in the City, so the actual return rate was 31 percent.
231
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-2
Figure C-1: Demographics of Survey Respondents Relative to All Rolling Hills Residents
0
10
20
30
40
50
Less than 10 yrs 10-20 yrs 20-30 yrs 30+ yrs
Length of Residency in Rolling Hills
Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6+ Persons
Household Size
Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
20-35 35-49 50-64 65+
Percent by Age Group
Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents
232
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-3
Suitability of the Property for an ADU
Question 1 asked respondents to indicate if their property contained an ADU or other habitable
spaces which could potentially be used as an ADU. Respondents were asked to check “all
choices that apply,” so the results are not additive.
Thirteen of the respondents indicated they had a legally permitted ADU on their properties with
a separate kitchen, bath, and entrance. Some of these units may have been legally created in
2018-2020 after the City adopted its ADU Ordinance, but some likely already existed and are
legally classified as guest quarters.
Thirty-four respondents, or roughly 25 percent of the total, indicated they had a secondary
building on their properties with an indoor kitchen, bathroom, heat and plumbing. This included
guest houses/ casitas, pool houses, habitable barns, and similar features that could be
considered potential ADUs even if they are not used for habitation by another household. Ten
respondents indicated they had a second kitchen in their homes. Eighteen said they had
another space in their home that could “easily be converted” to a separate dwelling or junior
ADU. While some respondents may have counted the same space twice, roughly half indicated
they had spaces on their properties with the potential to be used as an ADU or JADU. This is
further supported by the responses to Question 2 below.
Current Use of ADUs and Spaces Suitable as ADUs
Question 2 asked how the spaces described in Question 1 were being used. Only three of the
respondents indicated they were renting ADUs to a paying tenant. Seven indicated that the
space was used by a caregiver or domestic employee, while eleven had a family member or
long-term occupant living on the property. Collectively, this represents 21 units, or just over 10
percent of the respondent households. The remainder of the respondents with potential ADU
space indicated they used these spaces for house guests or their own families, or that the space
was unoccupied or used as storage.
The survey findings indicate that ADUs (or “unintended” ADUs such as guest houses) already
represent a component of the Rolling Hills housing supply. The survey suggests that there is
potential to expand the number of permitted ADUs in the future, even without any new
construction. About 15 percent of the respondents (30 in total) indicated they had potential
ADU space on their properties that was vacant or used for storage.
Respondents were asked the square footage of the spaces they were describing. Figure C-2
shows the distribution. More than 100 responses were received, with a median size of about
600 square feet.
Respondents who had rented ADUs on their properties were given the option of reporting the
rent that was being charged. Two of the three households who indicated they had a paying
tenant replied. The monthly rents charged for these units were $950 in one case and $1,500 in
another. Based on HCD income limits for Los Angeles County, the $950 unit would be
considered affordable to a very low-income household of one or more persons. The $1,500 unit
would be considered affordable to a low-income household of one or more persons. These
233
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-4
units are presumed to have been created or legalized between 2018 and 2020, following
adoption of the ADU ordinance.
Figure C-2: Square Footage of Spaces Reported by Respondents as Potential ADUs on their Properties,
Including Guest Houses
Income Characteristics of Households in Occupied Units
Those who indicated their ADU (or “unintended” ADU/ guest house/ secondary space) was
occupied by someone who was not part of their household were asked to describe the number
of residents and total income of the occupants. The numeric HCD 2020 income limits (dollar
amounts) and number of persons in the household were used so that the occupants could be
easily identified using HCD’s income categories.
There were 12 responses to this question, or about six percent of all surveys returned. This
presumably includes the small number of units that are rented as ADUs, plus those occupied by
caretakers, domestic employees, and other long-term occupants. The distribution by HCD’s
income categories is shown below:
Household Size and Income of Households Occupying Formal or Unintended ADUs
Income 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5 person 6+ person TOTAL
Extremely
Low 1 1 2
Very Low 2 2
Low 1 1
Moderate/
Above Mod 1 4 1 1 7
TOTAL 5 4 1 1 0 1 12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
>300 301-450 451-650 651-800 801-1000 1000+Number of UnitsSquare Footage
234
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-5
The data indicates that roughly half of the survey respondents’ ADUs (including those which
may be unpermitted and used “informally” on a long-term basis) provided housing for low, very
low, and extremely low income households.
Interest in Developing an ADU
Question 4 asked respondents if they might be interested in developing an ADU if they didn’t
currently have one. There were 164 responses to this question, with 24 percent indicating
“Yes” and 15 percent indicating “Maybe.” Another 40 percent indicated “No” and 14 percent
indicated “Probably Not.” The responses are profiled in Figure C-3 below.
Figure C-3: Level of Interest in ADU development (N=164)
The chart above suggests that more than half of the City’s residents are not interested in
developing an ADU on their properties, and another quarter are undecided or not interested at
this time. To flesh out possible barriers, Question 4 included a follow up asking why
respondents were not interested. The responses suggest it is primarily a lifestyle choice rather
than the result of regulatory or cost barriers. About one-third (51) listed the loss of privacy as a
factor, and another one-third (48) indicated they didn’t want to deal with tenants. The number of
respondents listing the “permitting process” as a factor was relatively small (27 out of 164) and
the percentage listing “cost” as a factor (24 out of 164) was even smaller. About 10 percent of
the respondents cited lack of space as their reason.
Location of Possible ADUs
Those who expressed some interest in adding an ADU were asked where they might locate the
ADU on their properties. The responses can potentially help inform local programs that facilitate
ADUs in particular locations. There were 85 responses, representing more than 40 percent of
No (65)
40%
Probably Not
(23)
14%
Not Sure (11)
7%
Maybe, but not
now (25)
15%
Yes (40)
24%
Question: If you don’t have a
legal ADU on your property,
would you consider developing
one? (164 replies)
235
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-6
the total survey respondents. Conversion of an existing accessory building (such as a guest
house or barn) was the most commonly selected choice (38 responses), followed by a new
detached structure (21 responses) and conversion of existing space in the house (6 responses).
Only one respondent indicated they would build an addition to their home. Nineteen of the
respondents were not sure where they might locate an ADU. Again, a majority (about 115) were
not interested in adding an ADU.
The responses suggest stronger demand for traditional ADUs than Junior ADUs, given the large
number of respondents indicating they would built or convert an accessory structure, rather
than use space within their own homes.
Likely Use of Future ADUs
Respondents were asked how they would use an ADU on their property if they developed one in
the future. The responses to this question are important, as the objective of the program is to
create rental housing opportunities or opportunities for on-site care givers. Using the ADU as a
home office or space for occasional house guests would not accomplish State-mandated
housing program goals. Figure C-4 shows the responses to the question.
Figure C-4: Likely Use of Future ADUs (N=192)
The responses indicate that roughly one-third would use the ADU for another household,
including 16 who suggested they would rent it to a tenant and 48 who suggested they would use
it for a domestic employee or caregiver. The latter statistic is particularly important, as it
suggests a potential resource for health care workers, elder care professionals, construction and
landscape workers, and others who may work in Rolling Hills but lack the financial resources to
live here. Nearly a third of the respondents indicated they would use the ADU for a family
For rent to a tenant
(16)
8%
For a family
member
(60)
31%
For
myself
(18)
9%
For an employee or
caregiver (48)
24%
For occasional
visitors (50)
25%
Other (5)
3%
Question: If you had a legal
ADU on your property, how
would you most likely use it?
(192 replies)
236
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-7
member. The family member could be an extension of their own household or a relative or
relatives living independently as a separate household. It is worth noting that only a quarter of
the respondents indicated they would use the ADU for occasional visitors—historically, this has
been the intended use of guest houses in the city.
Use of ADUs as Affordable Housing
Respondents were asked if they would consider limiting the rent on an ADU so that the unit was
affordable to a lower income household. The question specifically asked if the respondent
would consider a deed restriction that maintained the rent at a reduced rate (such as $1,200/
month for a two-person household) to help the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing
requirements. Of the 194 surveys returned, 25 indicated they would consider this and another
20 indicated they might consider this (“maybe”). This represents nearly one-quarter of the total
respondents. Another one-quarter indicated they would need more information before deciding.
About 35 percent indicated they would not consider a lower income affordability restriction and
15 percent did not respond.
Figure C-5 shows the responses to this question. The data suggests that an “affordable” ADU
program could generate sufficient participation for the City to meet its entire lower-income
housing allocation through ADUs.
Figure C-5: Viability of ADUs to Meet Very Low Income Housing Assignment (N=194)
For the 98 respondents who answered “Yes”, “Maybe,” or “Need More Information”, the survey
asked a follow-up question, which is the maximum length of time the respondent would consider
acceptable for an affordability deed restriction. Two respondents did not reply, but the other 96
provided the answers below:
• 20 would consider a 5-year term
• 2 would consider a 10-year term
Yes (25)
13%
Maybe
(20)
10%
Need More Info
(53)
27%
No (68)
35%
Didn't reply (28)
15%
Question: If you
had a legal ADU
on your property,
would you
consider a deed
restriction that
maintained the
rent at a reduced
rate to help the
City meet its
State-mandated
affordable
housing
requirements?
237
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-8
• 3 would consider a 20-year term
• 17 would consider a deed restriction that ended when they sold the house
• 59 were not sure or answered “other”
The responses suggest that long-term deed restrictions (10 or 20 years) and affordability
contracts that “run with the land” would have limited participation. Residents are more open to
short-term arrangements such as five-year affordability terms, and flexible arrangements that
would not encumber the resale of their homes. This is an important consideration in the event a
program is established.
Incentives
The final question in the survey asked respondents to select from a menu of possible incentives
that might make a rent-restriction on an ADU more acceptable to them. Respondents were
invited to select as many of the choices as they wanted. The most frequently selected options
are shown in descending order in Figure C-6 below:
Figure C-6: Ranking of Potential Affordable ADU Incentives
The most frequently selected option was “nothing.” However, 55 respondents indicated that fee
waivers or reductions would be an incentive, and 50 said expedited permitting would be an
incentive. Many respondents were also supportive of the idea of rent-restricted ADUs serving
local essential service workers such as fire-fighters and teachers. The least popular incentive
was assistance in finding a tenant.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Question: What
incentives might
make a rent
restriction more
attractive to you?
238
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-9
Other Comments
The survey provided an opportunity for residents to make general open-ended comments on
ADUs and housing issues in Rolling Hills, as well as the factors the City should consider as new
ADU policies and regulations are developed. Feedback was provided by 52 of the respondents.
This is summarized below.
Most of the open-ended comments expressed negative views about ADUs and their potential
impacts on the character of Rolling Hills, as well as concerns with State housing mandates and
the erosion of local land use control. Numerous concerns were raised about safety, security,
and privacy. There were also concerns expressed about noise, parking, traffic, evacuation
capacity, and impacts on the community’s rural, equestrian feel. Some respondents expressed
concerns that they would not be able to choose their own tenants if they created an ADU or
would be penalized if they created an ADU but did not rent it. Questions were also raised about
property tax impacts, septic system impacts, and whether tenants would pay association dues
and have access to RHCA facilities.
There were also supportive comments, particularly from persons interested in creating ADUs for
aging parents, or for themselves to age in place while renting out their primary home. Several
respondents indicated an interest in renting space to a care giver. One respondent suggested
prioritizing rentals to employees of the RHCA. Some respondents expressed their support for
the idea of using the school property to meet affordable housing needs rather than relying on
ADUs.
Survey
A copy of the survey mailed to residents follows this page.
239
Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-10
240
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-11
City of Rolling Hills Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey
October 2020
Dear Resident:
Please take a few minutes to complete this survey about
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Rolling Hills. Your
responses will help us understand community goals and
concerns and will be used to develop new policies for
consideration by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission and
City Council.
State law requires that all cities and counties allow ADUs,
provided they meet certain standards. Some of the
potential benefits of ADUs include rental income for
homeowners, on-site living space for caregivers or
household employees, and accommodation of extended
family (adult children, parents, etc.). ADUs can also help
residents “age in place,” particularly as homeowners need
more care or assistance.
The City’s objective in carrying out this survey is to
determine the level of interest in ADUs among Rolling Hills
residents and evaluate their potential to meet local housing
needs. Like all cities in California, Rolling Hills is required by
State law to provide for its “fair share” of the region’s
housing needs, including low- and very low-income
households. ADUs provide a way to do that without
significantly changing the character or appearance of the
community. Some communities even provide special
incentives for homeowners who rent ADUs at reduced rates
to very low-income households, including household
employees and local essential service employees.
The deadline for returning your survey is November 20,
2020. Please use the enclosed postage-paid envelope to
return the survey to City Hall by this date. If you would
prefer to complete the survey on-line, please visit
www.surveymonkey.com//rollinghillsADUsurvey.
Please do not include your name or address on the survey as
the intent is for all responses to be anonymous. If you have
questions about the survey or about ADUs in Rolling Hills,
please call Meredith Elguira at (310) 377-1521.
What are ADUs and JADUs?
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are
sometimes referred to as “in-law
apartments” or “second units.” They are
small independent dwelling units that exist
on single family properties, either in a
detached structure or as part of the
primary structure with a separate
entrance. ADUs include a bedroom or
sleeping area, a bathroom, and cooking
facilities.
Rolling Hills has adopted specific zoning
standards for ADUs as required by state
law. The maximum allowable size is 850
square feet for a studio or one-bedroom
and 1,000 square feet for a two bedroom.
Other standards also apply.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
are a type of ADU created by converting
existing living space inside a single-family
home (usually a bedroom) to a separate
living space. They have a maximum size
of 500 square feet. JADUs may have their
own kitchenette or bathroom, or they may
share the facilities in the primary
residence.
State law allows a property to have both
an ADU and a JADU if certain
requirements are met.
241
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-12
Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey!
Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey
1. Does your property include any of the following features? (circle all that apply)
A. A legally permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with kitchen, bath, and separate entrance?
B. A guest house, pool house, casita, barn or other outbuilding that has heat and plumbing?
_____ Check here if the space has a kitchen or other cooking facilities
C. A space inside your house with a separate entrance from outside and independent living quarters,
including a bedroom/ sleeping area and bathroom?
_____ Check here if the space also has its own kitchen or cooking facilities
D. Another space within your house that could easily be converted into an accessory dwelling unit?
2. If you circled one of the choices above, how is the space currently used? (If you circled more
than one choice, please provide a response for each applicable space on your property. Use
the blank line to the right of each choice below to describe the space you’re referring to).
A. It is occupied by a tenant paying rent ____________________________________
B. It is occupied by a family member or long-term visitor who is not part of my household ___________
C. It is occupied by a caretaker or household employee(s) ____________________________________
D. It is used occasionally by guests or visitors ____________________________________
E. My own household uses the space ____________________________________
F. The space is currently not occupied by anyone, or is used for storage ___________________________
G. Not applicable
2A. About how large is the space of each applicable feature from Question 1 (in square feet)?
(please skip question if not applicable)
__________________ ___________________ _________________
2B. If rent is collected for the space, what is the monthly amount? (if multiple spaces are
rented, please indicate the rent for each area). (Please skip question if not applicable)
__________________ ___________________ _________________
242
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-13
3. If you have space on your property occupied by a household other than your own, please circle
the category in the table below that most closely matches their annual income based on the
number of persons in their household, if you know that amount. Recent data from the US Census
indicates that 16 percent of Rolling Hills households have annual incomes below $50,000. ADUs (or
potential ADUs) may provide a resource for these households. If Question 3 does not apply to your
property, please skip to Question 4.
Number of Persons in the Household (for other occupants only, not your own household)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Annual Income $23,700 or less $27,050 or less $30,450 or less $33,800 or less $36,550 or less $39,250 or less
$23,700-
$39,450
$27,050-
$45,050
$30,450-
$50,700
$33,800-
$56,300
$36,550-
$60,850
$39,250-
$65,350
$39,450-
$63,100
$45,050-
$72,100
$50,700-
$81,100
$56,300-
$90,100
$60,850-
$97,350
$65,350-
$104,550
$63,100 or
more
$72,100 or
more
$81,100 or
more
$90,100 or
more
$97,350 or more $104,550 or
more
4. If you don’t currently have a legal ADU on your property, would you consider developing one?
(circle one answer)
No Probably Not Not Sure/ Neutral Maybe, but not at
this time Yes
4A. If you answered A, B, or C, what are the reasons? (Circle All that Apply)
No Interest Cost Loss of Privacy Permitting
Process
Don’t Want to
Deal with
Tenants
No Space
Other (please explain below)_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
5. If you decided to build an ADU on your property, where would it be located? (circle one)
New
detached
structure
on my
property
Conversion of an
existing accessory
building on my
property (e.g., guest
house, barn, etc.)
An addition
to my house
Conversion of space
already within the
footprint of my house
Not sure
I would not add
an ADU on my
property
6. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, how would you most likely use it? (circle one)
For rent to
a tenant For a family member For myself
For a household
employee of caregiver
For occasional
visitors
Other
243
Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-14
7. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, would you consider a deed restriction that
maintained the rent at a reduced rate (for example $1,200/month, which is considered the
threshold for an “affordable” housing unit for a two person very low income household) to help
the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements? (circle one)
A. Yes
B. Maybe
C. I would need more information first
D. No
7A. If your answer to Question 7 was A-C, what would be the maximum length of time you would
consider for the rent restriction? (circle one)
A. Five years
B. 10 years
C. 20 years
D. Until I sell the house
E. Not Sure
F. Other _______________________
7B: What incentives might make a rent restriction more attractive to you? (circle all that apply)
A. No parking requirement
B. Reduced (or no) permit fees
C. Expedited permit processing
D. Assistance in finding a tenant
E. Rent supplement for the tenant
F. Local tenant (e.g., school teacher,
fire fighter, child care worker)
G. Senior tenant
H. Low-interest financing to create the ADU
I. Permission to build a unit larger
than 1,000 square feet
J. Nothing
K. Other _______________________
8. To ensure that we are hearing from a cross-section of the community, please tell us a little about you:
How Long Have You
Lived in Rolling Hills?
Less than 10 years
10-19 years
20-29 years
More than 30 years Circle one choice in each box Are you a Homeowner
or a Renter?
Homeowner
Renter
Age
Under 35
35-49
50-64
65+
How Many People Are
in Your Household?
1 4
2 5
3 6 or more
9. Please share any concerns you may have about ADUs in Rolling Hills, or factors you’d like us to
consider as new ADU policies and regulations are developed:
244
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 21, 2022
John F. Signo, Director
Planning & Community Services Department
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear John F. Signo:
RE: City of Rolling Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Rolling Hills’ revised draft housing element received
for review on May 24, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision
(b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is
reporting the results of its review.
The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s
April 11, 2022 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State
Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The revisions needed are as
follows:
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15
(commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an
assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or
disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
Strategies, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element included some
revisions, additional revisions will be needed to address HCD’s prior review, as
follows:
• Metrics: The element did not address this finding. As found in HCD’s prior
review, the element must include quantifiable metrics or numerical
objectives to target beneficial impacts for people, households, and
245
John F. Signo, Director
Page 2
neighborhoods (e.g., number of people or households assisted, number of
housing units built, number of parks or infrastructure projects completed).
In addition, HCD’s prior review found that the element must include significant
and meaningful actions to address promoting housing mobility and increasing
housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity areas. While the element
was revised to reference specific programs, additional revisions will be needed,
as follows:
•Housing Mobility: Promoting housing mobility removes barriers to higher
opportunity areas and strategically enhances access to housing choices
and affordability. Given, among other things, that the City is entirely
highest category of disparities in access opportunity and largely does not
reflect the socio-economic characteristics of the broader region, the
element must include significant actions to promote housing mobility within
the City and relative to the region to promote an overall inclusive
community. To address this requirement, the element relied on the City’s
one affordable housing site to accommodate the regional housing need
allocation (RHNA) and fair housing enforcement and outreach programs.
However, actions should go beyond the RHNA and be significant to
facilitate meaningful change. The element could consider improving
existing programs or including new programs related to homesharing,
promoting a city-wide affordable rental registry for accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) paired with affirmative marketing outside of the City and
coordination with regional entities.
•Increasing Housing Choices and Affordability in Higher Opportunity Areas:
To address this finding, the element relied on actions that are required to
comply with state law including updating the City’s density bonus program
and allowing for transitional, supportive, group, and employee housing.
However, to increase housing choices and affordability throughout the
City, the element should consider going above and beyond state law such
as allowing two JADUs on a single family lot, developing and marketing a
homeowner rehabilitation and/or down payment assistance program, etc.
For additional examples, please see pages 72 to 74 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance
Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.
2.An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including
vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for
redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for
a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and
public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
246
John F. Signo, Director
Page 3
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Permanent and Supportive Housing): The
element was revised with a program to define supportive housing and permit it as
a residential use, similar to other residential uses. However, the element still
must address the requirements under Government Code section 65651. As
found in the prior review, Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones
where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones
permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The
element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement or add or modify
programs as appropriate.
3. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels,
including the… …the length of time between receiving approval for a housing
development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing
development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional
housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584...
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Approval Time: The element was revised to include a discussion on the time
between entitlements and construction and the current conditions of the
construction market. However, this does not address HCD’s prior review.
Specifically, the element must be revised to include an estimate for the length of
time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an
application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a
locality’s share of the regional housing need.
The element will meet statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has
been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements pursuant to
Government Code section 65585.
For your information: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b),
the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing
the sites inventory (for all income-levels). Please see HCD’s housing element webpage
at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml for a
copy of the form and instructions. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element,
the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing
element to sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov.
As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of
today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The
City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD
encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to
HCD to regain housing element compliance.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
247
John F. Signo, Director
Page 4
process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly
available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be
aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website
and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested
notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before
submitting to HCD.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing
element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding
sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing
element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes
the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical
Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
HCD appreciates the hard work of the City’s planning staff and consultants during our
review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of
State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical
assistance, please contact Gianna Marasovich, of our staff, at
Gianna.Marasovich@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
248
‐1‐
Responses to 7/21/22 HCD Comments on May 2022 Draft Housing Element
HCD Comments are in boxes and are numbered. City revisions are noted in red font
HCD COMMENT:
Strategies, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element included some
revisions, additional revisions will be needed to address HCD’s prior review, as follows:
Metrics: The element did not address this finding. As found in HCD’s prior review, the
element must include quantifiable metrics or numerical objectives to target beneficial
impacts for people, households, and neighborhoods (e.g., number of people or households
assisted, number of housing units built, number of parks or infrastructure projects
completed).
HCD subsequently indicated (in a Zoom meeting) that the City should develop metrics or
numeric objectives for Programs 4, 5, 7, 12-15, and 20-22.
Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment:
Quantifiable metrics or numerical objectives have been added as follows:
Program 4: Since the time of the HCD comment letter, this program was completed.
Thus, the objective (compliance with State law) has been achieved.
Program 5: New metric added: Include up to 12 affordable density bonus units in any
future project on the Rancho Del Mar site, through the State-mandated
density bonus.
Program 7: New metric added: Reach 639 households every two years through a mailing
(or newsletter article) on ADUs (this is equivalent to the number of
households in Rolling Hills, based on the 2020 Census).
This program also references the Program 6 objective of creating 40 ADUs by
2029.
Program 12: This program cross-references numeric objectives in Programs 8, 13, and 15
Program 13: New metric added: At least 5 Rolling Hills households participate in home
sharing by 2029.
Program 14: New metric added: City requests an updated “Will Serve” letter from LA
County Sanitation District indicating its ability to receive effluent from 235
homes if future phase of sewer system is constructed.
Program 15: New metric added: City receives CDBG or other grant to assist 10 senior
and/or lower-income homeowners with minor home repair (including age-in-
place retrofit and septic tank replacement for household adding an ADU)
Program 20: New metric added: Follow up on 100% of all fair housing complaints
Program 21: New metrics added: (1) At least 50% of future occupants of any affordable
housing created on Rancho Del Mar site will be from outside Rolling Hills; (2)
At least 50% of occupants of ADUs to be created by 2029 will be from outside
Rolling Hills (to be measured through ADU survey question)
Program 22: New metrics added: (1) At least one staff person receives fair housing training
each year; (2) At least one presentation by fair housing organization is made
to City Council, with at least 10 attendees
1
249
‐2‐
HCD COMMENT:
In addition, HCD’s prior review found that the element must include significant and
meaningful actions to address promoting housing mobility and increasing housing choices
and affordability in higher opportunity areas. While the element was revised to reference
specific programs, additional revisions will be needed, as follows:
Housing Mobility: Promoting housing mobility removes barriers to higher opportunity areas
and strategically enhances access to housing choices and affordability. Given, among other
things, that the City is entirely highest category of disparities in access opportunity and
largely does not reflect the socio-economic characteristics of the broader region, the
element must include significant actions to promote housing mobility within the City and
relative to the region to promote an overall inclusive community. To address this
requirement, the element relied on the City’s one affordable housing site to accommodate
the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) and fair housing enforcement and outreach
programs. However, actions should go beyond the RHNA and be significant to facilitate
meaningful change.
The element could consider improving existing programs or including new programs related
to homesharing, promoting a city-wide affordable rental registry for accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) paired with affirmative marketing outside of the City and coordination with regional
entities.
Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment:
The City has made the following changes to support housing mobility, consistent with the
HCD comment:
Program 13 has been re-titled “Home Sharing” (instead of “Shared Housing”) and a
quantified objective has been added (5 households)
Program 6.1 has been re-titled “Develop Citywide ADU Registry” (instead of “Roster
of ADUs).
Program 21 has been expanded to include “Affirmative Marketing”. Per HCD’s
direction, the program includes the steps the City will take to support affirmative
marketing of any units created on the Rancho Del Mar site. It also supports
marketing of ADUs to persons living outside Rolling Hills by local residents.
Programs 6.9 and 7.1 describe the City’s coordination with regional entities to
promote housing opportunities (specifically the South Bay COG’s ADU Accelerator
program and ADU education and outreach program).
2
250
‐3‐
HCD COMMENT:
Increasing Housing Choices and Affordability in Higher Opportunity Areas: To address this
finding, the element relied on actions that are required to comply with state law including
updating the City’s density bonus program and allowing for transitional, supportive, group,
and employee housing. However, to increase housing choices and affordability throughout
the City, the element should consider going above and beyond state law such as allowing
two JADUs on a single family lot, developing and marketing a homeowner rehabilitation
and/or down payment assistance program, etc.
Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment:
In subsequent oral communication with HCD, it was suggested that the City strengthen
Program 15 to go beyond “considering participation in the CDBG program.” HCD suggested
that the City could instead commit to a course of action that would result in minor home
repair grants for lower income Rolling Hills households. The “down payment assistance
program” referenced in this comment would not be viable in Rolling Hills due to the very high
cost of housing in the city.
Program 15 now indicates the City will pursue CDBG grants and/or other funding sources in
order to offer minor home repair grants to a target of 10 lower-income and/or senior
households. This could include grants for septic tank replacement for homeowners seeking
to add an ADU (see also Program 6.7). The program could also be administered by another
entity, such as South Bay COG or a non-profit, with City support.
HCD COMMENT:
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Permanent and Supportive Housing): The element
was revised with a program to define supportive housing and permit it as a residential use,
similar to other residential uses. However, the element still must address the requirements
under Government Code section 65651. As found in the prior review, Supportive housing
shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including
nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section
65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement or add or modify
programs as appropriate.
Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment:
The City amended its Municipal Code in August 2022 to include the exact language cited
here, consistent with the Government Code. The highlighted language was been adopted
and the City is compliant with Government Code section 65651. This language has also
been added to Housing Element Program 4.
3
4
251
‐4‐
HCD COMMENT:
Approval Time: The element was revised to include a discussion on the time between
entitlements and construction and the current conditions of the construction market.
However, this does not address HCD’s prior review. Specifically, the element must be
revised to include an estimate for the length of time between receiving approval for housing
development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the
construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.
Revisions made by City in Response to this Comment:
The City has edited Chapter 5 (Constraints Analysis) and Chapter 6 (Goals, Policies,
Programs) to address this comment.
Page 5-24/ 5-25 have been edited to add text on the “length of time between receiving
approval for housing and submittal of an application for building permits.”
In Chapter 6, Program 11 has been expanded. New text recommends that City staff work
with LA County Building and Safety to receive periodic reports on active building permits in
Rolling Hills. This will help the City follow up on projects that have been entitled but not yet
received their building permits.
OTHER EDITS
The City has edited Programs 4, 5, and 6.10 to reflect the fact that these actions were
completed in August 2022.
5
252
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-1
5.0 Constraints to Housing Production
5.1 Introduction
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(5) and (6) require the Housing Element to contain an
analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing for all income levels. Governmental constraints include land use
controls, building codes and code enforcement practices, site improvement requirements, fees
and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any
locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.
Non-governmental constraints include the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of
construction, requests to develop at densities below what is allowed by zoning, community
opposition, and similar factors.
In each case, the Housing Element is required to demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints
that are identified, thus improving the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation. The extent to which these constraints are affecting the supply and affordability of
housing in Rolling Hills is discussed below, along with past (or proposed future) efforts to
eliminate those constraints.
5.2 Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints include activities imposed by local government on the development of
housing. These activities may impact the price and availability of housing, the ability to build
particular types of housing, and the time it takes to get housing approved and constructed.
While these requirements are intended to improve housing quality and protect public safety,
they may have unintended consequences.
5.2.1 Rolling Hills General Plan
Every city and county in California is required to adopt a General Plan for its long-term
development. This Housing Element is actually part of the General Plan but it stands on its own
as a separate document since it is updated on a schedule set by the State of California. The
other elements of the General Plan are updated as needed. Most cities update their plans every
15 to 20 years.
Most of the Rolling Hills General Plan was drafted in 1990. In addition to the Housing Element,
the Plan includes a Land Use Element, a Circulation Element, an Open Space/ Conservation
Element, a Safety Element, and a Noise Element. An update to the Safety Element was
prepared concurrently with the Housing Element, in response to recent State requirements.
The Rolling Hills Land Use Element includes a Land Use Policy Map illustrating the types of uses
permitted throughout the city. When the Map was adopted in 1990, it reinforced existing parcel
patterns and responded to the infrastructure, geologic, wildfire, and environmental constraints in
253
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-2
the city. Four categories are shown: Very Low Density Residential (2 acres per unit), Low
Density Residential (1 acre per unit), Civic Center, and Publicly-owned Open Space.
Prior to 2020, the City did not allow development at densities greater than one unit per acre and
had no General Plan provisions for multi-family housing. As part of 5th Cycle Housing Element
implementation, the City amended its Land Use Element to add the Rancho Del Mar Housing
Opportunity Overlay designation to the Map (corresponding to the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar
school site). At the same time, the City adopted new Land Use Element standards and policies
allowing multi-family housing in the Overlay area, along with policies allowing a diverse mix of
housing units, as required by state law.
The Land Use Element recognizes Rolling Hills’ heritage as an equestrian community comprised
of large lots on steep terrain. Its policies call for buffering between uses, preservation of views,
and minimizing exposure to landslides, wildfires, and other hazards. These policies remain
appropriate given the safety hazards in the community. The Element specifically discusses the
150-acre Flying Triangle landslide hazard area, noting that the area is subject to a moratorium
due to unstable geologic conditions. It also notes that many existing parcels are constrained by
steep slopes and have only small areas that are suitable for building pads and construction.
Recent amendments to the Safety Element further emphasize environmental hazards in the city,
as well as constraints associated with evacuation, water supply, and emergency vehicle access.
These constraints make most of Rolling Hills poorly suited for additional development or zoning
changes that would result in increased density and population.
As it currently stands, the General Plan is not a development constraint.
5.2.2 Zoning Standards
The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the General
Plan and provides objective development standards for all parcels in the City. There are three
zoning districts in the City:
• Residential Agricultural Suburban 1 (RAS-1), which has a one-acre minimum lot size
• Residential Agricultural Suburban 2 (RAS-2), which has a two-acre minimum lot size
• Public Facilities (PF)
The RAS-1 zone roughly corresponds to the “Low Density Residential” General Plan designation
The RAS-2 zone roughly corresponds to the “Very Low Density Residential” General Plan
designation.1 The PF zone corresponds to the “Civic Center” General Plan designation. Parcels
with a General Plan designation of “Publicly-owned Open Space” are zoned RAS-1 or RAS-2,
whichever is prevalent on private parcels in the vicinity.
There are also two overlay districts. Overlays are mapped “on top” of one of the three base
zones listed above and apply additional regulations specific to subareas of the city. The first
overlay district (OZD-1) provides more lenient setback standards in an area of the city
1 Parcels along Spur Lane and Cinchring Road have a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential but a
zoning designation of RAS-1.
254
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-3
characterized by smaller lots. Roughly 70 lots along Middleridge Lane, Williamsburg Lane,
Chesterfield Road and Chuckwagon Road, are covered. The second overlay district (RDMO) is
the Rancho Del Mar Overlay, which is mapped on the Rancho Del Mar School site in the RAS-2
district. The RDMO requires the transfer of General Plan density for the property as a whole
(which yields 16 units) to a single location in order to facilitate the production of multi-family
housing. This overlay also includes objective standards for multi-family housing and emergency
shelter, which are permitted by right.
The zoning ordinance includes definitions of terms (Chapter 17.12). At this time there are no
definitions of transitional and supportive housing, both of which must be permitted in every
residential district under state law. An action program in this Element has been included to
make that Code amendment. The definitions expressly acknowledge manufactured and mobile
homes as being the same as detached single family dwellings, provided they are located on a
foundation.
The zoning regulations indicate permitted and prohibited uses in each zoning district. Single
family residences and accessory dwelling units are permitted “by right” in RAS-1 and RAS-2.
The only expressly prohibited uses are short-term rentals (less than 30 days), commercial
cannabis activities and cannabis dispensaries. Numerous types of accessory structures are
permitted by right, including stables, pools, sheds, and small (under 200 SF) cabanas, guest
houses, pool houses, garages, greenhouses, and similar structures. Such structures generally
require conditional use permits when they exceed 200 SF (accessory dwelling units are
excluded from this requirement). Other conditional uses include schools, fire stations, and
similar public buildings and utilities. Site plans are required when development is proposed.
Table 5.1 summarizes the development standards in the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones, starting with
the minimum lot size requirements of one acre and two acres. The Code states that existing
parcels of record that are smaller than the minimum lot size requirements are considered to be
conforming. Minimum dimensional standards are established for new lots, including the ratio of
width to depth and a requirement for a minimum width of 150 feet. There are also standards for
minimum street frontage, keeping in mind that most streets are private and contained within
easements. These standards are more flexible on cul-de-sacs, depending on turning radius.
As indicated in Table 5.1, building coverage is limited to 20 percent of the net lot area in both the
RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones. Total impervious surface coverage (structures and hardscape) is
limited to 35 percent of the net lot area; maximum disturbed area is limited to 40 percent of the
net lot area; and building height is restricted to one story. The code identifies 2:1 (50%) as the
maximum buildable slope. A minimum dwelling size of 1,300 square feet is established for the
primary unit on the site. The Code includes setback standards of 50’ for front and rear yards,
and 20’ for side yards in RAS-1 and 35’ for side yards in RAS-2. Lower standards apply in the
OZD-1 overlay zone and exceptions are provided for lots along street easements.2
The zoning code affirms the one-story construction requirement established by the Rolling Hills
Community Association (the RDM Overlay area is subject to a two-story requirement). The
finished floor of structures must be no more than five feet above grade. Basements are
2 The City is currently developing standards to implement SB 9, which allows the division of existing lots into two
parcels and the construction of two dwellings on each parcel, subject to specific objective standards and other
considerations.
255
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-4
permitted and storage areas may be located above or below a story. The code also provides
standards for graded building pads and requirements for stables and corral sites.
Table 5.1: Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards(1)
RAS-1 RAS-2 OZD overlay
Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 2 acres N/A
Setbacks
Front 50’ from front easement line (2) 30 feet from front
roadway easement
Side 35 feet (3) 20 feet (3) 20 feet, reduced to 10’ for
street side yards
Rear 50 feet
Structure Coverage (4) 20%
Impervious Surface Coverage 35%
Building Pad Coverage 30%
Maximum Disturbed Area 40% of net lot area (excl. easements)
Maximum Height One-story
(1) Standards for the RDM Overlay Zone and standards for ADUs are addressed in Section 5.3.2 of the Housing
Element.
(2) Most property is Rolling Hills is subject to easements varying in width around each property boundary and road
easements, granted by the property owner to the RHCA, a private corporation, or another person or entity for the
purpose of construction and/or maintenance and use of streets, driveways, trails, utility lines, drainage facilities, open
space, and/or a combination of these uses. The RHCA requires that all easement s must be kept free of buildings,
fences, plantings or other obstructions.
(3) Reduced to 20’ in RAS-2 and 10’ in RAS-1 and OZD if there is a private street along the side property line.
(4) The percentage figures in Table 5.1 apply to the “net lot area” on each parcel, which excludes these easements.
Additional standards in the Zoning Code prohibit reflective outdoor siding, limit outdoor lighting
(to maintain dark skies), and require Class “A” roofing. Conditions are established for specific
accessory uses, such as greenhouses, pools, and playgrounds. This includes a requirement
that guest houses (which are different from ADUs) may not exceed 800 square feet. Whereas
guest houses may not be rented and typically require a conditional use permit, ADUs are
permitted by right and subject to different standards (see P. 5-5).
A minimum of two garage parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling unit. An
additional space is required for homes with guest houses (as noted above, guest houses are
treated differently than ADUs). Homes are also required to have driveways, which are generally
limited to 20 feet in width and one per lot, though exceptions apply. The parking requirement is
not a development constraint and is appropriate given the size of parcels, the high number of
automobiles per household3, and the fact that the streets lack sidewalks and are too narrow to
permit on-street parking. There is also no public transit service in the city.
3 The 2015-2019 US Census American Community Survey indicates that 63% of all households in Rolling Hills own
three or more vehicles.
256
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-5
The development standards in Table 5.1 do not present constraints to the construction of single
family homes. Even a “small” substandard lot of 200’ x 200’ (40,000) square feet would be
allowed 16,000 square feet of buildable area after required setbacks are subtracted. The
allowable structure coverage on such a lot would be 8,000 square feet, providing more than
enough space for a residence and detached accessory structures. The requirement for single-
story construction has not constrained single family construction, given the ample building
footprint accommodated on each site. In fact, single-story construction has enabled many older
adults in Rolling Hills to age in place.
State law also requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop
housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. No such requests have been
received in Rolling Hills, as development typically occurs on existing lots rather than through
subdivision or multi-unit construction.
5.2.3 Standards for Different Housing Types
Section 65583 and 65583.2 of the Government Code require cities to plan for a “variety of types
of housing, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for
agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy units, emergency shelters,
and transitional housing.” Accordingly, the Rolling Hills Housing Element includes provisions for
each of these housing types in the city, with the exception of housing explicitly reserved for
agricultural employees, since this was not identified as being a need in the city.
Accessory Dwelling Units4
An Accessory Dwelling Unit—or ADU—is an attached or detached dwelling unit that provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a
proposed or existing primary residence. ADUs are commonly known as in-law units, second
units, or granny flats. A “Junior” Accessory Dwelling Unit (or JADU) is an ADU that it is no more
than 500 square feet in size, contained entirely within the footprint of an existing or proposed
single family dwelling, and has an efficiency kitchen. JADUs often have their own bathrooms but
they may also share bathrooms with the primary residence. State law now requires that all cities
and counties permit ADUs and JADUs meeting certain standards “by right”—in other words,
without a public hearing or discretionary approval.
Prior to 2018, ADUs and JADUs were not permitted in Rolling Hills. However, the zoning
regulations allowed the construction of non-rentable guest houses for family members, visitors,
and domestic employees on all residential properties. The large size and high value of
properties in Rolling Hills has supported the development of guest houses in the past, resulting
in a large inventory of structures that could potentially be converted from guest houses to ADUs
in the future. The city also has a large number of accessory structures such as barns, pool
cabanas, studios and workshops that could be converted to ADUs. Because of the single story
4 This text was prepared in December 2021. Subsequent to its initial publication, the City coordinated with HCD to
adopt amendments to its ADU ordinance to ensure that it is fully compliant with State law. These amendments were
approved in August 2022.
257
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-6
construction requirement, there are also a substantial number of homes with floor plans
conducive to Junior ADUs, as many homes have wings, additions, or rooms that could easily be
partitioned as independent living units.
In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the
construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and
JADUs). Consistent with State law (Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22), the City allows
ADUs and JADUs ministerially (e.g., without a discretionary public hearing) provided the units
meet specific standards and design criteria established in the zoning code. The City has also
created a discretionary review path for projects that do not meet these standards.
Chapter 17.28 establishes that an ADU and JADU may be allowed with a simple building permit
if it is within the space of an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure, including an
allowance for up to 150 additional square feet for ingress and egress. The unit must also have
exterior access independent of the single family dwelling and side and rear setbacks that meet
building and fire codes. In addition, detached ADUs are permitted with a building permit (and no
additional permit) if they are 800 square feet or less, no more than 16 feet tall, and have side
and rear setbacks of at least four feet.
A second permitting path has been created for units that are between 800 and 1,000 square
feet. Such units require an ADU Permit, which like the building permit is issued ministerially,
with no discretionary review. These units are subject to a size limit of 850 square feet for a
studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. If attached to the primary
dwelling, the unit is subject to a requirement that it may not exceed 50 percent of the floor area
of the existing primary dwelling. The ADU may not cause the lot coverage on the property to
exceed 50 percent or cause the FAR to exceed 0.45. Setback standards also apply.
The City’s ADU ordinance incorporates State standards for parking, which waive parking
requirements for JADUs and units created by converting habitable accessory structures.
Parking is also waived for units near public transit stops or car-share vehicles. This is generally
not applicable in Rolling Hills, since the community is not served by transit or car-share services.
Per State law, the Code allows for carports and garages to be converted to ADUs without
replacement parking. Where this situation does not apply, one space is required for each ADU,
and tandem parking is permitted.
ADUs are subject to general requirements, such as fire sprinklers (if the unit is in the primary
residence) and a prohibition on short-term rentals (less than 30 days). They are also subject to
permit streamlining requirements, including a requirement to act on the application within 60
days after it is deemed complete. This time period may be extended at the applicant’s request,
or if the ADU is located within a new single family dwelling on the lot. The City allows both the
ADU and the primary residence to be rented, although there are limitations on renting JADUs if
the primary residence is not owner occupied.5 The City’s Ordinance also prohibits the sale of an
ADU separately from the lot and primary dwelling.
ADUs are also subject to basic architectural standards, including compatibility with the design of
the primary dwelling. This is objectively quantified, for instance by specifying that the roof pitch
5 JADUs (units created within the floorplan of an existing home) are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement
unless the property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization.
258
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-7
must match the primary dwelling, and that the entry be on the side or rear elevation. The ADU
is also subject to a minimum length and width standard of 10 feet, and a minimum ceiling height
of seven feet. Landscape screening requirements apply to units that are near adjacent parcels.
If the ADU changes the building exterior or involves a new structure, it is subject to design
review by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee (see next section for
further discussion).
ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from all impact fees. Units larger than 750
square feet may only be charged impact fees that are proportionally related to the square
footage of the unit. The Code also includes waivers for utility connection fees for most ADUs,
thereby reducing construction and operating costs. Moreover, the Code provides the option for
a conditional use permit for ADUs that do not conform to the basic development standards of
Chapter 17.28.
Overall, these requirements do not constrain or inhibit ADU or JADU construction. The
regulations reflect State regulations and create ample opportunities for homeowners to earn
extra income while providing a new dwelling unit for a tenant, employee, caregiver or family
member. Given the large lot sizes in the city, the setback standards, FAR standards, and lot
coverage limits still allow for generous ADU footprints. Likewise, the single story requirement is
consistent with the requirement for single family homes. The “bonus” 150 square feet for JADU
ingress/egress creates an incentive for such units. The requirement to provide a parking space
is consistent with State law, since there is no transit in Rolling Hills—and is not a constraint given
the large lot sizes and substantial driveway space available on most lots.
While no constraints have been identified, there are opportunities to provide incentives for ADUs
that have yet to be realized. Because of recent changes to State law, there are opportunities for
ADUs to be conveyed separately or operated by non-profits and/or affordable housing
providers. As noted in Chapter 6, the City will pursue future programs to encourage ADU
construction, including ADUs for very low and low income households. This includes creating a
roster of ADUs and an inventory of units that meet “extremely low income” needs by providing
housing for family members, domestic employees, or other long-term occupants.
Additionally, State law for ADUs was amended in 2020 and 2021. Several provisions in the
City’s regulations must be updated for consistency. This includes eliminating the prohibition on
ADUs with more than two bedrooms, and adding a provision that completed applications be
deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days. The City will work with the State
Housing and Community Development Department to determine if there are other provisions of
the ordinance that require updating. Program 6.10 in Chapter 6 identifies this as a high priority
action, to be completed by October 15, 2022.6
Multi-Family Housing
In February 2021, the City amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family
housing within the City limits. This was a key implementation measure in the Fifth Cycle
Housing Element. New policies in the General Plan Land Use Element expressly support a
range of housing types in the city, including multi-family housing. Chapter 17.19 of the
6 These changes were made and this action was completed in August 2022.
259
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-8
Municipal Code creates the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Opportunity Overlay Zone, which
has the following objectives:
• Create “by right” opportunities for multi-family housing
• Implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning to
accommodate the City’s current and projected need for housing
• Facilitate well-designed development projects
• Encourage development that provides attractive features that integrate the public realm with
development on adjacent private property.
The zone is mapped on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site, which as noted in Chapter 4
and Appendix B, is the most viable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The zone
allows 16 units of multi-family housing on the site (excluding potential density bonus units), with
a requirement that this housing be constructed at a density of 20 to 24 units per acre. The 20
unit per acre minimum density requirement corresponds to the “default density” under AB 2348,
while the 16-unit requirement is based on the number of units permitted by the underlying
General Plan and RAS-2 zoning designations. It is also a threshold used by HCD to identify
viable housing sites.
Affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in this zone, provided it is affordable to low
and very low-income households and meets objective design standards that are included in the
zoning code. These include minimum dwelling unit sizes of 250 square feet for a studio, 400
square feet for a one-bedroom, 650 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 900 square feet for a
three-bedroom. Higher minimums had been proposed initially but were lowered to the adopted
standards based on direction from HCD that the above figures would not constrain development.
As noted above, the allowable density range for the Zone is 20-24 units per acre. Numerous
projects—both market-rate and affordable—have been developed in this density range in Los
Angeles County in recent years. The range can accommodate apartments, condominiums,
townhomes, row houses, clustered units, manufactured homes, and small detached cottages.
All of these housing types would be permitted under the regulations prescribed by the Overlay
Zone.
Development standards for multi-family housing within the Overlay Zone are conducive to higher
density construction. These standards require 5-foot front and side setbacks and a 10-foot rear
setback. Encroachments such as decks, balconies, awnings, porches, and stairways may
extend into the setback areas, and architectural features such as eaves and cornices are also
permitted in the setbacks. There are no lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratio limits. A 28’
height applies, allowing two-story construction. This is the only place in Rolling Hills where two-
story construction is permitted.
Development is subject to a requirement that 100 square feet of common open space be
provided for each dwelling unit. Thus a 16-unit project would be required to set aside 1,600
square feet of shared open space, which is equivalent to about 5 percent of the development
site (assuming a density of 20 units per acre). When drafting the Ordinance, the City initially
proposed a common open space standard of 150 square feet per unit, but this was reduced to
100 square feet during HCD’s review of the draft to eliminate the potential for a constraint.
260
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-9
One parking space per unit is required, plus one guest parking space for every 10 units. For
senior housing, one space per unit is required for the first 10 units, and 0.5 spaces per unit are
required for any additional units. The RDMO zone allows surface parking, with no requirements
for garages or carports. At 180 square feet per parking space, the total area dedicated to
parking in a 20 unit per acre project would be 3,240 square feet, or about nine percent of the
site. Even with driveway lanes, the total area of the site required for parking would be small.
Moreover, the ordinance includes provisions for reduced parking where certain conditions exist
(shared parking agreements with nearby uses, available street parking, etc.).
No parking is permitted in the 20’ front setback area (at the driveway location). This would not
be a constraint given the large size of any parcel that would be created in the future to
accommodate multi-family development. Moreover, the front yard setback for structures is only
five feet, which creates more space for the building envelope and encourages parking to be
placed to the rear or side of the parcel, potentially within the setback.
The development standards require that multi-family housing be located at least 50 feet from the
toe of the slope associated with a hillside area within the Overlay District. Figure 5.1 shows the
sloped area and indicates that the linear distance between the toe of the slope and the access
road serving the multi-family development site is 337 feet. Thus the area where structures are
acceptable extends 287 linear feet back from the access road (minus a 5-foot front setback).
While the rear 50 feet may not include structures, it could include open space and other
amenities, including parking and driveways. The 50’ setback does not affect parcel width (i.e.,
the east-west dimension), and still leaves room for a substantial development site on the
property.
Figure 5.1: Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site
261
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-10
Because affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in the Overlay Zone, the City has
adopted objective design standards to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent
uses. These address residential frontages (facades, etc.), usable open space standards, public
space amenity requirements, and operational standards. Such standards have the potential to
create a development constraint if they are too onerous or add to the cost of housing.
The residential frontage standards require that the ground floor be no more than five feet above
the ground surface. This is easily attained, since the site is relatively flat. The standards
establish a 10’ floor to floor height, which is consistent with the overall 28’ height limit as well as
typical residential construction standards and interior ceiling heights. Entrances and windows
are required along the front façade, and entrances to individual units may either be direct to the
exterior, or to an interior hallway. Stoops and porches may be located on the exterior, and
projecting elements (bay windows, eaves, balconies) may extend into setback areas. Street
tree, landscaping, and lighting requirements apply, but these do not constrain development.
The usable open space standards likewise do not represent a constraint. These requirements
call for an amenity such as a children’s playground or clubhouse in multi-family projects. The
amenity may be indoors or outdoors and may not include parking areas, streets, or driveways.
Projects are also expected to include amenities such as pedestrian walkways, landscaping, bike
storage racks, and screened trash enclosures, and would need to comply with building code
standards for interior noise. These are common requirements in California communities and do
not represent a constraint.
Mobile and Manufactured Homes
As required by State law, the City Zoning Ordinance allows for manufactured housing units to
reduce residential construction costs. Section 17.12.130 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
defines manufactured homes and mobile homes as “single family dwellings”; as such, they are
subject to the same standards as wood-frame construction.
Emergency Shelters
Every city in California is required to identify a zone where at least one year-round emergency
shelter is permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit (Govt Code
Section 65583(a)(4)(A)). The Government Code further requires that emergency shelters be
subject to the same standards that apply to residential and commercial development in that
zone, except that certain objective standards prescribed by the State may apply.
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to permit emergency
shelters “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone. Rolling Hills has adopted
standards for shelters that meet the requirements of the Government Code and facilitate
emergency shelter construction or conversion. The RDMO Zone encompasses over 31 acres of
public property, most of which is underutilized. There are opportunities to create shelters by
converting existing buildings, constructing new buildings, or using temporary facilities such as
portables or tiny homes. This use is permitted by right, with no discretionary permit required by
the City. There are no limitations on where shelters may locate within the boundary of the
RDMO Zone. Since shelter beds do not constitute “dwelling units”, an emergency shelter would
262
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-11
not be considered part of the 16 dwelling units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not
affect the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone.
The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review in December 2020 and
subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they are compliant with the Government
Code and do not present a constraint to emergency shelter development. The adopted
standards include:
• Shelters may be 300 feet apart, consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(A)(v) One
parking space for each staff person must be provided. There are no supplemental
parking requirements based on the number of beds. The requirements are consistent
with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(V)(A)(ii) and are no greater than those that apply to
other land uses and activities in the RDMO zoning district.
• A maximum of 12 beds applies. This is comparable to the maximums that apply in
nearby cities, including those with unsheltered populations.
• 50 square feet of personal living space is required for each occupant, excluding common
areas.
• The standards allow, but do not require, shelters to include a dining room, commercial
kitchen, laundry room, recreation room, child care facilities, and support services (the
Code indicates these may be provided, but they are not mandatory)
• At least five percent of the shelter area must be dedicated for on-site waiting and intake,
and an equivalent (or larger) area is required for exterior waiting
• Shelters must comply with building code, plumbing code, and trash enclosure
requirements—the same standards that apply to other uses in the Overlay Zone and in
the underlying base RAS-2 Zone.
Consistent with the Government Code, an application to operate an emergency shelter requires
submittal of a management and operations plan that addresses hours of operation, staffing
levels, maximum length of stay, and security procedures. The application would require
approval by the City Administrator, based on satisfaction of the conditions listed above and
review for compliance with Building, Fire, and other applicable regulations.
The regulations do not constrain emergency shelter development and are compliant with
Government Code requirements. As they were just put into effect in 2021, the City will monitor
their effectiveness over the 2021-2029 planning period to determine if changes are needed.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels
In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) housing in the RDMO Zone. These are facilities with individual rooms or
small efficiency apartments designed for very low-income persons. There are no limitations on
where SROs may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is
required.
In December 2020, the City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and
subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they do not present a constraint to SRO
development. The adopted standards include:
263
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-12
• A minimum of six units and a maximum of eight units
• Maximum occupancy of two persons per unit
• Floor area of 250-350 square feet per unit
• Each room must include a water closet (Toilet plus sink)
• Each room must include a kitchen sink with a disposal (but not necessarily a full kitchen)
• Each unit must have a closet
• Full kitchens (i.e., with range, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) and full bathrooms (with
shower/bath) may be provided in each unit but are not required. If these facilities are not
included in each unit, then shared facilities are required on each floor.
• 0.5 parking spaces are required per unit, plus one space for each employee on duty
• Occupancy is for 30 days or more
The City initially proposed including a requirement for 24-hour on-site management, and a
requirement for elevators in the event the building was two stories. Both of these requirements
were removed following HCD’s feedback that they were potential constraints. Requiring 24-hour
management requirement could be a constraint for a 6-8 unit facility. As a result, on-site
management is not required on a 24-hour basis. Given that the building would only be two
stories, the requirement for elevators was removed. Since SRO rooms would not be classified as
independent “dwelling units”, they would not be considered part of the 16 units permitted by the
Overlay Zone and would not reduce the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone.
Supportive, Transitional, and Employee Housing
Supportive housing is a type of rental housing that includes on-site services such as medical
assistance or treatment of chronic health conditions or disabilities. Transitional housing is a type
of supportive housing but is specifically intended for unsheltered residents who are transitioning
to permanent housing. Supportive and transitional housing is not associated with a specific
structure type—single family homes can be used in this manner, and so can multi-family
buildings.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires cities to treat transitional and supportive
housing as residential uses that are only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In other words, a City cannot hold a single
family home used as supportive housing to a different standard for parking, setbacks, floor area,
etc. than a single family home occupied by a family or other type of household.
Public Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 requires the City to treat employee housing for
six or fewer people the same as other single family housing in each zoning district. For example,
if a corporation in another city purchased a home in Rolling Hills and allowed its employees to
live there, the use would be treated like any other single family home.
Rolling Hills presently has no Code language that limits transitional, supportive, or employee
housing or imposes any special restrictions on such housing. However, these housing types are
not expressly acknowledged in the Municipal Code. The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes
an action item to add definitions of transitional, supportive, and employee housing to the
Municipal Code within six months of Housing Element adoption, acknowledging that such
264
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-13
housing is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential
dwellings of the same type in the same zone, as required by State law.7
Housing Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4) requires the Housing Element to include “an analysis of
potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement of
development of housing…for persons with disabilities. AB 686 also requires the City to
affirmatively further fair housing, which includes housing that meets the needs of persons with
disabilities.
In November 2020, the City Council approved reasonable accommodation procedures,
including application requirements, review procedures, findings, and provisions for noticing and
advertising the opportunity. These procedures establish a process through which persons with
disabilities can request reasonable accommodations (or modifications) to the City’s codes, rules,
policies, practices or services so that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy or use a dwelling.
The City has also adopted a resolution recognizing the Americans with Disabilities Act, including
a commitment to assist disabled residents.
A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or
her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when
the application of a land use, zoning, or building regulation, policy, practice, or procedure acts
as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. The City has posted notices at City Hall informing the
public of its right to make such a request, including application forms for those making a
request. Requests are generally made to the City Manager.
Once a completed application is received, the City Manager has 45 days to make a written
determination. Additional information may be requested of the applicant in order to make an
informed determination. An alternative solution to the one proposed by the applicant may be
considered if it would reduce impacts and still achieve the intent of the request.
The request is granted, with or without conditions, if the City Manager finds that the housing will
be occupied by an eligible individual, the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the
individual with equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, the requested accommodation
would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or fundamentally alter
the City’s zoning or building laws or undermine the General Plan, and there are no other
reasonable accommodation methods that would allow the applicant to enjoy the dwelling that
would be less impactful on the surrounding area.
Conditions of approval may be replaced on the application. These may include periodic inspection
to verify compliance, recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the improvements when
it is no longer needed, time limits, measures to reduce off-site impacts, and measures that respond
to the unique physical attributes of the property. Decisions may be appealed.
Rolling Hills has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code. As long as construction is
consistent with the Building Code, residents are permitted to provide any disabled access or
7 This action was completed in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant.
265
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-14
amenity improvements necessary to reduce barriers. Access to homes via ramps is permitted.
One-story construction throughout the community removes a major barrier for persons with
disabilities and facilitates access for persons with mobility limitations. Accessibility
improvements, universal design changes, and other accommodations for persons with
disabilities are processed administratively in conjunction with the building permit process and
are permitted in both of the City’s residential zones.
No constraints to housing for persons with disabilities were identified in this analysis. As noted
in Chapter 3, the city’s large population of older adults requires ongoing efforts to facilitate
retrofitting of existing homes for residents with physical limitations, and their caregivers.
Residential Care Facilities and Definition of “Family”
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires that small licensed residential
care facilities for six of fewer clients be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right
in all residential districts. Care facilities with seven or more clients (e.g., “large” residential care
facilities) may be subject to additional requirements but must be treated the same as other
residential uses in that zoning district. Cities that require conditional use permits for large
residential care facilities are required to mitigate this constraint in their housing elements.
At this point in time, the Rolling Hills Zoning Code does not expressly mention or define
residential care facilities, nor does it distinguish between “large” and “small” facilities. The
Code should be amended to expressly indicate that this use is permitted by right in all zones
where housing is allowed, and is subject to the same standards, fees, and procedures as other
residential uses in those zones. This is required by State law. As required by California Health
and Safety Code Section 1566.2, the City does not collect business taxes, registration fees, or
other fees for small residential care facilities.
The Rolling Hills Municipal Code includes a definition of “family” in its zoning regulations. Overly
restrictive definitions may pose a housing constraint, but in this instance the definition is broad
and inclusive. According to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, “family” means:
“one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from
a group occupying a boarding, rooming or lodging house, hotel or club. Family
may include domestic servants.”
5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls
State law requires the City to consider not only the impact of individual development standards,
but also the cumulative effects of these standards on the cost and supply of housing. For example,
it is possible that a particular setback requirement may appear reasonable on its own b ut may
limit development opportunities when combined with height and lot coverage limits. Sometimes,
the combined effect of different development controls can require more expensive construction
or result in frequent zoning variances.
Because of the very large lot sizes in Rolling Hills, the zoning standards do not create an adverse
cumulative impact on development costs or the housing supply. As previously noted (pages 5-2
266
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-15
and 5-4), a special zoning overlay (OZD-1) was created in 2012 to recognize that some parts of
the city have prevailing lot sizes that are smaller than the one-acre minimum required by the RAS-
1 district. Roughly 10 percent of the City’s parcels are covered by this zone, which allows reduced
setbacks in order to avoid the need for zoning variances.
As noted earlier, the combination of front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a rectangular one-acre
lot would still allow for a buildable area of over 16,000 square feet. Most parcels are considerably
larger than one acre and have buildable areas that exceed 20,000 square feet. FAR and lot
coverage limits likewise allow ample structure coverage, and homes larger than 10,000 square
feet can be built without Variances on most lots. The one-story height limit tends to produce
building footprints that are quite large—but still within the 20% structure coverage requirement.
Each residence is required to have two covered parking spaces (three, if an ADU or guest quarters
are on-site). This requirement is modest given the typically large home size and does not
constrain building construction.
The land use controls also do not present a cumulative constraint to ADU construction. Almost
every parcel in the City has the land area or existing built floor area to support an ADU, and
many homes already have spaces that could be easily converted to ADUs. The ADU and JADU
regulations adopted in 2018 and revised in 2020 were drafted to work in tandem with the
controls for the RAS-1 and RAS-2 districts and have laid the foundation for substantial ADU
production.
There are no cumulative land use constraints to multi-family development. The Rancho Del Mar
Overlay (RDMO) Zone standards have been tested to ensure they are internally consistent and
can support housing in the 20-24 unit/acre range. The RDMO Zone allows multi-family housing
to be either owner or renter occupied. New housing units in this zone must be affordable. The
affordability requirement is not a constraint to development, as the site is publicly owned and
represents a unique opportunity for reduced land and construction costs. There are no
comparable opportunities in the city, as this is the only property in Rolling Hills that is flat,
vacant, served by public sewer, and walking distance from public transit.
Prior to August 2022, Oone notable omission from the City’s zoning regulations was a provision
for density bonuses. State law requires that the City offer a density bonus for projects that set
aside various percentages of units for affordable housing, senior housing, and other types of
special needs housing. The number of bonus units is based on a sliding scale and can be up to
50 percent above the base density permitted by zoning. For projects where all units are
affordable to low and very low income households, the density bonus rises to 80 percent. A
density bonus could be requested for the Rancho Del Mar site, since the overlay requires that
any multi-family housing is 100 percent affordable. This would allow 28 units on the site instead
of the 16 allowed by the General Plan and zoning. Density bonus provisions were adopted by
Rolling Hills in August 2022 and the City is now fully compliant with this requirement.
The Housing Element includes a program recommendation that the City amend the Municipal
Code to adopt density bonus provisions or adopt the State provisions by reference.
267
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-16
5.2.5 Building Code Standards
The City of Rolling Hills adopted the Building Code for Los Angeles County in effect on January
1, 2020 as its Building Code. A number of local amendments to the Code were made. This
includes an allowance for the City Council to hold a public hearing to review decisions of the
County Board of Appeals, Code Enforcement Appeals Board, or Building Rehabilitation Appeals
Board. Other local amendments include a modified definition of “basement” (to avoid the
appearance of multi-story buildings), adjusted provisions for grading and cut slopes, limits on
driveway slope, and limits on developing slopes over 50 percent. The City has also adopted the
Los Angeles County Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Residential Code, Fire
Code, and Green Building Code.
Effective July 1, 2008, all land in the City of Rolling Hills was deemed to be a “Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, several more restrictive fire safety standards have been
adopted. The City also has adopted standards for hours of construction, and requirements for geological
surveys and investigations.
5.2.6 Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures
Processing and permit procedures can be a constraint to the production and improvement of
housing due to the time they add the development process. Unclear permitting procedures,
layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval
can increase the cost of housing, create uncertainty in the development process, and increase
the financial risk assumed by the developer.
In Rolling Hills, the time required to process a project varies depending on the size and
complexity of the proposal, and the volume of projects being reviewed. Not every project must
complete every possible step in the process. In addition, certain review and approval
procedures may run concurrently.
For smaller projects, permit processing times tend to be faster than in most cities.
Administrative review applications (i.e., those that do not require public hearings) typically take
only a few days to process. However, the City’s capacity is limited, requiring that some permit
processing functions are contracted out. Even smaller projects that are approved ministerially
typically require review by the Rolling Hills Community Association and the Los Angeles County
Building and Safety Department, in its role as the contracted building authority of the City.
The City collects no fees for over the counter review—such fees are assessed when the project
is submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Administrative review processes have
been created for residential additions less than 1,000 square feet, accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units, remodels, foundation repair, and re-roofing. Such projects are
required to submit two sets of plans, various checklists, and calculations of existing and
proposed square footage, lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. The City’s website
provides comprehensive information for applicants seeking permits, including on-line portals for
applications, payment, and checking progress on permit status.
Larger projects such as new homes take longer, but they are less common. New homes in
268
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-17
Rolling Hills are multi-million dollar projects that often require demolition, site preparation and
grading, and new driveways before construction may begin. Larger projects may also require
review by the LA County Health Department for the adequacy of the septic system, and the Fire
Department for fuel modification.
Unless specifically exempted by State law, large projects such as new homes and residential
additions of 1,000 square feet or larger are subject to Site Plan Review. An initial consultation
with staff is strongly encouraged at the start of the process. Once an application is received, it is
reviewed for completeness, including required calculations, elevations, and site plans. When the
application is deemed complete, it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for a hearing,
including a recommendation from staff.
The Site Plan review process typically takes three to six months from start to finish, including a
field trip by Planning Commissioners to the project site at the start of the process. The process
may be completed in a single hearing but on occasion may take two to three hearings so that
issues raised by the Commission and public can be addressed. Additionally, project applicants
may modify their site plans after approval and return to the Commission for approval of major
revisions.
The Planning Commission has the authority to approve Site Plan Review applications. The
decision of the Commission is considered final unless an appeal is filed with the City Council or
the City Council decides to take the application under its jurisdiction. The decision becomes
effective 30 days after adoption of the resolution.
Approval of a Site Plan Review application requires findings related to compliance with the
General Plan and adopted lot coverage standards, preservation of topography and vegetation,
grading that follows natural contours or does not adversely modify natural drainage channels,
the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, impacts to pedestrian movement, and compliance with
CEQA.
The Planning Commission does not expressly perform design review as part of this process, as
its findings are principally related to address public health, safety, and welfare. Design review
occurs privately, through the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). The RHCA has an
Architectural Committee that reviews plans for new homes and large additions to ensure that
easements are kept free and clear of structures, including fences and other obstructions.8
Projects are submitted to LA County Building and Safety following RHCA review. RHCA
maintains its own design guidelines, covering such topics as roofs, walls, windows, doors, and
lighting. Because RCHA is a non-governmental agency, these guidelines are described later in
this report under non-governmental constraints (see discussion of CC&Rs on page 5-22).
Projects that require Variances to development standards or Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) also
require Planning Commission hearings. CUPs are required for large horse stables and corrals,
detached garages, tennis courts, and a number of other large-footprint site features. From start to
finish, the process from submittal of plans to approval of permits may take six months or longer for
8 School District and City-owned property is exempt from this requirement. Thus, any development in the RDMO
Housing Opportunity Zone would not be subject to RHCA review.
269
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-18
a brand new home. Applications for ADUs, major remodels, residential additions, and accessory
structures are more common, and are processed more rapidly. ADUs, JADUs, and other
ministerially approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process.
The City regularly seeks ways to expedite processing and improve the timeliness of its services.
At the present time, permitting and processing time is not considered a constraint and the City
complies with the time limit requirements established by Sections 65943 and 65950 of the
Government Code. The Site Plan Review requirements and other permitting requirements are
not a constraint to the development of multi-family or affordable housing as they would not apply
to projects on the Rancho Del Mar site nor would they apply to ADUs that meet the City’s
adopted standards. As such, they have no impact on the cost, supply, timing, or approval
certainty of these projects. For new single family homes, the review requirements result in
processing times that may take several months. However, they do not affect the supply
approval certainty. In a review of applications over the past eight years, only one application was
denied (requesting a height modification to approved addition in 2017) and another application
had a partial denial (for stairs and walls, in 2014).
5.2.7 Site Improvement Requirements
The principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property are the
undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system, and
conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Road and emergency access (fire safety)
improvements may be required for properties that do not have street frontage or have other
access constraints. New development in Rolling Hills consists almost entirely of custom homes
on existing vacant or previously developed lots, rather than subdivision of “raw land,” which
tends to reduce overall improvement requirements. At the Rancho Del Mar affordable housing
site, installation of curb and gutter improvements would be required prior to development, but
the site already has road access, storm drainage, and water and sewer facilities in place. There
would be no special or unique site improvement requirements imposed on development of this
site.
Projects requiring the subdivision of land would be subject to the standards set forth by the
City’s subdivision regulations, which are specified in Title 16 of the Municipal Code. These
standards establish a 24-foot road width for streets. A 32-foot turning radius is required on
dead-end streets, and grades may not exceed six percent. The standards recognize that all
streets in Rolling Hills are private. The City Council has the discretion to require additional site
improvements adjacent to sites where land is being subdivided, including widening existing
roads to meet neighborhood traffic and drainage needs. The subdivider may also be required to
provide drainage improvements, in accordance with standards set by the City Engineer and with
the city’s MS4 permit (see P 5-26). The subdivision ordinance further specifies that water mains
and fire hydrants may be required when new lots are created, and that easements for gas and
electric services may be required.
The cost of installing a new septic system is generally not a constraint for brand new homes but
can be an impediment for ADUs and smaller additions, particularly for homeowners with limited
incomes. At minimum, the County Health Department requires a feasibility study for any project
that could result in septic tank capacity being exceeded. Older homes may face costly septic
270
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-19
installation requirements that could render a home addition or ADU infeasible. Programs to
assist lower income or senior homeowners with septic tank replacement could be considered,
particularly where an ADU is being added.
5.2.8 Development and Permitting Fees
Fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the costs of processing permits and
providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools, and infrastructure. Most of these fees
are assessed through a pro rata system based on the square footage or value of the project, the
staff time required for processing, and the magnitude of the project’s impact. If fees become
excessive, they can become a constraint on development and make it more difficult to build
housing affordably. They can also place a burden on lower income homeowners seeking to
modify their homes or add an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Table 5.2: City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees1
Fee Type Fee Amount Notes
Site Plan Review $1,500
Conditional Use Permit $1,500
Variance $1,250
Minor Variance
$750 Encroachments from main
structure that do not extend
more than 5’ into required
setbacks
Zoning Change or Code Amendment $2,000
General Plan Amendment $2,000
Accessory Dwelling Unit application $375
Major Remodel Review $375
View Impairment Review
$2,000 Processing fee for Committee
review of impacts on trees and
views
Water Efficient Landscape Review $1,500 Unused balance refunded
Traffic Commission Review $300 Required for new driveways
Lot Line Adjustment $1,500 Plus County fee
Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 Plus County fee
Final Parcel Map -- County fee only
Environmental Review Determination $200 Plus Fish and Game Fee
Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee
plus 10%
Only required as needed
Appeal Fee 2/3 of original
application fee
Only required as needed
Source: City of Rolling Hills, 2021. Barry Miller Consulting, 2021
271
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-20
1 This is not a comprehensive list of all fees but covers the major development-related categories in the City’s fee
schedule. The fee schedule also covers records searches, inspections, and review of grading plans.
A summary of residential development fees charged by the City of Rolling Hills is presented in
Table 5.2. Most projects do not require payment of these fees, as they would not typically
require use permits, Variances, Zoning changes, General Plan amendments, CEQA review, lot
line adjustments, and so on. However, Site Plan Review is commonly required for all new
homes and major additions, and ADU permits are required for larger ADUs. For projects
complying with City standards and requirements, the fees are not a development constraint.
Rolling Hills is one of 13 cities that contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety (LACDBS) for plan checking, building permits, and building inspection. The
County issues building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits on the City’s behalf. The
cost schedules for the incorporated cities served by LACDBS are higher than the schedules for
the unincorporated area but are comparable to nearby cities with full-service building
departments. A residential project with an assessed valuation of $100,000 would be subject to a
plan check fee of $3,413 and a permit fee of $4,029. This includes required energy and
disabled access checking costs. As the value of a project increases, the fees decline as a
percentage of total project costs. They represent 7 percent of a $100,000 project but less than
5 percent of a $500,000 project.
The fee schedules for other permits varies by type. Electrical permits are subject to a base fee
of $74.70, plus a cost per square foot ($0.20/SF for multi-family and $0.50/SF for single family
and duplexes). Separate fees are collected for swimming pools, branch circuits, lighting
fixtures, appliances, and electrical plan checking. Mechanical permits are collected for HVAC
systems, compression units, boilers, refrigeration systems, etc. Plumbing permits are based on
the number of fixtures and also cover projects requiring connection to septic tanks and work
such as solar water heaters, sprinkler systems, and backflow protection devices. Relative to the
other 12 cities that contract with Los Angeles County, the fee schedule in Rolling Hills is slightly
higher. However, the fees are lower in Rolling Hills than in nearby Rolling Hills Estates.
The County also collects fees for projects requiring geotechnical review. This would apply to
most new housing units in Rolling Hills. The fee ranges from $2,752 to $17,746, with the actual
amount based on 0.50% of the value of the proposed structure. Additional fees are charged for
geotechnical site inspections and geotechnical review of grading plans.
Los Angeles County typically updates its fees annually based on the consumer price index and
other factors. The increase in 2021 was 2.2 percent for all cities served by the County. Rolling
Hills updates its fee schedule less frequently, although fees are considered as part of the annual
budgeting process. Some of the City’s fees—such as the fees for parcel maps and lot line
adjustments—have not been updated in many years.
There are no local surcharges or special fees associated with multi-family housing. On a per unit
basis, permitting costs would be substantially lower for multi-family units than for new single family
units. This is due to the smaller size of multi-family units and to multi-family housing being
permitted “by right” within the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, with no applicable administrative
fees. The City’s fee structure has not historically distinguished between single and multi -family
construction, as multi-family housing only recently became a permitted use.
272
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-21
A number of other fees apply in Rolling Hills; these are typically associated with new residences
and are intended to offset the additional cost of providing services. These include:
• A Park and Recreation Fund Fee, which is equivalent to 2% of the first $100,000 in
building evaluation, plus an additional 0.5% of the remaining balance. The fee for a $1
million construction project would be $6,000. This fee is only charged for new primary
homes---ADUs are exempt.
• A School Impact Fee, which is paid to the Palos Verdes Unified School District. In
2020, the fee was $3.79 per square foot for new residential construction.
• A fee collected by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), equivalent to $0.20
per $100 of assessed valuation (i.e., $2,000 for a project with a construction value of
$1,000,000)
• Additional architectural review fees collected by the RHCA, including a $165 flat fee
plus $1 per square foot for new construction, additions and major remodels. In
addition, RHCA collects fees ranging from $25 to $500 for individual features such as
swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, and new roofs.
There are no sewer connection fees in the city, since there are no sewers. There is no water
connection fee; water service charges are determined by the size of the meter and the number
of fixtures, plus the amount of water used. The City likewise has no impact fees for housing,
transportation, public art, or other services. Projects in the RDMO Zone would be exempt from
the RHCA fee, since they are outside the HOA boundary.
In total, fees for a typical new home are roughly equivalent to 7-8 percent of total construction
costs. This is comparable to other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, though somewhat
higher than in other urbanized parts of Los Angeles County. The higher fees are associated in
part with the terrain and hazards in Rolling Hills and the size and complexity of applications for
new homes, many of which require extensive grading and multiple inspections. Fees do not
constrain development in Rolling Hills, but they do add to the cost of housing, which is already
expensive in the City. Programs to reduce processing and permitting fees for ADUs could be
considered, as they could incentivize ADU production.
5.2.9 Other Local Ordinances and Disclosure Requirements
No other local ordinances were identified that could present potential constraints to housing
needs. The City does not have an inclusionary zoning requirement, growth control ordinance or
limits on the number of units that may be constructed in a given year, or other locally-imposed
requirement impacting the cost of residential development. The City prohibits the rental of
rooms and houses for periods of less than 30 days, effectively disallowing short-term rentals.
This supports the City’s goal of using Accessory Dwelling Units as rental housing, rather than for
transient occupancy.
The City also complies with AB 1483 (2019), which requires that agencies publish specific
information on their websites starting January 1, 2021. This information includes:
• All current fees and exactions applicable to housing
273
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-22
• All zoning ordinances, design and development standards
• Current and five previous annual financial reports
• An archive of nexus studies for impact fees conducted after January 1, 2018
The City of Rolling Hills maintains a Planning and Community Services landing page on its
website that contains all of this information. This landing page includes a link to all planning and
development fees, the Zoning Map, the Municipal Code (which includes the zoning ordinance
and all applicable development standards), the General Plan, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,
Landscape Design Standards, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Planning and
Development forms and application materials, the Planning Commission calendar, technical
information for developers (related to stormwater management), permitting requirements,
guidelines for equestrian facilities, information on solar panels and rainwater harvesting, and
guidance on septic system installation. The City is also updating its environmental programs
page. An action program in the Housing Element calls for this information to be reorganized and
updated, with new information added on Accessory Dwelling Units and links to the RHCA Design
Guidelines.
Every annual budget and audited financial report for the City since 2010 is available on the
City’s website. There have been no nexus studies for impact fees since 2018, but such studies
would be posted if conducted in the future.
Disclosure requirements related to SB 35 also apply to Rolling Hills. In 2018, California adopted
SB 35, which establishes streamlining provisions for multi-family projects meeting certain criteria
related to affordability and payment of prevailing wages to construction workers. As of 2021,
projects in Rolling Hills in which 10% of more of the units are affordable are eligible for SB 35.
Article III Section 300 (b) of HCD’s Guidelines for SB 35 requires that cities in this situation must
provide “information, in a manner readily accessible to the general public, about the locality’s
process for applying and receiving ministerial approval, materials required for an application as
defined in Section 102(b), and relevant objective standards to be used to evaluate the
application.” An action program in this Housing Element recommends creating an SB 35
information sheet and application and including it on the Planning and Community Services
Website.
274
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-23
5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints significantly affect the affordability of housing in Rolling Hills.
Specifically, the high cost of real estate in the city, its heritage as a rural, gated equestrian
community, and its limited infrastructure and severe environmental constraints, make it
extremely challenging to build traditional affordable housing units. The city is one of the most
expensive and highly constrained communities in California. To be economically viable,
affordable housing must be tailored to community context—for example, through accessory
dwelling units.
5.3.1 Land Costs
Land in Rolling Hills is expensive. The city features dramatic topography, with sweeping views
of the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles basin. Property in the city is marketed as a location for
prestigious estates. The supply of acre-plus homesites on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is limited,
making demand for such properties very strong. A scan of Zillow.com in Fall 2021 shows two
vacant lots for sale in the city—one for $7.5 million and another with geologic constraints for $1
million. Data on recent sales shows a vacant single family parcel that sold for $6.85 million in
November 2020 and another that sold for $1.84 million in 2019. These properties have been
marketed and sold as sites for large single family homes.
The economic viability of affordable housing on these sites is further challenged by the cost of
the site improvements that would be required to facilitate safe development. The vacant parcels
described above lack public sewer; are accessed by narrow, winding, private roads traversing
an area with very high wildfire severity; and have slopes that exceed 50 percent in some cases.
The cost of road widening, grading and earth movement, and installation of community-wide
sewer and storm drainage construction make most types of multi-family housing economically
infeasible. There is no public revenue source to make these improvements. The absence of
commercial land uses in the city limits the City’s ability to sponsor programs that would reduce
or underwrite land or site improvement costs.
5.3.2 Construction Costs
The cost of construction, including labor and materials, is a significant constraint to housing
development in Rolling Hills. While high costs have impacted the entire state, Rolling Hills is
particularly impacted by the high cost of mitigating environmental constraints, including fire and
geologic hazards. New home construction requires grading and earth movement, often with
costly retaining walls and engineered drainage systems. Many homes in the city feature high-
end finishes, as well as amenities that result in higher costs. The city is also vulnerable to
elevated or inflated costs that reflect its reputation as a high-end, high-income market.
In 2014, the Rolling Hills Housing Element estimated that construction costs were approximately
$330 to $500 per square foot. Based on recent projects in the city, costs have doubled since
then. The National Association of Homebuilders estimated that costs increased 26 percent
between June 2020 and June 2021 alone. There have been rapid increases in the price of
lumber, copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, and other building materials, resulting in some
275
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-24
projects being placed on hold and others being cancelled altogether. Construction costs for
home additions now regularly exceed $800 per square foot.
Construction of septic tanks represents a unique expense in Rolling Hills that is not common in
surrounding cities. Anecdotally, homeowners in the city report costs of well over $25,000 to
install new septic systems, which in some cases can be an impediment to adding an accessory
dwelling unit or expanding an older home.
5.3.3 Financing
Financing is not a constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills, but the high cost of housing
makes it infeasible for most households to buy a home in the community. Home mortgage
interest rates were low at the time the Housing Element was drafted, with rates at around 3.0
percent for a 30-year mortgage in Fall 2021. Income and down payment requirements have
become more stringent than they were following the mortgage crisis of a decade ago, and there
are fewer flexible loan programs to bridge the gap between the amount of a required down
payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds.
Given the very high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, significant capital is required to purchase a
home. A 20 percent down-payment on the median priced home in the City would be nearly
$750,000, with monthly mortgage payments of nearly $19,000. A very high income would be
required to qualify. First time buyers face particular challenges in the city, given the lack of
equity from prior home ownership.
5.3.4 Delays Between Approval and Construction
Given the high cost of construction and rising interest rates, there may be delays between the
time a project is entitled and when it is actually constructed. Applicants may postpone their
projects due to high material costs, supply shortages and shipping delays, and a lack of skilled
construction workers and contractors. Rising interest rates can also add to the cost of a project,
leading to postponement. The economic uncertainty and upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic
has also caused some projects to stall over the last two years. In some cases, projects may be
cancelled altogether, or the property may be sold to a new owner who may modify or abandon
previously approved plans.
These factors are out of the City’s control but can have a real impact on housing supply and
construction. The City is particularly interested in the completion of permitted ADUs, as these
units are critical to achieving affordable housing goals. As noted in Chapter 6, Rolling Hills
intends to establish a monitoring program for permitted ADUs to facilitate their construction.
This would include reaching out to those who receive ADU permits and monitoring construction
progress on those units. The monitoring program includes follow-up conversations with any
applicants who do not complete their projects to understand the factors leading to that decision,
and any steps the City can take to improve completion rates.
Another issue that could potentially hinder housing production is the length of time between
receiving approval for a project and issuance of a building permit. As noted in Section 5.2.6,
276
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-25
approval resolutions for projects that require discretionary action do not become final for 30
days. Approval by the RHCA also occurs after City approvals. The total required time between
City approval and application for a permit is typically 30 to 90 days. Planning entitlements are
valid for two years and may be extended, so this time interval does not hinder construction.
The time between submittal of an application for a building permit and issuance of the permit
depends on the complexity of the project. As noted in Section 5.2.6, building permits are issued
by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Division (Building and Safety). Typical
processing time for complex projects is less than nine months.
The City does not receive notification from Building and Safety when permits are issued, and the
County’s on-line record-keeping system does not consistently reflect current permit status. An
action program in this Housing Element calls for Rolling Hills to work with the County to receive
regular updates on active building permits. This will allow the City to track the status of
development projects and follow up when necessary.
5.3.5 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both municipal zoning and privately enforced
CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are considered a non-governmental constraint because they are enforced
by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a private entity. The CC&Rs were
established by the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1936 upon the initial development of the
community. They apply to all property in the city except the City Hall Campus, Tennis Court
Facilities, PVP Unified School District site (Rancho Del Mar), and Daughters of Mary and Joseph
Retreat Center. The RHCA does not have design review or building permit review authority on
these sites.
Elsewhere in Rolling Hills, the CC&Rs restrict the development and use of property to single
family homes and limited public uses. They do not allow multi-family housing, commercial, office
or industrial activity. One of the stated purposes of the CC&Rs is to preserve and maintain the
rural character of the community, including regulating the architectural design of structures.
The CC&Rs authorize the RHCA Board to appoint and maintain a five-member Architectural
Review Committee to carry out this objective. The Committee is comprised of three Association
members and two licensed architects.
The RHCA Board has adopted a Building Regulations manual that is used by homeowners and
their architects/ contractors, and by the Committee to evaluate projects. Committee review is
required for all new residences and accessory structures, and for all projects that modify the
exterior of existing structures. Committee meetings occur twice monthly, on the first and third
Tuesdays. The meetings are not considered “public hearings” since RHCA is not a public
agency, but they are open to all members of the Association and are subject to Association
bylaws.
RHCA’s Building Regulations require that all homes under RHCA’s jurisdiction be one-story,
ranch-style construction. The Regulations identify three permissible style types: traditional
ranch, contemporary ranch, and early California Rancho. Specific standards are provided for
each style, including allowable exterior siding materials, roof materials (and colors), roof pitch,
277
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-26
building height (25 feet), and floor to ceiling plate heights (8’6” maximum in at least 50 percent
of the structure). Regardless of style, all buildings must be painted white, conform to the natural
grade, and have consistently designed doors and windows. A minimum floor area of 1,300
square feet, plus a two-car garage, is required for all residences.
The regulations align with the City of Rolling Hills zoning regulations—in fact, the CC&Rs
expressly state that the Architectural Committee must comply with applicable provisions of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code. This includes allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are
not mentioned in the Association’s Building Regulations. Under AB 670 and AB 68 (effective
January 2020), CC&Rs may not be used to deny ADU applications, and prohibitions on ADUs by
homeowner associations are not enforceable.
State law does allow homeowner associations to review the design of ADUs, provided their
process is fair, reasonable, and expeditious. This has been occurring in Rolling Hills for the last
three years with no adverse effects on ADU construction.
As noted earlier in this chapter, the City has developed a ministerial process for ADU approval
as required by state law. Projects meeting the dimensional requirements in the Municipal Code
(which are consistent with State standards) are approved without a public hearing or
discretionary review by the City. If an ADU does not affect the exterior of a home (for instance,
a Junior ADU entirely within the footprint of an existing home, or the conversion of a detached
guest house to an ADU), then no RHCA review is required. The Architectural Committee does
review ADUs that modify the exterior, add square footage to a structure, or result in a new
accessory structure. The purpose of this review is to verify that the structure meets the
objective design requirements in the RHCA Building Regulations rather than to evaluate the
merits of the project or its off-site impacts. According to the Committee’s own guidelines, it “will
not require modifications to working drawings that materially change the massing of the
project.”
City staff has worked closely with RHCA staff to ensure that their design review process is
coordinated with City permitting, streamlined, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on
applicants. The RHCA office is adjacent to City Hall and there is ongoing coordination between
the two entities. When an application for an ADU is submitted to the City, the City advises the
applicant to proceed to RHCA immediately afterwards to initiate project review. Projects are
typically forwarded to the RHCA Architectural Committee within two weeks and are typically
approved at the initial meeting; if modifications are required, the plans are typically approved at
the second meeting two weeks later. The review occurs concurrently with the City permitting
process, avoiding potential delays.
In practice, every ADU application approved by City staff has subsequently been approved by
the RHCA Architectural Committee. Nonetheless, an action program in this Element
recommends that the City work with RHCA to update the 2017 Building Guidelines to
acknowledge ADUs and provide guidance for homeowners seeking to add an ADU.
278
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-27
5.3.6 Infrastructure
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the limited availability of infrastructure,
specifically streets, sewer, storm water and water facilities.
Streets
Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Since the 1930s, the community’s internal street
network has been designed to establish a rural, equestrian character. This historic aspect of the
city’s infrastructure is one of Rolling Hills’ defining features. The road network is typified by
winding roads with a 15- to 25-foot paved cross-section and no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or
streetlights. Narrow road width, coupled with steep grades and very low densities, effectively
precludes public transit within the city. Access is also gate-controlled at three entry points.
The city's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes, such
as higher-density housing. Given the entire city’s designation as a very high wildfire hazard
severity area, the capacity to evacuate the population is also a limiting factor. Most streets in the
community are “dead ends” without emergency vehicle access alternatives in the event that
ingress and egress is blocked.
A number of properties—including City Hall, the Retreat Center, and the PVUSD site, are
accessed from roads outside the City gates. These parcels are less constrained by street access
but could require ingress and egress improvements (resurfacing, driveways, etc.) in the event a
change of use was proposed. Such improvements are typical for any development and would
not adversely affect expected construction costs.
Wastewater Disposal
With the exception of the school site and thirteen residences that have individually or collectively
(through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction's sewer
systems, there is no sanitary sewer system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual
septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single family residences
and are not conducive to multi-family housing. This is particularly true given the geologic, slope,
and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. To meet water quality and runoff requirements, high-density
housing typically requires a viable sewer connection.
Over the past 35 years, the City has conducted multiple sewer system feasibility studies. In
2019, the City received approval from the Los Angeles County Public Works and Sanitation
District to discharge effluent from up to 235 existing homes in Rolling Hills. The City is in the
process of completing design drawings for Phase One, which is a 1,585-foot long 8-inch
diameter sewer line along Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road. This will provide service to
City Hall, the RHCA offices, and the Tennis Courts. Future phases of the project could provide
service to residences but would require significant grant funding and potentially special
assessments.
In 2021, the City surveyed all households to determine the level of support for developing a
sewer system. Roughly 16 percent of the City’s households participated. The survey found that
about three-quarters of the residents’ septic tanks were more than 20 years old. More than 80
279
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-28
percent supported construction of a sewer system, though many responses were contingent on
the cost. Past engineering studies have concluded that the terrain and unstable geological
conditions in the city make a conventional gravity sewer system infeasible in the city, meaning
the cost to property owners could be significant.
The Palos Verdes Unified School District site is an exception. It is connected to a wastewater
treatment line that was installed when the school was initially constructed. Collection lines were
sized to accommodate a school campus with several hundred students, and associated
maintenance facilities—a higher level of demand than is associated with current uses on the
site. Given the availability of sewer service to this site and the high cost of extending sewer
services elsewhere, it is the most suitable property for multi-family housing in the City.
In some instances, septic systems may present a constraint to ADU development. This is
generally not an issue for JADUs or smaller ADUs that repurpose existing habitable space, but a
new detached ADU that adds floor space may require increasing the capacity of a septic
system. As noted earlier in this chapter, a program in this Housing Element proposes further
evaluation of this constraint, and possible ways to assist homeowners in addressing it.
Storm Water Run-off
As a rural community without public streets, Rolling Hills does not have a municipal storm sewer
system or continuous network of storm drains. Drainage follows topography, with stormwater
flowing into steep ravines through the community. Water percolates into the ground along
canyon bottoms, with runoff flowing to the ocean, or to larger streams and detention basins
downstream, depending on location.
To comply with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements
and maintain its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the City is required to
screen and monitor its runoff to avoid compromising downstream water quality standards. It
also required to implement a number of programs, such as an Illicit Discharge Elimination
Program. The City also requires Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction in order to
avoid erosion, pollution, sedimentation, and runoff that would degrade water quality. These
requirements are not a development constraint but may add to the cost of construction.
Moreover, the lack of a municipal storm drainage system represents another constraint to higher
density housing in most of the city.
The Rancho Del Mar site is outside the area covered by the MS4 monitoring program and drains
west toward Rancho Palos Verdes. Unlike the rest of Rolling Hills, it is served by an improved
storm drainage system. A 2017 facility evaluation reported the storm drains and inlets on the
site as being in good condition.
Water
Water infrastructure in Rolling Hills is owned, maintained, and operated by California Water
Service (CalWater). The city is within CalWater’s Palos Verdes District, which also serves the
other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Facility planning is governed by an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP), which evaluates anticipated demand and the water resources
available to meet that demand.
280
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-29
Projections of future water use are based in part on expected population growth, which is
derived from SCAG forecasts and local general plans. Water demand is projected to increase
by 6 percent by 2045, reflecting very slow population and housing growth in the Peninsula cities.
Development beyond that anticipated by SCAG forecasts could reduce water pressure,
compromise firefighting capabilities, and curtail domestic water availability. This is a problem
throughout California, made worse by persistent drought conditions. The UWMP provides water
shortage contingency plans, including measures to reduce demand and procure emergency
supplies.
Water storage facilities and pipelines in Rolling Hills are generally adequate to meet local needs.
However, many of the city’s water facilities are aging and the system as a whole is vulnerable to
damage during earthquakes and landslides. Storage and distribution facilities reflect the rural
density of the city and are not sized to accommodate significant growth. The Palos Verdes
Unified School District site provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as its water system was
designed for a public school campus with several hundred students.
The introduction of ADUs in Rolling Hills could potentially impact water demand in the City. The
California Water Company has no plans to upgrade the aging water system. As ADUs are
created, it will be important to consider potential impacts on water distribution lines and fire
fighting capacity. Several factors work to mitigate the impacts of ADUs on the water system.
First, the population of Rolling Hills has declined by roughly 300 since 1980. Thus, the addition
of 40 or so ADUs over eight years may not increase the total number of residents in the City.
Second, water conservation measures have been implemented—and continue to be
implemented—to reduce water flows and water demand. These measures include water-
efficient landscaping requirements, as well as requirements for more efficient plumbing fixtures.
Dry Utilities
Rolling Hills residences are also served by dry utilities. Electric services are generally provided
by Southern California Edison while natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas
Company. A range of private vendors provide phone, internet, and cable services. Capacity is
available to serve new development, and all of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in
Chapter 4 would have access to these services if they were developed. The Rancho Del Mar
site currently has access to these services as it is a former school.
281
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-30
5.3.7 Environmental Constraints
Rolling Hills has severe environmental constraints to development. Slopes exceeding 25
percent are present on almost every remaining undeveloped parcel in the city. Geotechnical
studies are required when new homes are constructed, and mitigation is often required to
reduce the potential for future damage. The City’s Site Plan Review Process and grading
requirements are intended to strictly limit recontouring of existing terrain. Most grading occurs
through “cut and fill” procedures that retain materials on site. This adds to local housing costs
and limits the viability of multi-family housing on most properties in the city.
Landslide Hazards
Figure 5.2 shows landslide zones in Rolling Hills, as mapped by the California Geological Survey
(CGS). Large portions of the city are considered hazardous and major slides have occurred in
the past. This includes the Flying Triangle Landslide, which has impacted roads, homes, and
properties in the southern part of the city for the last 50 years. These areas are poorly suited for
development and are susceptible to slope failure. Human modifications to slopes (through
development) can exacerbate the problem and the risk.
Building at the head of a landslide can decrease the bedrock strength along an existing or
potential rupture surface and “drive” the landslide down slope. Improper grading practices can
also trigger existing landslides. Because of these geologic hazards, the City limits land
disturbance and other actions that would exacerbate soil instability. Ground instability would
contribute to potential risks to human life as well as to physical structures. The Safety Element of
the General Plan sets forth policies to restrict new development and expansion of existing
development in areas susceptible to landslides.
Earthquake Hazards
Like most of Southern California, Rolling Hills is vulnerable to earthquakes. Large earthquakes
can cause building damage and collapse, as well as damage to roads and utilities. The City of
Rolling Hills is crossed by the Cabrillo Fault, which is part of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone. It is
also vulnerable to earthquakes on the Whittier Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Malibu
Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Redondo Canyon Fault. The location of these faults is shown
on Figure 5.3.
The Whittier and Newport-Inglewood Faults are considered capable of generating earthquakes
with magnitudes greater than 7.0 and have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. In the
event of a major earthquake on either fault, the city of Rolling Hills would be vulnerable to
ground shaking. Secondary hazards include liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and
differential settlement. Fault rupture is not a significant hazard in the city, and there are no
Alquist Priolo “special studies” zones within the city limits.
Wildfire
As shown on Figure 5.4, the entire city of Rolling Hills has been designated a “Very High Wildfire
Hazard Severity Zone” by CalFire. The city’s terrain creates challenges for vegetation
management and presents conditions where a fire can travel quickly up and down canyon
282
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-31
slopes. Despite defensible space requirements, the city’s rural nature and equestrian heritage
means that extensive areas are covered by dense scrub and brush. The Palos Verdes
Peninsula has a history of destructive wildfire, including fires that destroyed homes in 1973,
1993, 2009, and 2018.
The City has taken measures to reduce fire hazards, including preparing a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan in 2020. The Plan outlines measures to harden infrastructure, improve
vegetation management, underground electric power lines, and improve inspections and
enforcement. It also includes provisions for evacuation. Additionally, the City (and Los Angeles
County) require special building safety measures, including standards for roofing, eaves,
exterior finishes, and buffer zones that respond to the higher fire hazard levels.
Despite these measures, the risks of wildfire cannot be eliminated entirely. Moreover, the city
continues to face evacuation constraints resulting from its narrow roads, limited ingress and
egress points, and the presence of livestock on many properties.
Biological Resources
Rolling Hills supports a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some that are listed or
under consideration for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the
California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and
Brackishwater snail. Development that could adversely impact the habitat of these species must
undergo review and approval by the overseeing federal and state agencies. Typical mitigation
measures include preservation of habitat, further restricting the potential land available for
development. This constraint is likely to continue throughout the planning period.
283
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-32
Figure 5.2: Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills
Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2022
284
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-33
Figure 5.3: Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity
Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021
285
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Constraints Page 5-34
Figure 5.4: CalFire “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021
286
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-1
6. Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs
Chapter 6 provides the City’s housing plan for the next eight years. The plan has three
components:
• A statement of the City’s goals and policies for housing. The goals and policies balance
State mandates and Government Code requirements with local needs and priorities.
• An action program. The action program identifies the specific, measurable steps the City
will take during 2021-2029 to implement the policies.
• Measurable objectives for housing production. These objectives correspond to the
City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and also include numeric targets for
housing rehabilitation and conservation.
6.1 Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support
residential development and plan for the City’s fair share of regional housing needs:
GOAL 1: Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of existing and
future Rolling Hills' residents.
Policy 1.1: Accommodate Rolling Hills’ share of the region’s housing needs in a way that
protects public safety, responds to infrastructure constraints and natural hazards,
recognizes market conditions, and respects the historic context and land use
pattern in the city.
Policy 1.2: Allow the development of a variety of housing types in the city, including multi-
family housing. While Rolling Hills will remain a rural equestrian community,
housing opportunities will be provided for all income groups as required by State
law.
Policy 1.3: Facilitate development on the remaining vacant buildable lots in the city in a
manner consistent with adopted zoning standards.
Policy 1.4: Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(JADUs) in all residential zones. Maintain objective standards to ensure that
ADUs and JADUs are compatible with the community; minimize visual, parking,
traffic, and other impacts; and respect neighborhood context.
Policy 1.5: Explore incentives to create and maintain Accessory Dwelling Units that are
affordable to low and very low income households.
Policy 1.6: Encourage the conversion of existing guest houses and other habitable
accessory buildings into legal ADUs.
287
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-2
Policy 1.7: Work with other governmental entities and the non-profit community to support
the development of affordable or senior housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula
and in nearby South Bay cities.
Policy 1.8: Maintain planning and building procedures that maximize efficiency and reduce
permit processing times and high fees. Encourage public understanding of the
planning and building processes to reduce project costs and delays.
GOAL 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in
Rolling Hills.
Policy 2.1: Encourage and facilitate the maintenance and improvement of existing homes.
Policy 2.2: Ensure that new housing and home improvements comply with building code and
fire safety requirements.
Policy 2.3: Maintain a code enforcement program, including procedures to remediate
violations.
Policy 2.4: Require the design of home improvements, additions, ADUs, and infill housing to
minimize impacts on existing residences. Include objective standards in the
zoning ordinance that protect visual quality, privacy, and community character.
Policy 2.5: Mitigate hazards that could potentially cause a loss of housing units in the city,
including wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes. Encourage home hardening and
defensible space to minimize the potential for housing loss during a natural
disaster.
Policy 2.6 Prohibit the use of ADUs as short-term rentals in order to maintain their viability
as permanent housing units.
Policy 2.7: Encourage weatherization, energy conservation, and renewable energy to
increase energy efficiency and reduce home energy costs.
GOAL 3: Address the housing needs of older adults and others in the
community with special housing needs.
Policy 3.1: Provide reference and referral services for seniors, such as in-home care and
counseling for housing-related issues.
Policy 3.2: Support shared housing programs and room rentals as options for seniors to
remain in the community without financial hardship.
Policy 3.3: Encourage housing opportunities for live-in care givers, domestic employees, and
family members who may assist elderly or mobility-impaired residents who wish
to age in place.
288
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-3
Policy 3.4: Consider participation in state and federal programs that assist lower income and
senior households in home repair and maintenance.
Policy 3.5: Strive to meet the needs of extremely low-income Rolling Hills residents,
including seniors on fixed incomes.
Policy 3.6: Encourage the retrofitting of existing Rolling Hills homes so they are accessible to
the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities. Provide
reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and procedures for
disabled persons to ensure equal access to housing.
Policy 3.7: Participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents
and others who may need emergency housing assistance.
GOAL 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national
origin.
Policy 4.1: Affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that housing opportunities for
persons of all income levels, races and ethnicities, and physical abilities are
available in Rolling Hills.
Policy 4.2: Enforce all applicable laws and policies pertaining to equal housing opportunity
and discrimination. Maintain third party agreements to follow-up on and correct
alleged violations.
Policy 4.3 Make information on fair housing laws available to residents and realtors in the
City by providing information on the City’s website and print media at the City
Hall public counter.
Policy 4.4: Ensure effective and informed community participation in local housing decisions.
This should include special efforts to include traditionally underrepresented
groups, including persons working or providing services in Rolling Hills.
Policy 4.5: Distribute affordable housing opportunities around the city by focusing on ADUs
as a housing strategy.
Policy 4.6: Participate in regional forums and initiatives to promote fair housing.
289
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-4
6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029
The goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element will be implemented through a series of
housing programs. Some of these programs are already underway and others will be
implemented over the next eight years. This section of the Housing Element provides a brief
description of each program, including measurable objectives, responsible entities, and
implementation timeframes. Each of these programs has been developed consistent with HCD
guidelines and State Government Code requirements.
Program 1: Annual Progress Report
As required by State law, the City will prepare and file an annual report on the progress made
toward implementing its Housing Element using forms and definitions adopted by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Guidance on the content of the
report is provided by the State Office of Planning and Research. It documents the City’s
progress toward meeting its share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove government
constraints to housing production. The report must be presented to the City Council prior to its
submittal (it may be approved as a consent item).
Quantified Objective: Provide one report per year
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: File by April 1 of each year
Program 2: Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring
In February 2021, the City adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Rancho
Del Mar (RDM) campus owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. As documented in
Chapter 4 and Appendix B of this Housing Element, large parts of the RDM site are unimproved
and vacant. The new zoning permits 16 affordable multi-family units on the site, which may be
developed “by right” at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.
The City Manager will meet at least once annually with the School Superintendent to discuss the
future of the site, including future development opportunities. Next steps to be pursued on the
site include:
• Subdividing the site to create a separate parcel west of the PVPTA transit facility. This
site could potentially be more easily marketed as a development opportunity than the 31-
acre site as a whole.1
• Preparation of a “fact sheet” for the site, for review by the School Superintendent and
School Board, highlighting the potential for multi-family housing
• Further discussions with the School Board regarding opportunities for teacher housing
and/or senior housing on the site.
1 Subdivision is not required to develop the site—it can also be developed “as is” in 2022. However, subdivision could provide an
incentive for future development during the planning period.
290
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-5
• In collaboration with the School District, make information on the site (e.g., the “Fact
Sheet”) available to affordable housing developers.
• Further discussions with non-profit developers regarding the opportunity to construct
housing on the site, including technical assistance to developers where requested.
• Consideration of permit streamlining, CEQA clearance, and fee reductions for future
affordable housing development on the site. Multi-family housing is already permitted
“by right” subject to objective design standards adopted in February 2021, but further
steps could be taken to reduce future development costs.
Quantified Objectives: (1) 16 units of affordable housing on the RDM site
(2) Annual meeting between the City Manager and School
Superintendent
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: (1) Meeting with School Superintendent by end of 2022 and once
annually thereafter
(2) Preparation of site “fact sheet” for review by School District
and School Board by June 2023
(3) Subdivision creating “western” parcel by end of 2023, subject
to School Superintendent and Board approval
Program 3: No Net Loss Monitoring and Other Multi-Family Housing Opportunities
The City has identified adequate capacity to accommodate 45 units of housing, as required by
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Sixteen of these units are on the Rancho Del Mar Site.
Five are new single family homes on vacant lots (three of which are already approved). The
remainder are Accessory Dwelling Units. Rolling Hills will continue to maintain General Plan and
zoning designations that facilitate development of the required number of units and will continue
to comply with the Housing Accountability Act in the event projects are proposed.
SB 166 (2017) requires that every city maintain “adequate sites” to accommodate its RHNA by
income category at all times during the eight-year Housing Element period. If a designated
housing opportunity site becomes unavailable, the city must demonstrate that it still has
adequate capacity on its remaining sites (e.g., “no net loss”). In the event the Rancho Del Mar
site becomes unavailable to produce the housing units envisioned by the overlay zone, the City
would need another suitable site to accommodate those units.
Cities generally meet the no net loss mandate by providing one or more “buffer” sites in addition
to their primary sites. These sites must meet HCD criteria, including the ability to accommodate
16 units at a density of at least 20 units per acre. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, due to the lack
of sewer and the community’s natural hazards, Rolling Hills does not have a buffer site available.
The City will continue to explore potential housing sites that could supplement the RDM site,
particularly where sanitary sewer service could be made available in the future. The City will
continue to rely on accessory dwelling units to meet the balance of its lower-income housing
assignment, regardless.
291
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-6
Quantified Objectives: No net loss of housing capacity to meet RHNA at all times
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Continuous through 2029
Program 4: Add Definitions of Transitional and Supportive Housing, Residential
Care Facilities, and Employee Housing, to Municipal Code
This action was completed in August 2022.
To comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), the City of Rolling Hills was required to
must clarify that residential care facilities, transitional housing, and supportive housing are
considered residential uses and are subject to the same restrictions that apply to the other
residential uses that are allowed in a given zoning district. In other words, a single family home
used as a group home for persons with disabilities is subject to the same planning and zoning
requirements that apply to a single family home used by a traditional family. Most local
governments have addressed this requirement by adding definitions to their zoning codes for
transitional and supportive housing, as well as large and small residential care facilities.
The purpose of this program was is to add those definitions to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
(Chapter 17). The definitions would acknowledge that such housing is permitted in the same
manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone as required by State
law. The recent Code amendments also explicitly state that supportive housing shall be a use
by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential
zones permitting multi-family uses. The Code amendments will ensure that no special
requirements are placed on residential care facilities with seven or more occupants, as required
by State law. Definitions of low barrier navigation centers also have been will be added to the
Code and referenced in other zoning regulations, as required by State law.
This program also includeds a Municipal Code Amendment to add a definition for employee
housing in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). HSC Section 17021.5
states that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer people shall be
deemed a single family structure with a residential land use designation. It further states that
employee housing may not be considered a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory,
or similar term that implies that such housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other
way from a single family dwelling. State law precludes a city from requiring a conditional use
permit, zoning variance or other zoning variance for such housing, and stipulates that the use of
a single family dwelling for six of fewer employees does not constitute a change of occupancy
for building code purposes. As of August 2022, the City fully complies with this requirement.
Quantified Objectives: Council Action Adopting DefinitionsN/A (program completed)
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney
Implementation Time Frame: Completed in August 2022 by December 2022
292
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-7
Program 5: Density Bonus Ordinance
This action was completed in August 2022.
Section 65915 of the California Government Code establishes mandatory statewide provisions
for density bonuses for affordable and senior housing projects. Prior to August 2022, Rolling
Hills did does not currently have density bonus provisions in its Municipal Code. Historically, the
City has not had multi-family housing, nor any site where multi-family housing could be
constructed. With the creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, a developer could request
a density bonus and related concessions from a developer. State standards would apply in this
instance. The City has adopted should adopt provisions in its Municipal Code acknowledging
the applicability of State density bonus laws in the event a request is received.
Quantified Objectives: Municipal Code amendment related to Density Bonuses
Application of density bonus to future affordable rental housing on
Rancho Del Mar Overlay site (up to 12 additional units, assuming
100% affordable project on the site)
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Ordinance Adopted in August 2022 Complete by December 2022
Program 6: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production, Monitoring, and Incentives
As noted in Chapter 4, the City intends to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 29
lower income units through a combination of affordable housing on the Rancho Del Mar site (16
units) and privately constructed and rented ADUs on scattered sites throughout the city. At
least 13 ADUs should meet affordability thresholds for low and very low income households.2
Creating opportunities for lower income households on scattered sites supports one of the main
objectives of the State’s Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, which is to
avoid the concentration of lower income housing in a single location. An ADU-centered strategy
also responds to the lack of sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and public streets in Rolling Hills
and the community’s rural densities and absence of supportive services.
As stated in Chapter 4, the City approved nine ADUs in 2021 alone, including two that are
projected to be affordable to lower income households based on their small size. Thus, creating
another 11 ADUs affordable to lower income households over the next eight years is an
attainable goal. The Annual Housing Progress Report should address the City’s progress
toward meeting this goal; if the City is falling short after two years, the strategy should be
revisited and additional incentives should be developed.
Program 6 includes a number of specific elements, which are listed below:
6.1 Develop Citywide ADU Registryoster of ADUs. The City developed an ADU registry
roster in October 2021 and will expand it the roster as new units are created. Currently, the
2 Two ADUs meeting affordability criteria for low/very low are already under construction (see Table 4.1), leaving a balance of 11
needed.
293
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-8
registry roster (or data base) contains fields such as Address, Owner, month approved,
square footage, and a description of each unit. This should be expanded to include
information on whether the unit is occupied, the number of occupants, and the rent
charged—this information would be requested from homeowners on a voluntary basis.
Tracking occupancy and affordability is intended to determine how many units are serving
very low- and low-income households, and to demonstrate that the City is meeting its RHNA.
6.2 Annual ADU Survey and Monitoring. The City will send an annual letter to households on
the ADU roster requesting information on the status of the unit. The information will be used
to prepare a summary that can be referenced as part of the City’s Annual Progress Report.
As part of this task, the City will also identify instances where very low or extremely low
income households (including family members, domestic employees, caregivers, etc.) are
residing on Rolling Hills properties and paying below market rent (or no rent). To the extent
these households are occupying independent living quarters, this data provides evidence
that the City is accommodating its RHNA target for very low income households.
As part of this effort, the City will also implement an annual monitoring program to ensure
that the Housing Element targets for ADUs are being achieved. A determination of the City’s
progress toward meeting its RHNA target of 40 units over 2021-2029 shall be made once
per year. In the event the City is not on track to meet its target, it will consider alternative
means of meeting its RHNA goals within six months of this determination. These could
include additional ADU incentives, modifications to the affordable housing overlay zone, and
other actions that would facilitate production of additional affordable units.
6.3 Develop Inventory of Potential ADUs. Over time, the City will develop a parcel data base
of potential (or “unintended”) ADUs, which are existing habitable spaces that could
potentially be converted into independent dwelling units. This would include guest houses,
pool houses, and similar accessory structures that are used by the primary residence. As
the inventory is completed, owners would be advised of the opportunity to convert the space
into a legal ADU.
6.4 Incentives for ADU Construction. The City will develop incentives for ADU construction.
Different incentives may be developed for those building new homes (i.e., reduced fees for
including an ADU in a new residence), those adding a new ADU on their property, and those
converting existing habitable floor space into an ADU. In accordance with California Health
and Safety Code (HSC), Section 65583(c)(7) (effective January 1, 2021), the City will
explore the use of State CalHome, LEAP, REAP, and SB 2 funding to help local homeowners
build or finance ADUs on their properties. Access to these funds typically requires rents that
are affordable to low and very low-income households.
6.5 Pre-Approved ADU Plans. The City will determine its eligibility for State grant funding to
develop “pre-approved” plans for ADUs that can be used by Rolling Hills residents. These
architect-developed plans would be specifically tailored to meet the RHCA design guidelines
and would respond to the topography and access constraints found on most Rolling Hills
lots. Enabling homeowners to use pre-approved plans may reduce architectural design
costs, and potentially reduce construction costs. This can make ADUs more feasible and
allow them to be rented more affordably.
294
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-9
6.6 Coordination with RHCA. The City will coordinate with the Rolling Hills Community
Association to ensure that RHCA’s design review practices and procedures do not constrain
ADU construction or add to their costs. City staff will meet with RHCA staff and the RHCA
Architectural Committee regularly to coordinate review, advise RHCA of State laws relating
to ADUs, and address any issues that may arise in the future. The City will also work with
the Rolling Hills Community Association to explore reduction of annual HOA fees for
property owners agreeing to limit rents on their ADUs.
6.7 Septic Tank Replacement Grants or Financial Assistance. The City will pursue funding
for a grant which can be used to assist homeowners with septic tank replacement when
paired with the addition of an ADU. The grants would be targeted to lower income seniors
who may seek to add an ADU but lack the financial resources to replace their septic tanks.
6.8 Non-Profit Construction of ADUs. The City will explore the possibility of engaging a non-
profit housing developer in a program to develop ADUs in partnership with interested Rolling
Hills property owners. Participation could be limited to qualifying lower income residents, or
to homeowners who agree to limit rents to levels that are affordable to lower income
households. Such a program was successfully implemented by the City of Santa Cruz, in
collaboration with Habitat for Humanity, and could be considered locally.
6.9 Monitor Best Practices in ADUs. The City will continue to track statewide and national
trends in ADU management, incentives, and regulations. The focus will be on cities in
California that are comparable to Rolling Hills in density, character, and constraints, with an
eye toward cities that are relying on ADUs to meet a substantial share of their RHNA for
lower income households. Programs that are potentially transferable to Rolling Hills will be
considered for local implementation. The City is currently working with the South Bay Cities
Council of Governments on an ADU research study, including a state-funded “ADU
Acceleration Project” to explore ways to promote ADUs in southern LA County cities.
6.10 Update Municipal Code Provisions for ADUs. By October 15, 2022, t This action was
completed in August 2022. The City has will updated its ADU ordinance to reflect changes
to State law made since the last revision to the ordinance in February 2020. This includeds
eliminating references to a maximum bedroom count in an ADU and including provisions
for complete applications to be deemed approved if they are not acted upon within 60 days.
6.11 Outreach to ADU Permit Recipients. The City will monitor ADU approvals, including six-
month “check-ins” with all applicants receiving ADU permits until the units are completed.
These check-ins will include status updates on the projects, including whether a building
permit has been issued and what progress is being made. In the event an applicant
chooses not to follow through on an approved ADU, staff will make an effort to document
the reasons and evaluate any changes that might be made to the City’s ADU program to
improve completion rates. This information should be part of the City’s annual housing
progress report.
In addition to the specific measures listed above, City staff will continue to assist homeowners
who are interested in adding an ADU, and will work with applicants to facilitate ADU review,
permitting, and approval.
295
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-10
Quantified Objectives: (1) Citywide ADU registry oster of 40 ADUs by 2029, including at
least 13 ADUs rented at levels meeting affordability criteria for
lower income households
(2) ADU Survey, administered once a year
(3) Inventory of potential ADUs
(4) ADU Incentives
(5) Two to four pre-approved ADU architectural plans
(6) Municipal Code Revisions (see 6.10 above)--Completed
(7) 100% completion of ADUs receiving permits
Funding Source: City General Fund/ State grants
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney
Implementation Time Frame: (1) Rosters and Surveys prepared by 2022 and updated annually
(2) ADU incentives by 2023
(3) Approved architectural plans by 2024, or as funding allows
(4) Amend Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 (Accessory Dwelling
Units) for consistency with State law by August October 15, 2022
(this action has been completed)
(5) Establish protocol for 6-month check-ins with ADU permit
recipients by January 1, 2023
(6) Annual monitoring report on ADU production
296
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-11
Program 7: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Outreach, Education, and Information
Program 7 addresses public outreach, education, and information on ADUs. Like Program 6, it
has multiple elements.
7.1 Biennial Mailing. The City will send or help coordinate a mailing to all households in
Rolling Hills at least once every two years advising them of the opportunity to create an
ADU, the potential benefits of having an ADU, and potential incentives in the event the
ADU will be occupied by a household worker, caregiver, family member, or other
household meeting the definition of a low or very low income household. The mailing
may consist of an article in the City’s monthly newsletter, or could be included as a
component of the South Bay Cities COG efforts to encourage ADU production. The City
is one of 15 cities participating in this program..
7.2 Website. The City will develop a landing page on its website with information on ADU
opportunities (“Thinking about building an ADU?”). The website landing page will
include information on the types of ADUs an owner may consider (detached, attached,
junior, etc.), the typical cost and cost considerations, financing options, tax implications,
development standards, tenant selection, and so on. The information should also be
provided in printed form for interested homeowners.
7.3 RHCA Design Guidelines Update. The City will work with the Rolling Hills Community
Association to facilitate an update of the RHCA Design Guidelines so that they address
ADUs. Currently, the Guidelines do not acknowledge ADUs at all. The Update would
provide objective design standards for ADUs that are consistent with Rolling Hills zoning
standards as well as the design guidelines that currently apply.
Quantified Objectives: (1) Outreach mailer to 639 Mailings to all Rolling Hills households
(at least once every 2 years)
(2) Updated City website
(3) Updated Design Guidelines document
(2) Creation of 40 new ADUs by 2029 (5 per year)
Funding Source: City General Fund, State grants
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: (1) First mailing by March 2023 December 2022
(2) Website update by June 2023
(3) Update of design guidelines by 2024
297
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-12
Program 8: Assist Senior and Disabled Households
The City will continue to address the housing needs of seniors and persons with disabilities by
connecting those in need with social service agencies, non-profits, volunteer organizations, and
other service providers, and by coordinating with the RHCA in the services and programs it
provides. As noted in the Needs Assessment, more than one-third of the city’s residents are
over 65 and about 10 percent have one or more disabilities. The City will work with seniors,
especially those on fixed incomes, to evaluate housing needs and resources. Within 18 months
of Housing Element adoption, the City Council will convene a study session jointly with the
RHCA Needs of Seniors Committee and at least one local non-profit serving seniors (such as
Peninsula Seniors) to discuss the needs of Rolling Hills seniors and potential programs to
address these needs.
Several of the programs listed elsewhere in this Element (shared housing, assistance with home
maintenance, reduced utility rates, etc.) are primarily intended to benefit lower income seniors.
The City also will support expanded opportunities for persons with disabilities, including the use
of universal design principles and accessibility standards in new construction and ADUs. As
part of this program, Rolling Hills will also work with the Harbor Regional Center to implement
outreach services to Rolling Hills families on services available to persons with developmental
disabilities. The City’s website will be updated to include links to housing and supportive
services for seniors and disabled persons.
Quantified Objectives: Website landing page with senior housing resources
Facilitate age-in-place retrofits for 10 senior households
City Council study session on needs of seniors and potential
actions to assist Rolling Hills seniors
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: June 2023 (for website)
Council Study Session before December 2023
Program 9: Assist Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely Low Income (ELI) households have incomes that 30 percent or less of the County
median. In 2021, the income thresholds for ELI were $24,850 for a household of one; $28,400
for a household of two; $31,950 for a household of three; and $34,450 for a household of four.
Based on CHAS data, there are 25 ELI households in Rolling Hills, representing about 3.5
percent of the city’s households. The CHAS data indicated that all 25 of these households were
homeowners, suggesting they are primarily seniors on fixed incomes. The City will explore ways
to assist elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance, repair, and
retrofit activities. It will also direct these households to appropriate resources, such as shared
housing services and programs to reduce utility costs.
There are additional ELI households in Rolling Hills that may not be counted in the Census data,
including extended family members living in independent quarters on a property, or domestic
employees (housekeepers, au pairs, personal assistants, etc.) living in guest houses, accessory
298
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-13
buildings, or in separate quarters within the primary residence. The City will address the needs
of these households by prioritizing applications for ADUs and encouraging homeowners to
create opportunities for domestic employees and family members to live “on site.”
A study sponsored by SCAG in 2020 determined that 15 percent of the ADUs in the coastal Los
Angeles area were likely to be available at rents affordable to Extremely Low Income
Households.3 A 2018 study further found that 17% of the ADUs in Portland, Seattle, and
Vancouver were occupied by a friend or family member for free.4 A 2014 study found that 18%
of the ADUs in Portland were occupied for free or extremely low cost.5 A 2012 UC Berkeley
publication indicates that up to half of all ADUs are occupied at no cost.6
Based on these analyses, the City is estimating that seven “rent free” or extremely low income
rentals will be added to the Rolling Hills housing stock by 2029. It will seek to document and
measure progress toward this objective by soliciting voluntary reporting of such units by
individual homeowners. As noted in Program 6.2, an annual survey is proposed to be
adminstered to all registered ADU owners in the city. This would enable tracking of rent-free or
reduced rent ADUs.
Quantified Objectives: Provide seven housing units affordable to Extremely Low Income
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Prepare inventory of Extremely Low Income (ELI) units by 2024,
update annually
Facilitate housing assistance to at least three ELI senior
homeowners by 2025
Program 10: Support Regional Efforts to End Homelessness
Extremely low-income persons also include those who are homeless or may be at risk of
becoming homeless. Although the point-in-time surveys for the last five years have not counted
any homeless residents in Rolling Hills, the City recognizes that homelessness is a regional
problem that requires regional solutions. Rolling Hills will continue to allow emergency shelters
and single room occupancy hotels in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone and will monitor the
effectiveness of its regulations in its Annual Housing Progress Report.
The City will continue to work with adjacent communities on emergency shelter referrals. As a
member of SCAG and the South Bay Cities COG, staff and elected officials participate in forums
and discussions of homelessness, and potential programs and resources to end homelessness
and increase the supply of shelter, transitional, and supportive housing in Greater Los Angeles.
3 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020
4 Jumpstarting the Market for ADUs. Terner Center (for ULI), San Francisco, 2018
5 ADUs in Portland OR. Environmental Solutions Management, 2014
6 Scaling Up Secondary Unit Production in the East Bay. Berkeley Institute of Regional Development, 2012
299
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-14
Quantified Objectives: Participation in point in time surveys; participation in at least one
regional meeting annually on strategies to end homelessness
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029
Program 11: Permit Streamlining
The City will continue its efforts to expedite permit processing, ensure efficiency, and reduce
administrative and processing costs for new development. This could include provisions for
reduced fees for ADUs that are rented at below market levels, or occupied by qualifying lower
income households. As part of the annual budgeting process, the City will ensure that fees are
appropriate for the services provided, and will consider ways to improve the permitting and
entitlement processes.
This program includes working with LA County Building and Safety to receive periodic updates
on the status of active building permits in Rolling Hills. While this data is available on-line
through the County’s website, it is not consistently updated or made available in a format that
allows the City to easily track the status of entitled projects. The City will use this data to identify
approved housing units (including ADUs) that have been entitled but not yet constructed so that
it may follow up with owners in the event of permitting delays.
Quantified Objectives: Compliance with all provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act
Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees
Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director/ Planning and Community
Services Department/ LA County Building and Safety
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029
Program 12: Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers,
Developers, and Advocates
The City of Rolling Hills periodically receives requests from housing advocates, non-profit
developers, and service providers to disseminate information on affordable housing needs and
opportunities and work collaboratively to address housing issues. City planning staff regularly
field requests from for-profit and non-profit developers, participate in regional housing meetings
and discussions, and work with other cities to explore creative, effective ways to meet housing
needs. In the event a non-profit agency or developer wishes to submit a grant application that
will increase housing affordability for senior or low income Rolling Hills residents, staff will
provide administrative support wherever possible.
Quantified Objective: Hold at least one meeting a year with one or more non-profit
housing sponsors to discuss housing opportunities and needs in
Rolling Hills
See also Programs 8, 13, and 15
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Convene one meeting before December 2022. Convene additional
meetings at least once a year from 2023 to 2029.
300
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-15
Program 13: Shared HousingHome Sharing
Shared housing enables homeowners to offset their housing costs by receiving rent, or get
additional help in managing housing duties. It also creates a resource for lower income
households in the community, including college-aged students and young adults, caregivers,
domestic workers, landscapers and building industry workers, child care workers, teachers, and
other public service employees. It can also be a resource for seniors, some of whom may no
longer wish to live alone or lack the financial resources to live alone.
Residents in Rolling Hills have access to two nearby home sharing shared housing programs:
Focal Point at the South Bay Senior Services Center in Torrance and the Anderson Senior
Center in San Pedro. Both these centers offer resources to assist seniors locate roommates
interested in sharing housing. These programs make roommate matches between seniors based
on telephone requests.
Numerous other home sharing services have emerged over the last decade. These include
SHARE! Collaborative Housing, a public-private partnership supporting shared single family
housing for persons with disabilities in Los Angeles County; Affordable Living for the Aging,
which matches younger single tenants with seniors in Los Angeles County; and Los Angeles
County HomeShare, which serves residents of all ages throughout the County. There are also
private services such as Silverleaf (Long Beach) that facilitate home sharing for a fee.
The City will continue to apprise residents about shared housing programs by providing information
at the public counter and online, including an article in the City Newsletter in 2023. It will also
proactively meet with at least one non-profit home-sharing service provider in 2023 to discuss
opportunities in Rolling Hills.
Quantified Objectives: Continue to provide informational brochures advertising shared
housing programs at City Hall and on the City’s website
At least five Rolling Hills households participating in a non-profit
managed home sharing program by 2029
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Establish website links by December 2022
Provide article and meet with home sharing service in 2023
301
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-16
Program 14: Sewer Feasibility Studies and Phase One Construction
As indicated in Section 5.3.5 of this Housing Element, Rolling Hills does not have a sanitary
sewer system. With a few exceptions, the entire city is served by private septic systems. Septic
system installation is costly and requires customized design to reflect steep terrain. The cost of
installing sanitary sewers and storm drains would be even more costly, as it would likely require
easements, force mains, and lift stations.
The City recently completed design drawings for a sanitary sewer extension through adjacent
Rolling Hills Estates that will bring service to Rolling Hills City Hall and the Tennis Courts. A
future phase of this project could continue southward along Portuguese Bend Road, allowing
some Rolling Hills homes and a number of vacant properties to be served by sewer. A survey
done by the City in 2021 indicated there was strong support for a sewer extension project,
contingent on the cost to each homeowner. There is currently no funding source for such an
extension. Grant funding would be required, as it would reduce the cost burden on
homeowners and make the project more feasible.
The City will continue to work toward addressing this constraint during the 2021-29 planning
period. This includes:
• Developing the initial phase of the project, serving City Hall and the Tennis Courts
• Conducting feasibility and cost studies for a future phase to serve privately owned
homes and parcels in the northern part of Rolling Hills
• Pursuing funding for future phases
• Continuing to poll Rolling Hills residents on their level of support for the project
In addition, the City continues to monitor water quality issues related to its MS 4 permit for
stormwater discharge. Efforts to address runoff quality and implement best management
practices to reduce pollution are ongoing and will continue.
Quantified Objective: (1) Complete 1,585-foot sanitary sewer extension to City Hall/
Tennis Courts (Phase I)
(2) Complete feasibility / cost study of sanitary sewer extension
(3) Obtain grants for Phase I project construction
(4) Updated “Will Serve” letter from the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District, indicating ability to accept effluent from 235
existing homes upon completion of future phase sewer system
Funding Source: General Fund/ State grants
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Complete Phase I by 2024
Determine viability of future phases and available grants by 2023
302
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-17
Program 15: Consider Participation in CDBG Urban County ProgramPursue Grants
for Minor Home Repair Program
At least once every two years, the City should re-evaluate the feasibility of joining the Los
Angeles Urban County CDBG program in order to create a funding source for home
improvements for qualifying lower income Rolling Hills residents. In the event the City finds that
the amount of funding it will receive exceeds the costs of administering the program (including
staffing and reporting requirements), the City will participate in the program. Available funds will
be used to improve housing conditions for lower income and senior Rolling Hills residents,
including:
• Grants for minor home repair and rehabilitation projects, including electrical, plumbing,
and heating repairs; health and safety improvements; and energy efficiency
improvements;
• Grants to facilitate “aging in place” for lower income seniors and residents with
disabilities;
• Grants for septic system repair for lower income homeowners seeking to add an ADU
If the City determines that CDBG participation is not viable, it will pursue other funding sources
that could support a similar grant program for lower-income Rolling Hills homeowners. This
could include administration of home repair grants by another entity (such as South Bay Cities
COG) or a local non-profit.
The decision should consider the potential amount of funding that could be received by the city,
and potential uses for that funding, as well as the administrative costs, reporting requirements,
and staff resources required to carry out the program. In the event the City receives CDBG
grants, it could consider using the funding to assist qualifying lower income households with
energy efficiency improvements, housing rehabilitation and improvements, or septic tank
replacement.
Quantified Objectives: Prepare staff report to City Council regarding participation in
Urban County CDBG program
Minor home repair/ age-in-place/ septic tank replacement
assistance to at least ten lower-income or senior Rolling Hills
households
Funding Source: LA Urban County CDBG Program/ State grantsCity General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director
Implementation Time Frame: By 2023, and every two years thereafter
303
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-18
Program 16: Code Enforcement
The City will continue code enforcement and nuisance abatement activities to ensure the safety
and habitability of housing in Rolling Hills. While property maintenance in Rolling Hills is
excellent, there is a need for ongoing enforcement of planning and building codes. The City has
a “Code Enforcement” webpage with online forms for reporting suspected violations, including
those relating to vegetation management and outdoor lighting as well as unpermitted
construction or nuisances. Periodic information on code enforcement resources and
requirements is also provided to residents through the City’s monthly newsletter.
Quantified Objective: Respond to 100 percent of resident Code Enforcement inquiries
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029
Program 17: Reduce Home Energy Costs
Energy bills can be a significant cost burden, particularly for households on fixed incomes with
large homes to heat and cool. The City has adopted the Green Building Code and enforces Title
24 energy efficiency requirements through its contract with the Los Angeles County Department
of Building and Safety. New residential projects, including new homes, ADUs, renovations, and
additions, will continue to be required to meet Title 24 standards. These requirements result in
energy savings which reduce gas and electric consumption and home utility bills.
Rolling Hills also works with Southern California Edison to distribute information to residents on
energy conservation and weatherization, including information on financial assistance and lower
utility rates for low-income customers. The City will provide links on its website to assist lower
income residents in accessing information on reduced utility rates. Rolling Hills is also a
member of the South Bay Environmental Services Center, which provides information on energy
incentives, audits and rebates. These programs will continue in the future.
The City will also support resident installation of solar energy systems. A growing number of
Rolling Hills homeowners have installed photovoltaic panels, increasing energy independence
and resilience while reducing home energy costs.
Quantified Objective: (1) Provide links on City website related to energy conservation,
weatherization, and financial assistance
(2) Adopt updated Building Code standards for energy efficiency
Funding Source: General Fund, LIHEAP
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Website Update, with links: Complete by January 2023
304
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-19
Program 18: Facilitate New Construction and Home Improvements
The City will continue to work with property owners, architects, and builders to enable new
housing to be built in the City. Continued cooperation and communication between City staff,
applicants, and neighbors will facilitate the construction of new housing. The City is committed
to efficient planning, building, and inspection procedures, and regularly seeks ways to improve
the process and reduce delays.
With few vacant lots remaining, most construction projects in Rolling Hills consist of home
additions, repairs and modernization, or replacement of existing dwellings. Continued
investment in Rolling Hills housing stock is strongly encouraged and will continue to be
supported in the future. Although the City does not provide direct financial assistance to lower
income homeowners, it assists owners in keeping costs down through permit streamlining and
fees that are generally below average compared to other cities in Los Angeles County.
Quantified Objective: 5 new single family homes (above moderate income)
Funding Source: Private Funds (Permitting Fees)
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department, LA County
Building and Safety
Implementation Time Frame: Objective covers the period from 2021 through 2029
Program 19: Remediate Geologic Hazards
The City will continue to explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems. Grading,
new structures and additions typically require a soils and geology report along with grading and
building permits. The City has developed strict grading practices that limit grading to no more
than 40 percent of the lot and require maintenance of natural slopes. These practices are
necessary to safeguard the public against ground instability.
The City will support repair work on landslide-damaged homes and hillsides that have been
damaged or compromised by past landslides. The City will strive to avoid further loss of its
housing stock as a result of natural disasters, including landslides and wildfires.
Quantified Objective: Geologic studies for new development and major grading permits
Funding Source: City General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: On-going, 2021 to 2029
305
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-20
Program 20: Fair Housing Services Program Administration
The City will complete a Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement Options Memorandum to
determine options for ensuring that existing and prospective residents have access to fair
housing services, and that property owners are apprised of Fair Housing laws and practices.
This could include an agreement with a third party fair housing services provider to promote and
affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, disability, or other characteristics
protected by state and federal fair housing law. Other alternatives for outreach, education, and
enforcement also may be considered. Based on the findings of the Memorandum, the City will
implement Fair Housing measures, including Programs 21 and 22 described below.
Quantified Objective: 100% response rate for any fair housing complaint
received by the City
Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
Memorandum
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: Complete memorandum by June 2023December 2022
Program 21: Fair Housing Outreach and Affirmative Marketing
The City will provide information on fair housing resources on its website, including links to fair
housing services. Other outreach measures to be implemented include posting regulations
regarding housing discrimination, as well as phone contacts, at City Hall and periodically
providing this information in the City’s newsletter.
The City will also provide a referral process for any person who believes they have been denied
access to housing because of their race, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status or disability. In the event a complaint is received, the City will refer the party to a
fair housing service provider for follow up and work with the complainant to resolve the issue.
In addition, the City will affirmatively market future housing opportunities in the city by:
• Requiring an affirmative marketing plan for any affordable multi-family development created
in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. Such a plan would be prepared by the project’s
developers and would ensure that future units are marketed to attract occupants who are
demographically diverse, including lower-income households in other parts of the South Bay
and Los Angeles County.
• Developing materials for Rolling Hills residents who may be seeking tenants for their ADUs,
which will be provided to ADU applicants at the time they apply for a building permit or ADU
permit. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing
service providers and non-profit housing organizations that serve lower-income tenants in the
surrounding region. Interested residents can use these materials to find prospective tenants
in a larger market area than the Palos Verdes Peninsula, including residents of all races,
ethnicities, ages, and abilities.
306
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-21
Quantified Objective: Active contract with fair housing services provider
(1) At least 50% of future occupants of affordable
housing created on the RDMO site are from outside
Rolling Hills.
(2) At least 50% of future ADU occupants are from
outside Rolling Hills (to be measured through the ADU
survey described in Program 6.2)
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager, Planning and Community Services Director
Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029. Website update by December 2022.
Program 22: Fair Housing Training for Staff
At least one City staff member will attend an on-line fair housing certification training class on an
annual basis. These classes are typically three-hour sessions in which participants are informed
and educated about federal and California fair housing laws, compliance, and illegal housing
practices. The trainings cover prohibited and best practices, including language guidance for
advertising housing for sale or for rent, and protected classes under federal and California law.
In addition, the City will regularly evaluate the need for multi-lingual services, including
translation of material on its website into other languages. It will also continue to implement its
reasonable accommodations ordinance and monitor data on persons with disabilities in the city
to ensure that barriers to mobility are eliminated to the greatest extent possible.
Quantified Objective: Annual staff training
(1) At least one Rolling Hills staff member participates
in on-line Fair Housing training each year through
2029
(1)(2) At least one presentation on fair housing is
delivered to the City Council in a noticed public
hearing, attended by at least 10 residents
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: City Manager
Implementation Time Frame: 2023 Initiate in 2022 and continue annually through 2029
307
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-22
Program 23: Written Procedures for SB 35 Projects
As required by State law, the City will prepare written procedures and application materials for
projects seeking to use SB 35. Affordable multi-family housing development on the Rancho Del
Mar site would be potentially eligible. The procedures would follow the provisions established
by the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, and include the objective standards and application
procedures identified when that zone was adopted. Once completed, the information will be
included as a PDF link on the Planning and Community Services Department website for easy
access.
Quantified Objective: Posted information on SB 35, including application
form
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2022
Program 24: Updating of Linked Files on Planning and Community Services
Department Landing Page
AB 1483 requires that every city post current information on fees, zoning standards, design
guidelines, processes and procedures, nexus studies and other pertinent information on its
website. Although Rolling Hills complies with this requirement today, reorganization of the
material could provide greater clarity and easier access to this information. For example, the
website could include a link to the RHCA design guidelines, as well as updated flow charts and
graphics showing approval processes. As noted under Program 7.2, the website also should
include dedicated information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the steps residents
can take to add an ADU on their property.
Quantified Objective: Reorganized and updated Planning and Community
Services Department website
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department
Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2023
308
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-23
6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives
Table 6.1 provides quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and
conservation by income group. The new construction objectives align with the RHNA numbers
that appear earlier in the Housing Element. The rehabilitation objective aims to assist 10 very
low-income senior households over the eight year period. The conservation and preservation
objectives correspond to the approximate number of households in Rolling Hills by income
group based on Census data. The objectives aim to preserve housing for 100 percent of these
households. There are no housing units in Rolling Hills that are at risk of conversion from
affordable to market-rate.
Table 6.1: Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills (20 21-2029)
Income Category New
Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely Low [1] 7 5 25
Very Low 13 5 45
Low 9 45
Moderate 11 25
Above Moderate 5 500
Total Housing Units 45 10 640
Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012)
[1] City’s RHNA for “Very Low” income is 20 units. This has been allocated proportionally to “Extremely Low” and “Very
Low” based on Table 3.8, which indicates the current proportion of “Very Low” income households in these two groups.
Extremely low income households represent 35% of the “very low” total.
Table 6.2 summarizes the 24 Housing Element programs listed in this chapter. It includes a
quantified objective and timeframe for each program, as presented above.
309
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-24
Table 6.2: Housing Element Action Plan Summary
# Program Timing Quantified Objective
1 Prepare Annual Progress Report on
Housing Element implementation
Annually, by April 1 One Report per year
2 Facilitate affordable housing on Rancho
Del Mar Housing Opportunity site
• Annual meeting with
School Superintendent
• Subdivision by 2024
16 lower-income units by
2029
3 No net loss monitoring/ other housing
opportunities
Continuous, through
2029. Address in
Annual Report.
No net loss of housing
capacity for duration of
planning period
4 Add definitions of transitional,
supportive, employee housing and
residential care facilities to Municipal
Code
December August 2022 Council action adopting
definitions and
identification of permitted
uses (COMPLETED)
5 Adopt density bonus provisions in
Municipal Code
December August 2022 • Council action adopting
density bonus
provisions
(COMPLETED).
• 12 density bonus units
by 2029 (on Rancho
Del Mar site)
6 Accessory Dwelling Unit production,
monitoring, and production
• Updated ADU
ordinance by August
2022 10/15/22
• ADU Roster in 2021
• Annual ADU survey,
starting in 2022
• Pre-approved plans in
2024
• ADU incentives in
2023
• Annual monitoring
program (2023)
40 ADUs by 2029,
including at least 13 ADUs
affordable to lower income
households
7 Accessory Dwelling Unit Outreach,
Education, and Information
• First biennial mailing
by end of 2022
• Website update by
6/23
• Update of design
guidelines by 2024
• Outreach mailer to 639
households
• ADU website landing
page
• ADU section added to
RHCA Guidelines
8 Assist senior and disabled households • Website update by
6/23
• Housing assistance
during 2021-2029
Assist 10 lower income
senior households with
age in place retrofits
9 Assist extremely low income households • Prepare inventory of
ELI units by 2024
7 ADUs affordable to ELI
households
310
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-25
# Program Timing Quantified Objective
10 Support regional efforts to end
homelessness
Ongoing • Participate in point-in-
time surveys
• Attend one mtg a year
11 Permit streamlining Ongoing Compliance with Permit
Streamlining Act
12 Facilitate communication with affordable
housing service providers, developers,
and advocates
By December 2022 • Convene at least one
meeting a year
• See Programs 8, 13, 15
13 Shared housingHome Sharing By December 2022 • Provide information on
website, plus print media
resources
• Five shared housing
arrangements
14 Sewer feasibility studies and Phase I
construction
Phase I construction
(serving City Hall) by
2024
• Sewer extension to City
Hall/ Tennis Courts
• Feasibility study for
sewer extension
• “Will serve” letter for 235
existing homes
15 Consider participation in Urban County
CBDG Program
By 2023 Staff report and Council
discussion Minor home
repair/septic tank
replacement assistance to
10 lower income or senior
households
16 Code enforcement Ongoing 100% follow up
17 Reduce home energy costs By 2023 Website update
18 Facilitate new construction and home
improvements
Ongoing 5 market-rate single family
homes (including 3 already
approved)
19 Remediate geologic hazards Ongoing Geologic studies for new
development
20 Fair housing program administration Develop fair housing
compliance program by
December 2022
Fair Housing Planning
Memo100% response to
all Fair Housing complaints
21 Fair housing outreach and affirmative
marketing
Website update by
December 2022
• Contract with fair
housing service provider
• At least 50% of future
occupants of affordable
housing created on the
RDMO site are from
outside Rolling Hills
• At least 50% of future
ADU occupants are from
outside Rolling Hills
311
A D O P T I O N D R A F T
Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-26
• Website links or landing
page
22 Fair housing training for City staff Initiate in 2022 • Training for one staff
member annually
• Noticed presentation to
City Council attended
by at least 10 residents
Annual training for at
least one staff member
23 Prepare written instructions for SB 35
applications
Complete by December
31, 2022
Guidance memo and
application form
24 Update Planning and Community
Services website
Complete by December
31, 2023
Updated website
312
FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Prepared for:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Contact: John F. Signo, AICP
(310) 377-1521
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
600 West Broadway, Suite 250
Glendale, CA 91204
(213) 623-1859
September 2022
313
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................... 1
1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT AND IS/MND ............................................................... 1
SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................ 2
2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................... 4
2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) ....................................................................... 4
2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES ............................................................................... 5
2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development ................................................................................ 5
2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots .................................................................................................... 5
2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site ......................................................................................................... 8
2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units ................................................................................................. 8
2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .................................................................................. 8
2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS ............................................................... 9
2.7 APPROVALS REQUIRED ................................................................................................................. 9
SECTION 3.0 – FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 10
SECTION 4.0 – MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................. 11
SECTION 5.0 – CIRCULATION .............................................................................................................. 19
SECTION 6.0 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 20
6.1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .......................................................................... 20
SECTION 7.0 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................. 26
SECTION 8.0 – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ............................. 29
SECTION 9.0 – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .......................................................................... 30
SECTION 10.0 – REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 31
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DETERMINATION
APPENDIX B – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
314
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield .................................................................................. 6
Table 2-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .............................................................................................. 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1: Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2-2: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites ................................................................................................ 7
315
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
1
SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
On August 8, 2022, the City of Rolling Hills distributed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (Proposed
Project) to public agencies and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30-day public review period for the
Draft IS/MND was provided from August 8, 2022 to September 7, 2022.
1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT AND IS/MND
The Notices of Intent (NOI) and the IS/MND were available for review at the following locations:
City of Rolling Hills City Hall:
Planning and Community Services Department
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City of Rolling Hills Website:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/planning_and_community_services/index.php
316
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
2
SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rolling Hills (City) is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large lot
residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land
(approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles (Figure 2-1). The
City’s General Plan was drafted and adopted in 1990. The City is proposing an update to the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
The 2020 Census indicates a citywide population of 1,739 residents, making the City the fifth smallest of
the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. The City is proposing to adopt the Housing Element for the Sixth Cycle
planning period from 2021 to 2029. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (HEU or 2021-2029
HEU) is available on the City’s website. The Housing Element, which is part of the City’s General Plan, is a
policy document designed to provide the City a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting
the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. California Government
Code Section 65580 states the following regarding the importance of creating housing elements:
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority
of the highest order.
Per State law, the housing element has two main purposes:
1. To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting
these needs; and
2. To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs.
A detailed description of the update is provided below.
2.2 BACKGROUND
The City’s Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan and is subject to detailed
statutory requirements, including a requirement to be updated every eight years and mandatory review
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This action includes the
adoption of the HEU, which is a policy document; no actual development or rezoning of parcels is included
as part of the HEU. The proposed HEU is an eight-year plan for the 2021-2029 period.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, a housing element is required to consist of an identification
and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and
development of housing. Specifically, a housing element is required to contain the following:
An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to
meeting those needs (Government Code Section 65583[a])
317
CrestRdSilver
S
purRd
I
n
d
i
a
n
P
e
akRd Palos Verdes Dr N
W 1st
S
t
PalosVerdes
Dr
S Mi
ral
esteDrPalosVerdesDrERollingHillsRdCrestridge Rd CrenshawBlvdUV107
SanBernardino
Kern
SanLuisObispo
Ventura
Santa Barbara
RiversideOrange
Los Angeles
San Diego
1:200,000 1:5,000,000
Figure 1
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Project Location
Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location.Mxd
Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:21:39 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet
´
Project Location
Project Location
318
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
4
A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the
maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing (Government Code
Section 65583[a])
A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline
for implementation of the policies and to achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
(Government Code Section 65583[c])
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) began the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different methodologies for allocating the
regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements,
the City was required to first amend its Fifth Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle
and the prior (Fourth) cycle RHNA allocations due to its noncompliant status. The combined RHNA for the
two cycles was 28 units. Accommodating this need meant that City was also required to amend its General
Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity.
The Fifth Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on June 14, 2021 and certified by HCD
on July 7, 2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior
allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA.
2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW
The City’s HEU consists of the following major components:
A review of the prior housing element and goals that were accomplished (Section 2, Evaluation of
Prior Housing Element)
An assessment of housing needs in the City including profile and analysis of the City’s
demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 3, Housing
Needs Assessment)
An assessment of resources available to meet the City’s objectives regarding housing production
and preservation. Resources include land available for new construction and redevelopment, as
well as financial and administrative resources available (Section 4, Housing Sites)
A review of the constraints to housing production and preservation. Constraints include potential
market, governmental policy, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified
housing needs (Section 5, Constraints to Housing Production)
A statement of the housing plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing
goals, policies, and programs (Section 6, Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs)
2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
State housing element law requires housing elements to be updated regularly to reflect a community’s
changing housing needs, including preparation of a RHNA plan [Government Code Section 65584(a)]. A
critical measure of compliance is the ability of a jurisdiction to accommodate its share of the RHNA
prepared by HCD for each Council of Governments in the state that identifies projected housing units
319
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
5
needed for all economic segments based on Department of Finance population estimates. SCAG is
responsible for allocating this total to each of the six counties and 191 cities in the SCAG area. This process
is known as the RHNA and occurs every eight years.
SCAG calculates each city and county’s “fair share” of the regional need using a computer model that
weighs factors such as existing population and employment, growth potential, proximity to transit, and
social equity. For each jurisdiction, SCAG distributes the RHNA among four different income groups. This
ensures that each city or county is planning for housing that meet the needs of all economic segments of
the community, including lower income households.
For the City, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units (SCAG 2020). This includes 20 very low income units, 9
low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units. The 2021-2029 Housing
Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this assignment.
2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES
The below sections include a discussion of the inventory of potential housing sites in the City and the City’s
availability to meet RHNA numbers.
2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development
There are 12 housing units in the City that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All of these
units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and, therefore, count
toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family homes and nine Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs).
2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots
There are 34 vacant, residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City, totaling
124.8 acres, as shown in Figure 2-2. Of the 34 sites, 20 are estimated to be developable and 14 are severely
constrained and presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029 planning period. The constrained parcels
include five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and nine that are in the Flying Triangle
Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area had homes that were destroyed by
earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s.
For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 2-1 below indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family
homes. Note that there is a potential for additional units to be provided, however, to take a conservative
approach, the realistic yield was utilized. The site locations in the table below, correspond with the
locations in Figure 2-2.
320
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
6
Table 2-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield
Site APN Zoning General Plan Acres* Realistic Yield,
excluding ADUs
1 7567-006-001 RAS-1 LDR 2.27 1
2 7567-006-014 RAS-1 LDR 1.22 0
3 7567-009-007 RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1
4 7567-010-013 RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1
5 7567-010-015 RAS-1 LDR 1.49 0
6 7567-011-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 0
7 7567-012-019 RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 0
8 7567-012-020 RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 0
9 7567-012-026 RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 0
10 7567-012-035 RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 0
11 7567-012-036 RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 0
12 7567-012-038 RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 0
13 7567-013-005 RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 0
14 7567-013-007 RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 0
15 7567-014-005 RAS-1 LDR 2.12 0
16 7567-014-011 RAS-1 LDR 1.66 0
17 7567-014-013 RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 0
18 7567-014-031 RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 1
19 7567-015-036 RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 1
20 7567-017-017 RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 1
21 7567-017-045 RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1
22 7569-001-020 RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1
23 7569-001-036 RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1
24 7569-004-026 RAS-1 LDR 3.39 1
25 7569-005-008 RAS-1 LDR 6.52 1
26 7569-012-022 RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1
27 7569-012-025 RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1
28 7569-013-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1
29 7569-013-018 RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1
30 7569-013-020 RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1
31 7570-024-019 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 1
32 7570-024-020 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 1
33 7570-024-021 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 1
34 7570-025-022 RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1
Total 124.8 20
Notes:
* = Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements
ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit
APN = Assessor Parcel Number
RAS-1 = Residential Agriculture–Suburban; minimum lot size 1 acre
RAS-2 = Residential Agriculture–Suburban; minimum lot size 2 acres
LDR = Low Density Residential
VLDR = Very Low Density Residential
321
2
5
6 A
789
10 11 12
13 14
15
16
17
C
1
3
4
18
19
2021
22 23
24
25
26
27
2829
30
31
32 33
34
B
Figure 2
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Vacant Residentally Zones Sites
Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites.Mxd
Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:16:46 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
´
Project Location
Zoning
Vacant lots with approved single family
homes
Vacant lots with constraints
Vacant lots (counted as one SF home
each)322
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
8
2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site
In March 2021, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest Road (Rancho Del Mar site).
Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (approximately
23 acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed.
The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and an
underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site, based on the site
area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5, rounded up to 16). However, the
General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable density for this site be transferred to a
single location on the property where a density standard of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced
and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of
housing and transfers it to a single location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates
that any housing built on the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such
development is permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective
development and design standards contained in the RDMO. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
amendments completed in 2021, the site is viable for 16 units of low/very low income housing.
2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units
The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(JADUs) over the eight-year planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is
based on the permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program
that encourage ADUs in the coming years.
2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA
As shown in Table 2-2 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be
occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can accommodate
the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income
units based on projected ADU production over the planning period.
323
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
9
Table 2-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA
Income Category
Total Extremely
Low/ Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Approved Development – 2 3 7* 12
Vacant Residential Lots – – – 20 20
Rancho Del Mar Site 8 8 – – 16
Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40
TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88
RHNA 20 9 11 5 45
Surplus/Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43
Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES
Notes: * Includes 3 new homes and 4 ADUs
2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS
The housing goals, policies, objectives, and programs, which can be found in Chapter 6 of the HEU, reflect
the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential development and plan for the City’s fair
share of regional housing needs. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in the HEU, RHNA allocation
in all income categories can be met with approved development, the future Rancho Del Mar Site, and new
ADUs; therefore, the 2021-2029 HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residential lots.
Thus, this CEQA document evaluates the potential impacts of development on the 20 vacant sites that
could offer 20 single family units. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, based on the City’s ability to
meet RHNA allocation as described above, the HEU is a policy document; no actual development nor
rezoning of parcels is included as part of the approval. Further, the HEU, in and of itself, does not propose
specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing
development in the City. However, the HEU focuses on development of 20 vacant parcels with 20 single
family homes and impacts associated with that potential future development are analyzed here, to the
extent possible based on available information.
2.7 APPROVALS REQUIRED
Pursuant to State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is
empowered to review the housing element of each community to ensure its compliance with the
provisions of the Government Code related to facilitating the improvement and development of housing
in order to make adequate provisions for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
HCD has review but not approval authority.
The City Council will need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update.
No other approvals will be required.
324
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
10
SECTION 3.0 – FINDINGS
An Initial Study was prepared to assess the Proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment and
the significance of those impacts and was incorporated in the Draft MND. Based on the IS / MND, it has
been determined that the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts on the environment
once all proposed mitigation measures have been implemented. This conclusion is supported by the
following findings:
No potential was found for adverse impacts on Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral
Resources associated with the Proposed Project.
Potential adverse impacts resulting from the Proposed Project were found to be less than
significant in the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and
Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and
Service Systems, and Wildfire.
Full implementation of the proposed mitigation measures included in this MND would reduce
potential Project-related adverse impact on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal
Cultural Resources to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed Project will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable.
The proposed Project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
325
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
11
SECTION 4.0 – MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures and project conditions have been incorporated into the scope of work
for the Proposed Project and will be fully implemented by the City to avoid or minimize adverse
environmental impacts identified in this MND. These mitigation measures will be included in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for this Project (Appendix B).
BIO-1: Biological Resources Assessment
Applicants of future development projects should be required to prepare a Biological Resources
Assessment (BRA). The BRA should be prepared by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist should
conduct field surveys of the project site and focused plant and wildlife surveys. Focused species-specific
surveys should be required if suitable habitat is present and performed according to established Survey
and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2022a). The
BRA should characterize the biological resources on site, analyze project-specific impacts to biological
resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset those impacts. The BRA should provide
the following information:
1) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered species, regionally and
locally unique species, and sensitive habitats at the project site and within the area of potential
effect, including California Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species
(Fish & Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should include
all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15380). Seasonal variations in use of land around the project site should also
be addressed. A nine-quadrangle search of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
should be conducted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species
and habitat (CDFW 2022b);
2) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities
following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Adjoining habitat areas should be
included where project construction and activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts off site;
3) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments
conducted at the project site and within the area of potential effect. The Manual of California
Vegetation (MCV), second edition, should be used to inform this mapping and assessment
(Sawyer et al. 2009);
4) A rare plant assessment using online databases for rare, threatened, and endangered plants,
including the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants of California (CNPS 2022) as well as the Calflora’s Information on Wild California Plants
database (Calflora 2022);
5) A discussion regarding project-related indirect impacts on biological resources in nearby public
lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated and/or
proposed or existing reserve lands [e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community
Conservation Plan (Fish & Game Code Section 2800 et. seq.)];
6) Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to
undisturbed habitats in areas adjacent to the project site.
326
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
12
BIO-2: Take of Species
Development projects that would impact species listed under California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be required to obtain appropriate take authorization from
CDFW and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to the City’s issuance of a grading
permit.
BIO-3: Rare Plant Species or Sensitive Natural Community
If a rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community is detected, the project applicant should fully
avoid impacts. The project applicant should retain a qualified biologist to develop an avoidance plan. An
avoidance plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal.
If the project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities,
either during project activities or over the life of the project, the project applicant should provide
compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres, which should include impacts
due to fuel modification and landslide remediation. Impacts on vegetation due hazard mitigation should
also be mitigated as these impacts would result in permanent loss and perpetual impacts on habitat
function and quality. The project applicant should provide compensatory so that there is no net loss of
rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural communities. Compensatory mitigation should be appropriate
for the extent of permanently disturbed habitat. Compensatory mitigation should be higher for impacts
on California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 species, S1 or S2 Sensitive Natural Community, and Sensitive
Natural Community with an additional rank of 0.1 or 0.2. Compensatory mitigation should be
implemented by a qualified restoration ecologist. A Restoration Plan, at a minimum, should include
success criteria and performance standards for measuring the establishment of rare plants and habitat,
responsible parties, maintenance techniques and schedule, 5-year monitoring and reporting schedule,
adaptive management strategies, and contingencies. A Restoration Plan should be submitted to the City
prior to any grading or vegetation removal.
BIO-4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys
Where a project site and areas adjacent to the project has suitable habitat for coastal California
gnatcatcher, applicants of future development projects should be required to retain a qualified permitted
biologist to survey for coastal California gnatcatcher and prepare an impact assessment. The qualified
biologist should survey the project site and adjacent areas to determine presence/absence of coastal
California gnatcatcher. The qualified biologist should conduct surveys according to USFWS Coastal
California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS
1997). The protocol should be followed for all surveys unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS in
writing (USFWS 1997). Survey results should be provided to USFWS per protocol guidance. Survey results,
including negative findings, and an impact assessment should be conducted prior to the City’s issuance of
a grading permits.
BIO-5: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Compensatory Mitigation
Applicants of future development projects should be required to provide compensatory mitigation for
impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in addition to mitigation required by USFWS to prevent
temporal or permanent habitat loss.
327
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
13
BIO-6: Nesting Birds
Future development projects requiring vegetation disturbance and/or removal, and/or are adjacent to
suitable nesting habitat should be required to avoid impacts on nesting birds by conducting all project-
related activities between September 1 through January 31, outside of the nesting bird season. If
construction must occur during the bird nesting season, project applicants should be required to retain a
qualified biologist to survey suitable nesting habitat for nesting birds on the project site and within 100
feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified biologist should conduct a
nesting bird survey no more than 7 days prior to any ground and vegetation disturbing activities. If project
activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the nesting bird season, a qualified
biologist should repeat nesting bird surveys before the project can recommence. No-disturbance buffers
should be established to minimize impacts on any nests and nestlings. No-disturbance buffers should be
maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist determines that the birds
have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.
BIO-7: Nesting Bird Habitat
Future development projects removing habitat for nesting birds should be required to restore or replace
habitat in-kind and on site if feasible to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss. Projects should
provide replacement habitat for both individual trees and habitat acres.
BIO-8: Bat Surveys
Future development projects in areas with suitable roosting and foraging habitat for bats should be
required to retain a qualified bat biologist to conduct a survey for within the project site and within 100
feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified bat specialist should identify
potential daytime, nighttime, wintering, and hibernation roost sites. Surveys should be conducted prior
to any ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal.
BIO-9: Tree Removal – Bat Impacts
If a project requires tree removal and a qualified bat biologist determines that roosting bats may be
present at any time of year and could roost in trees that need to be removed, during tree removal, trees
should be pushed down using heavy machinery rather than felling with a chainsaw. To ensure the
optimum warning for any roosting bats that may still be present, trees should be pushed lightly two or
three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge to allow bats to become
active. The tree should then be pushed to the ground slowly and remain in place until it is inspected by a
qualified bat biologist. Trees that are known to be bat roosts or could support roosting bats should not be
bucked or mulched immediately. A period of at least 24 hours, and preferable 48 hours, should elapse
prior to such operations to allow bats to escape.
BIO-10: Roosting Bats
If bats roosts are found within the project impact area, the qualified bat biologist should identify the bats
to the species level, evaluate the colony to determine its size and significance, and establish a species-
specific no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s
construction.
328
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
14
BIO-11: Maternity Bat Roosts
If maternity roosts are found, project-related construction and activities should be scheduled between
October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats are present but
are yet ready to fly out of the roost (March 1 to September 30). If maternity roosts are found and the
project must take place during the maternity roosting season, trees/structures determined to be
maternity roosts should be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Project-related construction
and activities should not occur within 100 feet of or directly under or adjacent to an active maternity
roost. A qualified bat biologist should establish a no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained
throughout the duration of the project’s construction or until a qualified bat biologist determines that the
roost is no longer active. Project-related construction and activities should also not occur between 30
minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise.
BIO-12: Jurisdictional Delineation
Applicants of future development projects that are located adjacent to a river, stream, or lake should be
required to prepare a jurisdictional delineation and impact assessment provided along with the project’s
Biological Resources Assessment. If such features are present and may be impacted by the future
development, then the project should be required to avoid impacts by implementing appropriate
vegetative buffers and/or setbacks adjoining the stream or wetland feature to reduce impacts of the
project on these resources. If avoidance is not feasible, the project applicant should be required to notify
CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602 and obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA)
Agreement from CDFW prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant should
comply with the mitigation measures detailed in a LSA Agreement issued by CDFW. The project applicant
should also provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 1:1 for the impacted stream and habitat
acreage, or at a ratio acceptable to CDFW.
CUL-1: Provide Construction Worker Archeological Awareness Training
Prior to the start of construction on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would be
to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the project
archaeologist or their designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the
appearance of archeological resources and the procedures for notifying archeological staff should artifacts
be discovered by construction staff. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be
fulfilled at the time of a pre-construction meeting, which a qualified archaeologist shall attend. This
training will include a printed handout that provides examples of potential cultural resources. The WEAP
training will be repeated when construction personnel change and periodically renewed if the project has
a long duration (more than 3 months.)
CUL-2: Conduct Archeological Resources Construction Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation
would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the property
owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology (United States National Park Service 1983) to be present during
all initial subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. At the commencement of construction
activities, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist, construction
manager, general contractor, subcontractor, and construction workers associated with ground-disturbing
activities. The orientation meeting shall describe the potential of exposing archaeological resources, the
329
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
15
types of resources that may be encountered, and directions on the steps that shall be taken if such a find
is encountered.
CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient and historic times, tribal
traditions included but were not limited to the burial of associated cultural resources (funerary objects)
with the deceased and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the
same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part
of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual
human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or
to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. The Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidance specifically states that the federal agencies will consult
with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains and cultural items might be discovered, who
are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship to the human remains and other cultural items.
Therefore, it is appropriate to consult with local Native American groups as recommended by the
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner. Work
shall be stopped and the construction manager or archaeological monitor, if present, shall immediately
divert work at a minimum of 50 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The construction
manager or the monitor shall then notify an archaeologist who meets the standards of qualification under
the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior and the coroner to assess the discovery. Work shall continue to
be diverted while the coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be kept
confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the remains are Native American, the
coroner will notify the California NAHC as mandated by State law who will then appoint a most likely
descendent (MLD). The MLD shall provide recommendations as to the treatment and disposition of the
human remains within 48 hours of MLD designation. In the case where discovered human remains cannot
be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with a protective casing
to prevent further damage or looting. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects
shall be stored in accordance with methods agreed upon between the MLD and the landowner. If the
Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be
reburied in an appropriate setting, as determined by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains
to be modern, the Coroner will take custody of the remains.
GEO-1: Prepare Paleontological Resources Study and Implement Study Recommendations
For any development in Rolling Hills that occurs within high sensitivity geologic units, whether they are
mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface, the City shall require a site-specific
paleontological study and avoidance and/or mitigation for potential impacts to paleontological resources.
The City shall require the following specific requirements for projects that could disturb geologic units
with high paleontological sensitivity, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in
the subsurface.
1) Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance within highly sensitive
geologic units, the applicant shall retain a project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who
meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards for Qualified Professional
Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources (SVP 2010).
A qualified paleontologist (Principal Paleontologist) is defined by the SVP standards as an
330
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
16
individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with
paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California,
and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least 1 year.
2) Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to construction activity, a qualified
paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be
implemented during ground disturbance activity for the proposed project. This program shall
outline the procedures for construction staff WEAP training, paleontological monitoring extent
and duration, salvage and preparation of fossils, the final mitigation and monitoring report, and
paleontological staff qualifications.
3) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the
project paleontologist or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel
regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff shall
fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-
construction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. In the event of a fossil
discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and
a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the
area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the qualified
paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil
resources.
4) Paleontological Monitoring. Ground disturbing construction activities (including grading,
trenching, foundation work and other excavations) at the surface in areas mapped as high
paleontological sensitivity and exceeding 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high
paleontological sensitivity units shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified
paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbance. The Paleontological Mitigation and
Monitoring Program shall be supervised by the project paleontologist. Monitoring shall be
conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has
experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and timing of
the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist. If the project paleontologist
determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend that
monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring would be
reinstated if any new or unforeseen deeper ground disturbances are required, and reduction or
suspension would need to be reconsidered by the supervising paleontologist. Ground disturbing
activity that does not occur in areas mapped as high sensitivity or that do not exceed 5 feet in
depth in areas overlying potentially high sensitivity units would not require paleontological
monitoring.
5) Salvage of Fossils. If significant fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist or paleontological
monitor shall recover them. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single
paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete
skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods.
In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt
construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.
Work may continue outside of a buffer zone around the fossil, usually 50-100 feet (specific
distance may be determined by the project paleontologist).
6) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified
to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a
331
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
17
scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of
California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps.
Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the
discretion of the project paleontologist.
7) Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and
curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and
monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall
include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections,
any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were
curated.
TCR-1: Retain and Utilize a Native American Construction Monitor
If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific
development projects or during construction of such projects, the project applicant for that project shall
obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground
disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined as activities that include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) shall be present on-site during the
construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall
complete monitoring logs daily to provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction
activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the
construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that
the site has a low potential for archeological resources.
TCR-2: Evaluate Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources
If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific
development projects or during construction of such projects, a qualified archaeologist and Native
American Monitor shall be present during construction-related ground disturbance activities to identify
any unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist and Native American
monitor may be different individuals or the same individual if the City determines that individual qualifies
as both a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. All archaeological resources unearthed by
construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor. If
the resources are determined to be human remains (see also Mitigation Measure CUL-3) the Coroner shall
be notified, and if the human remains are Native American in origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC as
mandated by State law, who will then appoint an MLD, who shall then coordinate with the landowner
regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial or
preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to
constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique
archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2(g), the qualified
archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that
would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the resources shall
be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections
21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred
manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be
332
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
18
curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area
for educational purposes.
333
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
19
SECTION 5.0 – CIRCULATION
On August 8, 2022, the City circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups, and the general public. In
accordance with CEQA Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30-day public review
period for the Final IS/MND was provided from August 8, 2022 to September 7, 2022. Copies of the
IS/MND and supporting materials were made available for review at the following locations:
City of Rolling Hills City Hall:
Planning and Community Services Department
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City of Rolling Hills Website:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/planning_and_community_services/index.php
One comment letter was received during the 30-day comment period (Table 5-1). Responses to comments
received are provided below in Section 6.0.
Table 5-1. Comments from Agencies on the Draft IS/MND
Comment
Letter No. Commenting Agency Date of Comment
1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) August 18, 2022
334
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
20
SECTION 6.0 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (b) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons
and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of negative declarations should be, “on the
proposed finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and
public agencies believe that the Project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific
effect; (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and; (3) Explain why they believe the effect
would be significant.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their
comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts,
or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect
shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states,
“Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information
germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be
used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead
agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
In accordance with PRC 21092.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall notify any public agency
which comments on a negative declaration of the public hearing or hearings, if any, on the Project for
which the negative declaration was prepared. If notice to the commenting public agency is provided
pursuant to Section 21092, the notice shall satisfy the requirement of this subdivision.
6.1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Written comments on the Draft IS/MND are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to
those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the letters are coded using numbers
(e.g., Comment Letter 1) and each issue raised in the comment letter is assigned a number that correlates
with the letter (e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, etc.).
Comment-initiated text revisions to the Draft IS/MND and minor staff-initiated changes are compiled in
their entirety and are demarcated with revision marks in Section 7.0.
335
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
21
336
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
22
337
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
23
338
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
24
339
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
25
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 1
Commenter: Frank Wen, Ph.D., Manager - Planning Strategy, SCAG
Date of Letter: August 18, 2022
Response 1-1: This comment introduces the comment letter and requests that when available, all
project related information be sent over to the commenting agency. This comment is noted, and no
further response is required.
Response 1-2: This comment summarizes the recommendations provided in the comment letter and
notes that the IS / MND does not reference consistency with the goals of the most recently adopted 2020
Connect SoCal and recommends that a consistency analysis is provided. As requested, a consistency
analysis was completed for the Project and is included in the Section 7.0, of this Final MND and in the final
Draft MND provided in Appendix A. The addition of this language found that the Project is consistent with
the goals of the 2020 Connect SoCal Plan. This addition of text does not result in increased impacts and
therefore does not require re-circulation. No further analysis is required.
Response 1-3: This comment discusses the 2020 Connect SoCal Plan and goals; listing the goals that
would be relevant to the Project and recommends that the goals be considered when finalizing the
Project. As discussed in Response 1-2, a consistency analysis was completed for the Project and is included
in the Section 7.0, of this Final MND and in the final Draft MND provided in Appendix A. The addition of
this language found that the Project is consistent with the goals of the 2020 Connect SoCal Plan. This
addition of text does not result in increased impacts and therefore does not require re-circulation. No
further analysis is required.
Response 1-4: This comment discusses the demographics and growth forecasts utilized in the Connect
SoCal document and notes that the IS/MND discusses the population, housing and employment trends
and forecasts based on the most recently adopted SCAG 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Growth Forecasts.
This comment is noted, and no further response is required.
Response 1-5: This comment recommends that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final
PEIR) for Connect SoCal be review for guidance as appropriate. The Final PEIR was reviewed for guidance
and will again be reviewed when projects are constructed under the Housing Element Update. At this
time, none of the mitigation measures included in the Final PEIR were found necessary to be included in
the Draft MND, however, these measures will also be reviewed for future projects in the City and may be
implemented at that time.
Response 1-6: This comment discusses the 6th Cycle Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
and notes the City’s RHNA allocation, noting that the IS/MND indicates the correct RHNA Allocation
numbers. This comment is noted, and no further response is required.
340
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
26
SECTION 7.0 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This errata section identifies changes made to the Draft MND to correct or clarify the information
contained in the document. Changes made to the Draft MND are identified here in strikeout text to
indicate deletions and underlined text to signify additions.
The following additions were made on page 34 of the Draft MND:
Connect SoCal was fully adopted by SCAG Regional Council in September 2020. Also known as the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the plan assists with long-range planning, balancing future mobility and housing
needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice,
and public health. The goals included in the plan, and the Project’s consistency with those goals, are
provided in Table 5.11-1 below.
Table 5.11-2. Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis
Connect SoCal Goals Consistency
1 Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness
Consistent. The HEU, which is part of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan,
is a policy document designed to provide the City with a coordinated and
comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and
affordable housing within the community. One of the main goals of the
HEU is to conserve existing housing while providing opportunities for new
housing that would serve a variety of income levels.
2 Improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability, and
travel safety for people and
goods
Consistent. The HEU would not create new streets or roadways; however,
potential future development of the 20 vacant residentially zoned,
privately owned parcels would construct new private driveways.
Furthermore, all future development during the 2021-2029 planning
period would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and
to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including
those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code.
3 Enhance the preservation,
security, and resilience of the
regional transportation
system
Consistent. The City has no public roads or streets; however, all future
development (including the 20 residential lots) would be required to
adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances,
and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan
Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
4 Increase person and goods
movement and travel choices
within the transportation
system
Consistent. Direct, public transportation is not provided for the City
because all of its roadways are private; however, future development
(including the 20 residential lots) would be required to adhere to the 2020
LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that
address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation
Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
341
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
27
Connect SoCal Goals Consistency
5 Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air
quality
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality, future development of
the 20 vacant residential lots has the potential to generate toxic air
contaminants; however, residential development projects are unlikely to
exceed local thresholds or expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the City’s General Plan and the
RHMC contain policies and measures related to maintaining air quality in
residential neighborhoods, including protecting neighborhoods from air
pollution-generating activities through appropriate development buffers.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
projects will be required to comply with the RHMC, LABC, and CBC,
including the CALGreen code, which helps reduce GHG emissions through
sustainable design and renewable energy considerations.
6 Support healthy and
equitable communities
Consistent. RHNA in all income categories can be met and exceeded with
approved housing units, future affordable housing units on the Rancho Del
Mar site, new ADUs (which have been made easier to develop under a
series of recently passed legislation), and potential future development of
the 20 residential lots. The City has prepared its HEU in accordance with
Section 65580 of the Government Code. Additionally, the update is
consistent with the City General Plan and the community’s vision of its
housing needs and objectives.
7 Adapt to a changing climate
and support an integrated
regional development
pattern and transportation
network
Consistent. The HEU includes objectives for energy conservation and,
furthermore, encourages sustainable development and provides energy
conservation recommendations, including adoption of the California
Green Building Code.
8 Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven
solutions that result in more
efficient travel
Consistent. Any future development would be required to adhere to all
programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including
those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the RHMC.
9 Encourage development of
diverse housing types in
areas that are supported by
multiple transportation
options
Consistent. The combination of recently approved housing units, future
affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs, which have
been made easier to develop under a series of recently passed legislation,
in addition to future projects on the 20 residential lots, can accommodate
the RHNA allocation in all income categories (i.e., very low, low, moderate,
and above moderate income) and comprise a variety of housing types.
342
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
28
Connect SoCal Goals Consistency
10 Promote conservation of
natural and agricultural lands
and restoration of habitats
Consistent. The City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project involves an
update to the City’s Housing Element, with no proposed changes to land
use designations or zoning of parcels within the City.
Applicants of future development projects would be required to prepare a
Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), which would characterize the
biological resources (e.g., natural habitats, special-status species) on site,
analyze project-specific impacts to those resources, and propose
appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts.
If a future project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat,
or sensitive natural communities, either during project activities or over the
life of the project, the project applicant would be required to provide
compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres.
Future development projects that would remove habitat for nesting birds
would be required to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site, if
feasible, to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss.
343
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
29
SECTION 8.0 – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Final Draft IS/MND is provided in Appendix A.
344
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
30
SECTION 9.0 – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This document, along with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program; and the Notice of Determination, constitute the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in the City of Rolling Hills, California.
Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Rolling Hills has
independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proposed Project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City of Rolling
Hills. The City of Rolling Hills, as lead agency, also confirms that the Project mitigation measures detailed
in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the MND and MMRP.
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
345
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
31
SECTION 10.0 – REFERENCES
Calflora
2022 Calflora Wild California Plants Database. Available online at: https://www.calflora.org/
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2018 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959
2022a Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines. Available online at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols
2022b California Natural Diversity Database. Available online at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2022 California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California. Available online at: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-
rare-plants
Sawyer, J.O., Keeler-Wolf, T., and Evens J.M.
2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. ISBN 978-0-943460-49-9.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to
Paleontological Resources. Available online at: https://vertpaleo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
2020 The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the
Southern California Association Of Governments: Connect SoCal. Available online at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-
plan_0.pdf?1606001176
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
1997 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence
Survey Protocol. Available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey-protocol-for-coastal-
california-gnatcatcher.pdf
United States National Parks Service
1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines. Available online at:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelines-
archeology-historic-preservation.pdf
346
APPENDIX A – FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DETERMINATION 347
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Prepared for:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Contact: John F. Signo, AICP
(310) 377-1521
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
600 West Broadway, Suite 250
Glendale, CA 91204
(213) 623-1859
August 2022
348
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 – PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING ............................................................................ 2
2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................... 4
2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) ....................................................................... 4
2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES ............................................................................... 5
2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development ................................................................................ 5
2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots .................................................................................................... 5
2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site ......................................................................................................... 6
2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units ................................................................................................. 8
2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .................................................................................. 8
2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS ............................................................... 8
SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ............................................................................ 10
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: .............................................................. 10
3.2 DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION 4.0 – EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................. 11
SECTION 5.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ........................................................................ 1
5.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................... 1
5.1.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 1
5.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 3
5.2.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 3
5.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................. 4
5.3.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 4
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 6
5.4.1 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 7
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 14
5.5.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 15
5.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 17
5.6.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 17
5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 19
5.7.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 19
5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 25
5.8.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 25
5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................... 27
5.9.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 27
349
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
iii
5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 30
5.10.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 31
5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 32
5.11.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 32
5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 35
5.12.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 35
5.13 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 36
5.13.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 36
5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 38
5.14.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 38
5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 39
5.15.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 39
5.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 41
5.16.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 41
5.17 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................... 42
5.17.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 42
5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 43
5.18.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 43
5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 46
5.19.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 46
5.20 WILDFIRE .................................................................................................................................... 49
5.20.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 49
5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 51
5.21.1 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 51
SECTION 6.0 – REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 53
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment
APPENDIX B –Tribal Consultation Responses
350
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.5-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield ............................................................................... 5
Table 2.5-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA ........................................................................................... 8
Table 5.11-1. Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis ........................................................................... 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1-1: Project Location……………………….………………………………………………………………………………………….3
Figure 2.5-1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites………………………………………………………………………………………….7
351
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
1
SECTION 1.0 – PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project Title: City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Project Location: Citywide. Rolling Hills is located in Los Angeles County, on the Palos Verdes Peninsula
(See Figure 2.1-1: Project Location.)
Lead agency name and address:
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Contact person and phone number:
John F. Signo, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Services
phone: (310) 377-1521
email: jsigno@cityofrh.net
Project sponsor’s name and address:
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
General Plan Description: Citywide
Zoning: Citywide; No proposed zoning changes
Approvals Required: Pursuant to State law, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) is empowered to review the housing element of each community to ensure its
compliance with the provisions of the Government Code related to facilitating the improvement and
development of housing in order to make adequate provisions for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community. HCD is a responsible agency for the Housing Element Update.
The City Council will need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update.
No other approvals will be required.
Project Description Summary: The Project is the Sixth Cycle, 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the
City of Rolling Hills General Plan. The Housing Element is a policy update only, and no specific land use
changes or development projects are proposed. See further discussion under Section 2.0, “Project
Description and Setting.”
352
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
2
SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rolling Hills (City) is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large lot
residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land
(approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles (Figure 2.1-1:
Project Location). The City’s General Plan was drafted and adopted in 1990. The City is proposing an
update to the Housing Element of the General Plan.
The 2020 Census indicates a citywide population of 1,739 residents, making the City the fifth smallest of
the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. The City is proposing to adopt the Housing Element for the Sixth Cycle
planning period from 2021 to 2029. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (HEU or 2021-2029
HEU) is available on the City’s website. The Housing Element, which is part of the City’s General Plan, is a
policy document designed to provide the City a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting
the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. California Government
Code Section 65580 states the following regarding the importance of creating housing elements:
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority
of the highest order.
Per State law, the housing element has two main purposes:
1. To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting
these needs; and
2. To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs.
A detailed description of the update is provided below.
2.2 BACKGROUND
The City’s Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan and is subject to detailed
statutory requirements, including a requirement to be updated every eight years and mandatory review
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This action includes the
adoption of the HEU, which is a policy document; no actual development or rezoning of parcels is included
as part of the HEU. The proposed HEU is an eight-year plan for the 2021-2029 period.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, a housing element is required to consist of an identification
and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and
development of housing. Specifically, a housing element is required to contain the following:
An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to
meeting those needs (Government Code Section 65583[a])
353
CrestRdSilver
S
purRd
I
n
d
i
a
n
P
e
akRd Palos Verdes Dr N
W 1st
S
t
PalosVerdes
Dr
S Mi
ral
esteDrPalosVerdesDrERollingHillsRdCrestridge Rd CrenshawBlvdUV107
SanBernardino
Kern
SanLuisObispo
Ventura
Santa Barbara
RiversideOrange
Los Angeles
San Diego
1:200,000 1:5,000,000
Figure 1
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Project Location
Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location.Mxd
Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:21:39 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet
´
Project Location
Project Location
354
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
4
A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the
maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing (Government Code
Section 65583[a])
A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline
for implementation of the policies and to achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
(Government Code Section 65583[c])
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) began the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different methodologies for allocating the
regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements,
the City was required to first amend its Fifth Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle
and the prior (Fourth) cycle RHNA allocations due to its noncompliant status. The combined RHNA for the
two cycles was 28 units. Accommodating this need meant that City was also required to amend its General
Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity.
The Fifth Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on June 14, 2021 and certified by HCD
on July 7, 2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior
allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA.
2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW
The City’s HEU consists of the following major components:
A review of the prior housing element and goals that were accomplished (Section 2, Evaluation of
Prior Housing Element)
An assessment of housing needs in the City including profile and analysis of the City’s
demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 3, Housing
Needs Assessment)
An assessment of resources available to meet the City’s objectives regarding housing production
and preservation. Resources include land available for new construction and redevelopment, as
well as financial and administrative resources available (Section 4, Housing Sites)
A review of the constraints to housing production and preservation. Constraints include potential
market, governmental policy, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified
housing needs (Section 5, Constraints to Housing Production)
A statement of the housing plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing
goals, policies, and programs (Section 6, Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs)
2.4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
State housing element law requires housing elements to be updated regularly to reflect a community’s
changing housing needs, including preparation of a RHNA plan [Government Code Section 65584(a)]. A
critical measure of compliance is the ability of a jurisdiction to accommodate its share of the RHNA
prepared by HCD for each Council of Governments in the state that identifies projected housing units
355
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
5
needed for all economic segments based on Department of Finance population estimates. SCAG is
responsible for allocating this total to each of the six counties and 191 cities in the SCAG area. This process
is known as the RHNA and occurs every eight years.
SCAG calculates each city and county’s “fair share” of the regional need using a computer model that
weighs factors such as existing population and employment, growth potential, proximity to transit, and
social equity. For each jurisdiction, SCAG distributes the RHNA among four different income groups. This
ensures that each city or county is planning for housing that meet the needs of all economic segments of
the community, including lower income households.
For the City, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units (SCAG 2020). This includes 20 very low income units, 9
low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units. The 2021-2029 Housing
Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this assignment.
2.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES
The below sections include a discussion of the inventory of potential housing sites in the City and the City’s
availability to meet RHNA numbers.
2.5.1 Approved or Pending Development
There are 12 housing units in the City that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All of these
units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and, therefore, count
toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family homes and nine ADUs.
2.5.2 Vacant Residential Lots
There are 34 vacant, residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City, totaling
124.8 acres as shown in Figure 2.5-1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites. Of the 34 sites, 20 are estimated
to be developable and 14 are severely constrained and presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029
planning period. The constrained parcels include five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and
nine that are in the Flying Triangle Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area
had homes that were destroyed by earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s.
For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 2.5-1 below indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family
homes. Note that there is a potential for additional units to be provided, however, to take a conservative
approach, the realistic yield was utilized. The site locations in the table below, correspond with the
locations in Figure 2.5-1.
Table 2.5-1: Vacant Residential Lots and Realistic Yield
Site APN Zoning General
Plan Acres* Realistic Yield,
excluding ADUs
1 7567-006-001 RAS-1 LDR 2.27 1
2 7567-006-014 RAS-1 LDR 1.22 0
3 7567-009-007 RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1
4 7567-010-013 RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1
5 7567-010-015 RAS-1 LDR 1.49 0
356
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
6
Site APN Zoning General
Plan Acres* Realistic Yield,
excluding ADUs
6 7567-011-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 0
7 7567-012-019 RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 0
8 7567-012-020 RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 0
9 7567-012-026 RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 0
10 7567-012-035 RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 0
11 7567-012-036 RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 0
12 7567-012-038 RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 0
13 7567-013-005 RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 0
14 7567-013-007 RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 0
15 7567-014-005 RAS-1 LDR 2.12 0
16 7567-014-011 RAS-1 LDR 1.66 0
17 7567-014-013 RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 0
18 7567-014-031 RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 1
19 7567-015-036 RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 1
20 7567-017-017 RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 1
21 7567-017-045 RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1
22 7569-001-020 RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1
23 7569-001-036 RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1
24 7569-004-026 RAS-1 LDR 3.39 1
25 7569-005-008 RAS-1 LDR 6.52 1
26 7569-012-022 RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1
27 7569-012-025 RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1
28 7569-013-017 RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1
29 7569-013-018 RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1
30 7569-013-020 RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1
31 7570-024-019 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 1
32 7570-024-020 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 1
33 7570-024-021 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 1
34 7570-025-022 RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1
Total 124.8 20
Notes: *Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements
2.5.3 Rancho Del Mar Site
In March 2021, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest Road (Rancho Del Mar site).
Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (approximately
23 acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed.
The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and an
underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site, based on the site
area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5, rounded up to 16). However, the
General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable density for this site be transferred to a
single location on the property where a density standard of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced
357
2
5
6 A
789
10 11 12
13 14
15
16
17
C
1
3
4
18
19
2021
22 23
24
25
26
27
2829
30
31
32 33
34
B
Figure 2
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Vacant Residentally Zones Sites
Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites.Mxd
Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:16:46 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
´
Project Location
Zoning
Vacant lots with approved single family
homes
Vacant lots with constraints
Vacant lots (counted as one SF home
each)358
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
8
and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of
housing and transfers it to a single location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates
that any housing built on the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such
development is permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective
development and design standards contained in the RDMO. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
amendments completed in 2021, the site is viable for 16 units of low/very low income housing.
2.5.4 Accessory Dwelling Units
The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(JADUs) over the eight-year planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is
based on the permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program
that encourage ADUs in the coming years.
2.5.5 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA
As shown in Table 2.5-2 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be
occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can accommodate
the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income
units based on projected ADU production over the planning period.
Table 2.5-2: Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA
Income Category
Total Extremely Low/
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Approved Development – 2 3 7* 12
Vacant Residential Lots – – – 20 20
Rancho Del Mar Site 8 8 – – 16
Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40
TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88
RHNA 20 9 11 5 45
Surplus/Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43
Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES
Notes:
* Includes 3 new homes and 4 ADUs
2.6 2021-2029 GOALS AND POLICIES AND CEQA ANALYSIS
The housing goals, policies, objectives, and programs which can be found in Chapter 6 of the HEU reflect
the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential development and plan for the City’s fair
share of regional housing needs. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in the HEU, RHNA allocation
in all income categories can be met with approved development, the future Rancho Del Mar Site, and new
ADUs; therefore, the 2021-2029 HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residential lots.
359
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
9
Thus, this CEQA document evaluates the potential impacts of development on the 20 vacant sites that
could offer 20 single family units. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, based on the City’s ability to
meet RHNA allocation as described above, the HEU is a policy document; no actual development nor
rezoning of parcels is included as part of the approval. Further, the HEU, in and of itself, does not propose
specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing
development in the City. However, the HEU focuses on development of 20 vacant parcels with 20 single
family homes and impacts associated with that potential future development are analyzed here, to the
extent possible based on available information.
360
361
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
11
SECTION 4.0 – EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact”
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if substantial
evidence exists that an effect may be significant. If one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries
are marked when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier
analyses may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
362
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
12
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
363
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
1
SECTION 5.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
5.1 AESTHETICS
1.
AESTHETICS.
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
(c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
5.1.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant. The 2021-2029 HEU is a policy document and does not include any changes to
land use designations, zoning, building heights and intensities, or residential densities. Further, the
Housing Element includes policies intended to continue to make the City a safe and desirable place to
work and live.
As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially
zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential
to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed
or would be approved with approval of the proposed Project.
If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, it is assumed that development would adhere to the
City’s zoning and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) requirements for development standards.
If any development standards stray from the requirements in the zoning and the RHMC, it is assumed
a variance would be required and further environmental evaluation would be required. With
adherence to the zoning and the RHMC, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is
assumed impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. No officially designated State scenic highway is located within the City. The nearest eligible
scenic highway, Route 5 (South of San Juan Capistrano)/Route 19 (Near Long Beach), is located more
364
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
2
than 10 miles to the east of the City and the City is therefore outside of the scenic highway’s viewshed
(Caltrans 2021). The Project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas or scenic resources within a
State scenic highway.
c) Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant. As previously mentioned, the Project would implement policies intended to
continue to make the City a safe and desirable place to work and live. The City’s current Zoning Code
contains standards intended to preserve the natural beauty of the City and to maintain visual
orderliness, including provisions related to building standards (height, setbacks, intensities), screening
of utilities in development, and outdoor improvements. All future development in the City, which may
include the 20 vacant residential lots, would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s
Zoning Code and undergo project-specific environmental evaluation in order to determine any
potential impacts. Furthermore, future development of the 20 vacant residential lots would occur in
urbanized areas within the City, would comply with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality, and would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding residential areas.
If any development standards stray from the requirements in the zoning and the RHMC, it is assumed
a variance would be required and further environmental evaluation would be required. With
adherence to the zoning and the RHMC, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is
assumed impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Less than Significant. Sources of light present throughout the City include residential uses of both
interior and exterior lighting and vehicular traffic, while sources of glare include highly finished
building materials such as glass, and roadway traffic. The Project consists of a policy document and
would not directly enable construction or development. Nevertheless, all future residential
development enabled by the City’s General Plan, including the 20 vacant residentially zoned sites in
the City’s HEU, are anticipated to introduce light and glare sources typical of development; and all
future development in the City would be subject to the zoning requirements pertaining to lighting and
glare and the RHMC (Section 17.16.190E Outdoor Lighting). The Zoning Code contains lighting
requirements intended to maintain public health, safety, and welfare from noxious or offensive
illumination, glare, or similar effects.
All future development in the City, including the 20 vacant residential lots, would be required to
comply with the provisions of the City’s Zoning Code. If any development standards specific to lighting
and glare stray from the requirements in the zoning code, it is assumed a variance would be required
and further environmental evaluation would be required. With adherence to the code, if development
of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is assumed impacts in regards to the creation of light or glare
that would adversely affect views, would be less than significant.
365
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
3
5.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES
2.
AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES.
(In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
the conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
5.2.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
366
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
4
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No Impact. The City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (DOC 2021a). Additionally, no land within the City is under a Williamson Act
contract (DOC 2017). The Project involves an update to the City’s Housing Element, with no proposed
changes to land use designations or zoning of parcels within the City. The City is a residential
community, and no provisions contained in the Housing Element Update would convert Prime
Farmland or any farmland of unique or Statewide importance. Further, no development is proposed
on forestland or timber property zoned Timberland Production. Any future development proposals,
including future development of the previously mentioned 20 vacant, residential lots, would not
conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract and would not result in the conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use or result in
conversion or loss of forest land. Nonetheless, any future development on properties, including the
20 vacant lots identified in Section 2.6, would be analyzed in a future site-specific environmental
document and any potentially significant impacts identified would be addressed through mitigation
measures specific to the impact. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would
occur.
5.3 AIR QUALITY
3.
AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
5.3.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant. The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which includes
all of Orange County and the non-desert regions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San
Bernardino County. The Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As the local air quality
management agency, SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that state and
federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the
367
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
5
standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the Air Basin is classified as
being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan
for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-attainment. SCAQMD is in
nonattainment for the State and federal ozone standards, the State and federal PM2.5 (particulate
matter up to 2.5 microns in size) standards, and the State PM10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns
in size) standards, and the federal lead standards. It must, therefore, prepare a plan for improvement
(SCAQMD 2016). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) prepared an air quality
management plan (AQMP) for both pollutants in 2016 and is currently working on the 2022 AQMP
(SCAQMD 2021).
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.
Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants
are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory) into the
atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases
(ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), PM10 and PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, and lead.1 Other pollutants are
created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by
atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary
pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).
Short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction activities, such as dust generated by
clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas- and diesel-powered construction
equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers, will be
subject to SCAQMD air quality management plans identified above and all other relevant SCAQMD
rules and regulations. Long term impacts associated with single family residential uses in small
quantities doesn’t typically result in significant air quality emissions.
The Project would not directly result in construction or development activity, nor would it enable
development beyond that which is currently provided for in the City’s General Plan. The number of
residential units that could be developed under the HEU, including the 20 vacant residential lots, is
consistent with the City’s current General Plan and zoning designations. Additionally, the 20 vacant
lots, if developed, may result in 20 single family homes, which are not expected to generate a
significant air quality impact.
Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to implementation of any
applicable air quality plan and there will be no cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient
air quality standard.
1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid,
metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in
atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of
mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this IS-MND.
368
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
6
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant. As mentioned, the HEU is a policy document and does not include any changes
to land use designations or zoning. Future development of the previously mentioned 20 vacant
residential lots has the potential to generate toxic air contaminants (TACs); however, residential
development projects are unlikely to exceed local NOx, CO, PM10, or PM2.5 thresholds or expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the City’s General Plan and
the RHMC contain policies and measures related to maintaining air quality in residential
neighborhoods, including protecting neighborhoods from air pollution-generating activities through
appropriate development buffers. Thus, the Project would result in less than significant impacts
related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
No Impact. Impacts would be considered potentially significant if the Project were to result in the
creation of objectionable odors with the potential to affect substantial numbers of people, or if
construction or operation of the Project would result in the creation of nuisance odors that would be
noxious to a substantial number of people. The City’s General Plan and the RHMC contain policies and
measures related to maintaining air quality in residential neighborhoods, including protecting
neighborhoods from odor-generating activities through site-specific environmental review and
appropriate development buffers.
The Project would not directly enable construction or development activities upon implementation.
However, if future development of the 20 vacant residential lots were to occur, temporary and minor
emissions generated by construction equipment and vehicles would occur; however, residential
developments, such as that described in the HEU, are not a land use typically associated with odor
complaints or noxious emissions. The Project would therefore not result in impacts related to
emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
369
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
7
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
5.4.1 Impact Analysis
Chambers Group conducted a literature review and biological reconnaissance level survey of the City’s
20 vacant parcels (Survey Area) on June 9 and 10, 2022 to identify vegetation communities, the
potential for occurrence of special status species, and/or habitats that could support special status
wildlife species. The full report is provided in Appendix A: Biological Resources Reconnaissance
Assessment. The following is a summary of results from the report:
Hydrology
The Project site is located within the Alamitos Bay-San Pedro Bay and Frontal Santa Monica Bay-San
Pedro Bay watersheds within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood
zone. Several National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped bluelines occur within the Survey Area. The
Survey Area is not within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard zones. Site
21 is immediately west of an Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard. No other sites are within or
adjacent to Flood Hazard Zones.
Site 28 had an erosional feature (non-jurisdictional), originating from the residential home just south
of site 28, that was dry during the field survey. The erosional feature (non-jurisdictional) appears to
flow northwest along the western boundary end of site 28 and ultimately terminating outside the
property boundary. All sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 contain ephemeral drainages within the
property boundaries. The features within sites 3, 4, and 20 flow southwest through the property; and
ultimately terminating in the Pacific Ocean. The features within sites 1, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29,
30, 31, 32, and 33 flow northeast through the property; however, they do not appear to connect to
any tributaries and appear to terminate right outside the property boundary. Water features were
observed at all the sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34.
Special Status Plant Species
370
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
8
Following the literature review and after the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey
Area, it was determined that 24 special status plant species are known to historically occur within the
Survey Area. Due to a lack of suitable soils and habitats, 20 of these species were considered absent
within the Survey Area. Four species were found to have a moderate to high potential to occur within
one or more of the Survey Areas. Lewis’ evening-primrose, Catalina crossosoma, and Lyon’s
pentachaeta have potential to occur in Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Southern tarplant has potential to occur in Survey Areas 18 and 19. No special
status species were found during the biological reconnaissance survey.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Following the literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, it
was determined that of the 29 special status wildlife species known to occur within the Project area,
19 species are considered absent from the Survey Area, seven species (cactus wren (Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), western mastiff
batt (Eumops perotis californicus), El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni), Palos
Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma
blainvillii), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)) are considered to have a low potential
to occur, one species (southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi)) is considered to have a
moderate potential to occur, and two species (coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)) are considered to have a high potential to
occur.
The three wildlife species with a moderate or high potential to occur are federally or state listed
threatened or endangered species. Although, these species were not detected during the biological
reconnaissance survey.
While there is no specific time for accuracy of the prepared biological reconnaissance level survey and
report, it is assumed that regarding special status plants and species, that the report would be valid
for any construction occurring over the next two years from certification of this document.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification,
on any species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU
focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located
throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be developed during the 2021-2029
planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or would be approved with approval of
the proposed Project. A biological reconnaissance level survey and report was prepared for the 20
vacant sites (Survey Area).
While no special status plant or wildlife species were found on site during the survey, if future
development of the 20 vacant lots occurs during the HEU period, a potential to impact special status
plant or wildlife species may exist. Implementation of MM BIO-1 would require future development
projects complete a biological resources assessment and MM BIO-2 would require that if any species
371
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
9
are listed under CESA and/or ESA and impacted by future development, that proper take authorization
is obtained.
Additionally, the potential for rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community, may exist on any
of the sites if they are developed. Implementation of MM BIO-3 would require that rare plant species
or a Sensitive Natural Community be avoided during development, and if they cannot be feasibly
avoided, that appropriate compensatory mitigation is provided.
The coastal California gnatcatcher also has the potential to occur within the City. If future
development were to occur, impacts may exist. With implementation of MM BIO-4, which requires
that coastal California gnatcatcher surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist, and MM BIO-5 which
requires compensatory mitigation for any impacts for the coastal California gnatcatcher, impacts to
the coastal California gnatcatcher would be less than significant.
Additionally, if development of the 20 vacant sites occurs during the nesting bird season, there is a
potential to impact nesting birds protected under the MBTA. Implementation of MM BIO-6 would
ensure that construction occurs outside the nesting season or avoids nesting birds. If any nesting bird
habitat is impacted by future development MM BIO-7 would require that the habitat is appropriately
replaced. With implementation of these two measures, impacts to any nesting birds and nesting bird
habitat would remain less than significant.
Vegetation found in all 20 developable sites could provide suitable roosting habitat for bats. Some of
these sites may contain riparian and oak woodland habitats. Construction would create elevated
levels of noise, human activity, dust, ground vibrations, and vegetation disturbance. Where a
development project would occur within or adjacent to suitable habitat, the Project could impact bats
and roosts. Implementation of MM BIO-8 would require that future development projects in areas
with suitable habitat for roosting and foraging, conduct surveys by a qualified biologist. MM BIO-9
would require that if trees on site need to be removed, that appropriate measures are taken to allow
the bats to escape. MM BIO-10 requires that if bat roosts are found, a qualified biologist shall help to
establish a species-specific no-disturbance buffer that is maintained throughout construction.
Additionally, MM BIO-11 would require that if any maternity roosts are found, that construction occur
outside of the maternity roosting season and if not, that trees are left in place with a buffer until
maternity season ends and that construction not occur during certain times of the day to allow for
bat activities to continue. With implementation of these measures, impacts to bats would remain less
than significant.
BIO – 1: Biological Resources Assessment
Applicants of future development projects should be required to prepare a Biological Resources
Assessment (BRA). The BRA should be prepared by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist
should conduct field surveys of the project site and focused plant and wildlife surveys. Focused
species-specific surveys should be required if suitable habitat is present and performed according
to established Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines (CDFW 2021c). The BRA should
characterize the biological resources on site, analyze project-specific impacts to biological
resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset those impacts. The BRA should
provide the following information:
372
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
10
1) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered species, regionally
and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats at the project site and within the area of
potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected
Species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should
include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of land around the project site should
also be addressed. A nine-quadrangle search of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) should be conducted to obtain current information on any previously reported
sensitive species and habitat (CDFW 2022d);
2) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural
communities following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special
Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Adjoining
habitat areas should be included where project construction and activities could lead to direct
or indirect impacts off site;
3) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments
conducted at the project site and within the area of potential effect. The Manual of California
Vegetation (MCV), second edition, should be used to inform this mapping and assessment
(Sawyer et al. 2009);
4) A rare plant assessment using online databases for rare, threatened, and endangered
plants, including the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022b) as well as the Calflora’s Information on Wild
California Plants database (Calflora 2022);
5) A discussion regarding project-related indirect impacts on biological resources in nearby
public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated
and/or proposed or existing reserve lands [e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural
Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et. seq.)];
6) Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to
undisturbed habitats in areas adjacent to the project site.
BIO – 2: Take of Species
Development projects that would impact species listed under CESA and/or ESA should be required
to obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW and/or USFWS prior to the City’s issuance of
a grading permit.
BIO – 3: Rare Plant Species or Sensitive Natural Community
If a rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community is detected, the project applicant should
fully avoided impacts. The project applicant should retain a qualified biologist to develop an
avoidance plan. An avoidance plan should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or
vegetation removal.
373
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
11
If the project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural
communities, either during project activities or over the life of the project, the project applicant
should provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres, which
should include impacts due to fuel modification and landslide remediation. Impacts on vegetation
due hazard mitigation should also be mitigated as these impacts would result in permanent loss
and perpetual impacts on habitat function and quality. The project applicant should provide
compensatory so that there is no net loss of rare plants and habitat, or sensitive natural
communities. Compensatory mitigation should be appropriate for the extent of permanently
disturbed habitat. Compensatory mitigation should be higher for impacts on CRPR 1 species, S1
or S2 Sensitive Natural Community, and Sensitive Natural Community with an additional rank of
0.1 or 0.2. Compensatory mitigation should be implemented by a qualified restoration ecologist.
A Restoration Plan, at a minimum, should include success criteria and performance standards for
measuring the establishment of rare plants and habitat, responsible parties, maintenance
techniques and schedule, 5-year monitoring and reporting schedule, adaptive management
strategies, and contingencies. A Restoration Plan should be submitted to the City prior to any
grading or vegetation removal.
BIO – 4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys
Where a project site and areas adjacent to the project has suitable habitat for coastal California
gnatcatcher, applicants of future development projects should be required to retain a qualified
permitted biologist to survey for coastal California gnatcatcher and prepare an impact
assessment. The qualified biologist should survey the project site and adjacent areas to determine
presence/absence of coastal California gnatcatcher. The qualified biologist should conduct
surveys according to USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997). The protocol should be followed for all
surveys unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS in writing (USFWS 1997). Survey results should
be provided to USFWS per protocol guidance. Survey results, including negative findings, and an
impact assessment should be conducted prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permits.
BIO – 5: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Compensatory Mitigation
Applicants of future development projects should be required to provide compensatory
mitigation for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in addition to mitigation required
by USFWS to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss.
BIO – 6: Nesting Birds
Future development projects requiring vegetation disturbance and/or removal, and/or are
adjacent to suitable nesting habitat should be required to avoid impacts on nesting birds by
conducting all project-related activities between September 1 through January 31, outside of the
nesting bird season. If construction must occur during the bird nesting season, project applicants
should be required to retain a qualified biologist to survey suitable nesting habitat for nesting
birds on the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and
accessible. A qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 7 days prior to
any ground and vegetation disturbing activities. If project activities are delayed or suspended for
more than 7 days during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist should repeat nesting bird
surveys before the project can recommence. No-disturbance buffers should be established to
374
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
12
minimize impacts on any nests and nestlings. No-disturbance buffers should be maintained until
the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist determines that the birds have fledged
and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.
BIO – 7: Nesting Bird Habitat
Future development projects removing habitat for nesting birds should be required to restore or
replace habitat in-kind and on site if feasible to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss.
Projects should provide replacement habitat for both individual trees and habitat acres.
BIO – 8: Bat Surveys
Future development projects in areas with suitable roosting and foraging habitat for bats should
be required to retain a qualified bat biologist to conduct a survey for within the project site and
within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible. A qualified bat
specialist should identify potential daytime, nighttime, wintering, and hibernation roost sites.
Surveys should be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal.
BIO – 9: Tree Removal – Bat Impacts
If a project requires tree removal and a qualified bat biologist determines that roosting bats may
be present at any time of year and could roost in trees that need to be removed, during tree
removal, trees should be pushed down using heavy machinery rather than felling with a chainsaw.
To ensure the optimum warning for any roosting bats that may still be present, trees should be
pushed lightly two or three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge
to allow bats to become active. The tree should then be pushed to the ground slowly and remain
in place until it is inspected by a qualified bat biologist. Trees that are known to be bat roosts or
could support roosting bats should not be bucked or mulched immediately. A period of at least
24 hours, and preferable 48 hours, should elapse prior to such operations to allow bats to escape.
BIO – 10: Roosting Bats
If bats roosts are found within the project impact area, the qualified bat biologist should identify
the bats to the species level, evaluate the colony to determine its size and significance, and
establish a species-specific no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the
duration of the project’s construction.
BIO – 11: Maternity Bat Roosts
If maternity roosts are found, project-related construction and activities should be scheduled
between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats
are present but are yet ready to fly out of the roost (March 1 to September 30). If maternity roosts
are found and the project must take place during the maternity roosting season, trees/structures
determined to be maternity roosts should be left in place until the end of the maternity season.
Project-related construction and activities should not occur within 100 feet of or directly under or
adjacent to an active maternity roost. A qualified bat biologist should establish a no-disturbance
buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction or until a
qualified bat biologist determines that the roost is no longer active. Project-related construction
375
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
13
and activities should also not occur between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after
sunrise.
Implementation of MM BIO – 1 through BIO – 11 would reduce potential impacts to special status
species to a less-than-significant level.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including
but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously mentioned, while the HEU does not
directly allow or approve any developments, the HEU focuses on the potential development of 20
vacant parcels. The Survey Area is not within FEMA Flood Hazard zones. Site 21 is immediately west
of an Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard. No other sites are within or adjacent to Flood Hazard
Zones.
Several aquatic features were observed within the various sites during the biological survey. All sites
except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 contain ephemeral drainages within the property boundaries. However,
these features all occur in lower lying portions of the sites and do not occur in the proposed impact
areas. No work is anticipated to occur within or directly adjacent to these features and all the features
can likely be avoided with the use of Best Management Practices including straw wattle and/or silt
fencing. Nonetheless, if development of the 20 sites were to occur, a potential impact to jurisdictional
waters may occur. With implementation of MM BIO-12, any sites that may have the potential to
contain jurisdictional features, would require a Jurisdictional Delineation prior to the start of
construction.
BIO – 12: Jurisdictional Delineation
Applicants of future development projects that are located adjacent to a river, stream, or lake
should be required to prepare a jurisdictional delineation and impact assessment provided along
with the project’s Biological Resources Assessment. If such features are present and may be
impacted by the future development, then the project should be required to avoid impacts by
implementing appropriate vegetative buffers and/or setbacks adjoining the stream or wetland
feature to reduce impacts of the project on these resources. If avoidance is not feasible, the
project applicant should be required to notify CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602 and
obtain an LSA Agreement from CDFW prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit. The project
applicant should comply with the mitigation measures detailed in a LSA Agreement issued by
CDFW. The project applicant should also provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 1:1 for
the impacted stream and habitat acreage, or at a ratio acceptable to CDFW.
Implementation of MM BIO – 12 would reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands to
a less-than-significant level.
376
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
14
d) Would the project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City is a heavily landscaped residential
community interspersed with undeveloped steep hillsides and canyons (City 1990). The HEU focuses
on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the
City. These parcels have the potential to each be developed with a single family home, and are
scattered throughout the City, most of which would be considered infill development. Within these
undeveloped areas, the potential exists for nesting birds, bats, and other species to occur. However,
the Project would implement MM BIO-6 through BIO-11 which would require that construction occur
outside nesting/roosting seasons or require appropriate avoidance or compensatory mitigation for all
nesting birds and bats. Implementation of MM BIO – 6 through BIO - 11 would reduce potential
impacts to nesting birds and bats to a less than significant level.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservancy Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant. The County of Los Angeles’s Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Program was
originally established as a part of the 1980 County General Plan, to help conserve the genetic and
physical diversity in the County. The SEA Ordinance, which codified the SEA Program, establishes the
permitting, design standards and review process for development within SEAs. The City contains
portions of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Coastline SEA; however, only areas within unincorporated
Los Angeles County are subject to this ordinance. Additionally, the City’s Open Space and Conservation
Element of the General Plan, has a few policies to preserve natural resources within the City including:
Policy 1.1: Encourage the retention of natural habitat for wildlife through the preservation of existing
vegetation.
Policy 1.2: Encourage the reintroduction of native wildlife onto the Peninsula.
Policy 1.7: Encourage the preservation of watershed areas in their natural state.
Further, policies and programs of the HEU promote infill housing including ADUs. Any future
development, that occurs pursuant to HEU would be required to adhere to these policies. Therefore,
the Project would result in less than significant impacts in regards to conflicting with any local policies,
ordinances, or plans protecting biological resources.
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
377
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
15
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
5.5.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project involves adoption of a policy
document, the HEU, which does not directly propose any ground disturbance. However, the HEU
focuses on the possible development of the 20 vacant parcels. If development were to occur, since
the sites are vacant, no historical resources are expected to be disturbed. However, the potential for
archaeological or pre-historic resources to be discovered during the grading and excavation process
exists and is considered potentially significant. If archaeological resources are identified, as defined
by Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, a project site would require treatment in accordance with
the provisions of that law, as appropriate. This could include stopping work and evaluating the find,
preserving the find, and waiting for site release by a qualified archaeologist to resume work. To ensure
construction workers are aware of potential impacts and can identify them, MM CUL-1 would be
required for future projects implemented under the 2021-2029 Housing Element that are currently
undeveloped or where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels, as
determined during plan review.
As previously mentioned, while the HEU does not directly allow or approve any developments, the
HEU focuses on the potential development of 20 vacant parcels. If development were to occur, ground
disturbance would be required on the 20 vacant sites that have not previously been developed, which
would have the potential for construction activities to damage or destroy previously unknown historic
or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface.
Consequently, damage to or destruction of previously unknown sub-surface cultural resources could
occur because of development implemented under the 2021-2029 Housing Element. This represents
a potentially significant impact. If the site is determined to be sensitive through the archaeological
investigation as part of the permitting process, MM CUL-2 would be required to reduce impacts to
less than significant.
CUL-1 Provide Construction Worker Archeological Awareness Training
Prior to the start of construction on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation would
be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the project
archaeologist or their designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the
appearance of archeological resources and the procedures for notifying archeological staff should
artifacts be discovered by construction staff. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-construction meeting, which a qualified archaeologist
378
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
16
shall attend. This training will include a printed handout that provides examples of potential cultural
resources. The WEAP training will be repeated when construction personnel change and periodically
renewed if the project has a long duration (more than 3 months.)
CUL-2 Conduct Archeological Resources Construction Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit on sites that are currently undeveloped or where excavation
would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined during plan review, the
property owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) to be present during
all initial subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. At the commencement of construction
activities, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist, construction
manager, general contractor, subcontractor, and construction workers associated with ground-
disturbing activities. The orientation meeting shall describe the potential of exposing archaeological
resources, the types of resources that may be encountered, and directions on the steps that shall be
taken if such a find is encountered.
With implementation of MM’s CUL-1 and CUL-2, impacts related to archeological resources would be
less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often
occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. Although much of the City is built out, the potential still
exists for these resources to be present. Excavation during construction activities in the City would
have the potential to disturb these resources, including Native American burials.
Although no development is proposed with implementation of the HEU, if the 20 vacant sites were to
be developed, impacts from unanticipated human remains may exist. The 1990 General Plan EIR has
no provisions for the preservation of cultural resources, including Native American burials.
Nonetheless, the City must comply with State law on this topic. If human remains are unearthed, the
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the
coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. and implementation of MM CUL-3 would be required.
CUL-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient and historic times, tribal
traditions included but were not limited to the burial of associated cultural resources (funerary
objects) with the deceased and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be
treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are
objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made
exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated
funerary objects. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidance specifically
states that the federal agencies will consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains
and cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship to
the human remains and other cultural items. Therefore, it is appropriate to consult with local Native
American groups as recommended by the California NAHC.
379
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
17
Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner.
Work shall be stopped and the construction manager or archaeological monitor, if present, shall
immediately divert work at a minimum of 50 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The
construction manager or the monitor shall then notify an archaeologist meeting standards of
qualification under the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior and the coroner to assess the discovery.
Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines if the remains are Native American.
The discovery shall be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the remains
are Native American, the coroner will notify the California NAHC as mandated by State law who will
then appoint a most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD shall provide recommendations as to the
treatment and disposition of the human remains within 48 hours of MLD designation. In the case
where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the
remains shall be covered with a protective casing to prevent further damage or looting. Each
occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored in accordance with
methods agreed upon between the MLD and the landowner. If the Coroner determines the remains
represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be reburied in an appropriate setting,
as determined by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Coroner will
take custody of the remains.
Implementation of MM CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant
level. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources are also discussed in Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural
Resources of this IS MND.
5.6 ENERGY
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
5.6.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant. The HEU is consistent with the City’s General Plan and contains policies to
conserve energy resources. The HEU also seeks to conserve energy through public education on the
reduction of residential energy use. Any future development, including potential development of the
previously identified 20 vacant residential lots, would also be subject to individual review for
compliance with federal, State, and local regulatory requirements related to energy efficiency.
If the 20 vacant sites were to be constructed with 20 singles family homes, energy use during
construction would be in the form of fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy
380
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
18
equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Energy use during the
construction would be temporary in nature, and equipment used would be typical of construction
projects in the region. Construction contractors would be required to demonstrate compliance with
applicable CARB regulations that restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and govern the
accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road
equipment. Construction activities would be required to utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent
with State and federal regulations and would comply with State measures to reduce the inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. These practices would result in efficient use of
energy during construction of future development.
Additionally, if the 20 single family homes were to be built, they would be subject to the energy
conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of
Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of
Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and
renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. This code applies to the
building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings
and appliances and provides guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation.
Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of building elements, including appliances; water
and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings. The
code emphasizes saving energy at peak periods and seasons and improving the quality of installation
of energy efficiency measures. CALGreen sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual
plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills,
and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including ecofriendly
flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. As a
result, operation of 20 single family homes would not result in potentially significant environmental
effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be
less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Less than Significant. Any future development in the City, including the 20 vacant properties, would
be subject to federal, State, and local regulatory requirements related to energy efficiency.
Additionally, goals, policies, and programs related to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (as
discussed in Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions) are closely related to reducing energy
consumption through the use of alternative forms of energy or sustainable design features.
Proposed projects related to implementation of the HEU would be required to comply with City and
State energy-efficiency regulations and standards, including CALGreen building code requirements,
and compliance with these requirements would be assessed during the project permitting and review
process. This would ensure that individual projects implemented under the HEU would not conflict
with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans adopted by the City. As such, reasonably
foreseeable development under the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct a plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.
381
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
19
5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature?
5.7.1 Impact Analysis
a) i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
382
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
20
Less Than Significant. Rolling Hills is in a seismically active region of southern California, with the
Whittier fault, Newport-Inglewood fault, Palos Verdes fault, Malibu Coast fault, Cabrillo fault, Santa
Monica fault, and Redondo Canyon fault all within 50 miles of the City. The closest active fault to the
City is the Palos Verdes Fault, located within the City boundaries. While there are a number of
seismically active faults in the City and region, there are no active faults with the potential for ground
rupture, defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The closest Alquist-Priolo Fault
Zone is the Newport-Inglewood Fault approximately nine miles northeast of the City (City 1990).
Potential development projects proposed on the 20 vacant residential lots during implementation of
the HEU would be subject to the City’s General Plan including the newly adopted Safety Element, goals
and policies and the provisions in the RHMC, which adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code
(LABC) as of 2020. The 2020 LABC adopts and amends the 2018 International Building Code and the
2019 California Building Code (CBC) requirements to reduce seismic impacts. The Safety Element
contains important policies that aim to protect the community from loss of life, injury, property
damage, and destruction from earthquakes and geologic hazards.
All potential projects built on the 20 vacant residential lots would be required to comply with the
RHMC’s building regulations and engineering practices. This, and adherence to the goals and policies
in the Safety Element of the General Plan, would reduce impacts due to potential seismic ground
shaking to less-than-significant levels.
Landslides can occur because of ground shaking from an earthquake in loosely consolidated, wet soil
and/or rocks on steep sloping terrain. The most common earthquake-induced landslides include
shallow, disrupted landslides such as rock falls, rockslides, and soil slides. Much of the existing
development in Rolling Hills is located on hilly terrain that is highly susceptible to landslide risks, and
potential future development of the 20 vacant residential lots would similarly be located on steep
terrain. Residential development implemented under the HEU would be required to adhere to the
RHMC, which includes provisions in the 2020 LABC that regulate building design and would address
risks from landslides. Through compliance with the latest codes and the requirements of the Safety
Element, projects developed under the 2021-2029 HEU would have less than significant impacts
relative to landslides.
The potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismically induced dynamic settlement within
the City, including the 20 vacant residential lots, is low (City 1990). Liquefaction occurs when seismic
waves pass through water-saturated granular soil, causing some of the empty spaces between
granules to collapse, resulting in a loss of ground strength and a near-liquid state. Liquefaction causes
horizontal movements commonly 10 to 15 feet, but up to 100 feet, soil flows, and loss of bearing
strength, all of which could cause structures to settle or tip. Liquefaction can cause severe damage to
property. The City does not contain any mapped liquefactions zones (DOC 2022) and, therefore,
projects developed under the 2021-2029 HEU would have less than significant impacts relative to
liquefaction.
Overall, compliance with the RHMC, LABC and CBC, and the City’s General Plan Safety Element goals
and policies, as described above, would ensure that impacts related to seismic activity, including
shaking, landslide, and liquefaction would be less than significant.
383
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
21
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant. Rolling Hills is a developed city with no commercial agricultural uses and,
therefore, has minimal potential for erosion or topsoil loss due to further development. The 20 vacant
residential lots identified in the 2021-2029 HEU would comprise new residential development and
would not rezone agricultural land where topsoil is a concern. Demolition and construction activities
would be required to comply with LABC and the CBC, Appendix Section J110, Erosion Control
standards, which ensures appropriate erosion and stormwater pollution control during grading and
construction activities.
Construction activities that occur on more than one acre are required to obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. NPDES requires the development
of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which includes best management practices
(BMP) to reduce erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff. Development projects proposed
under the 2021-2029 HEU would adhere to grading and erosion controls listed in RHMC, which
includes a requirement for the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site properties.
The Project involves adoption of a policy document, the HEU, which does not directly propose any
ground disturbance. However, the HEU focuses on the possible development of the 20 vacant parcels.
Therefore, project components such as amount of grading, excavation, vegetation removal, necessary
for specific future projects is unknown. Nonetheless, projects proposed on any of the 20 vacant
residential lots that total 1 acre or more will be required to prepare a SWPPP as part of the NPDES
requirements, both of which include BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control. BMP examples
generally include an effective combination of erosion and sediment controls, which include barriers
such as silt fences, hay bales, drain inlet protection, or gravel bags.
RHMC Section 13.18 requires that a grading plan be submitted as part of the landscape plan, which is
required for any applicant proposing landscaping, unless exempted pursuant to Section 13.18.050.
The project applicant would be required to submit a grading plan that includes the finished
configurations and elevations of the landscape area including height of graded slopes, drainage
patterns, pad elevations, finish grade, and stormwater retention improvements, if applicable. In
addition, to prevent excessive erosion and runoff, project applicants are encouraged to prepare a
grading plan that does the following: grades so that all irrigation and normal rainfall remains within
property lines and does not drain on to non-permeable hardscapes; avoids disruption of natural
drainage patterns and undisturbed soil; and avoids soil compaction in landscape areas. Development
facilitated by implementation of the 2021-2029 HEU would be subject to these conditions and,
therefore, impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant. As previously discussed, much of the existing development in Rolling Hills is
located on hilly terrain; and many of the City’s canyons exhibit steep slopes with little vegetation
coverage. These areas are highly susceptible to landslide risks. However, the City generally lacks the
thick, loose, sandy soils which lead to liquefaction and ground failure hazards. Thus, the potential for
liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismically induced dynamic settlement is low (City 1990). Impacts
related to landslides and liquefaction are addressed in detain under Impact Discussion a) above;
384
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
22
therefore, this discussion focuses on impacts related to unstable soils due to lateral spreading,
subsidence, or collapse. Lateral spreading occurs because of liquefaction; accordingly, liquefaction-
prone areas would also be susceptible to lateral spreading. Subsidence occurs at great depths below
the surface when subsurface pressure is reduced by the withdrawal of fluids (e.g., groundwater,
natural gas, or oil) resulting in sinking of the ground.
The Project involves adoption of a policy document, the 2021-2029 HEU, which does not directly
propose any projects or developments. However, the HEU focuses on the possible development of
the 20 vacant residential lots. All of these sites are undeveloped and zoned for residential use, and
new development would primarily be new residential development where underlying unstable soils
could exist. The General Plan Safety Element includes goals and policies designed to address potential
geologic impacts. As discussed under Threshold a), above, conformance with the 2020 LABC which is
amended from the 2019 CBC, would also be required. With compliance with the existing codes, the
Project would have less than significant impacts related to location on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than Significant. Expansive soils are characterized as fine-grained, such as silts and clays or soils
with variable amounts of expansive clay minerals that can change in volume due to changes in water
content. According to the General Plan, soil types within the City consist predominantly of fertile clays
with some loams and shales (City 1990). The potential for soil to shrink and swell depends on the
amount and types of clay in the soil. Highly expansive soils can cause structural damage to foundations
and roads without proper structural engineering and are less suitable or desirable for development
than non-expansive soils because of the necessity for detailed geologic investigations and costlier
grading applications.
The General Plan Safety Element includes goals and policies designed to address potential geologic
impacts. As discussed under Threshold a), above, conformance with the 2020 LABC which is amended
from the 2019 CBC, would also be required.
The City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned parcels
located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be developed during the 2021-
2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or would be approved with
approval of the Proposed Project. When proposed, projects associated with the 20 vacant residential
lots would be required to comply with existing codes that would ensure potential impacts from
expansive soils such that substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property, would be reduced to
less than significant. Therefore, impacts would to less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Less than Significant. With the exception of the Rancho Del Mar site and 13 residences that have
individually or collectively (through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent
jurisdiction’s sewer systems, no sanitary sewer system exists in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by
individual septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single-family residences
385
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
23
and are not conducive to multi-family housing; particularly given the geologic, slope, and soil
constraints in Rolling Hills.
As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially
zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential
to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed
or would be approved with approval of the proposed Project. If development of the 20 vacant lots
occurs, it is assumed that development would adhere to the City’s zoning and the RHMC requirements
for development standards of sewer interconnections, and septic tank and seepage pit installation.
When proposed, projects associated with the 20 vacant residential lots would be required to adhere
for the 2020 LABC, the 2019 CBC, and the RHMC for installation of septic systems. Plans would be
required to be approved by Building and Safety to ensure that the potential for projects to occur on
soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available would be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. The
Project would have less than significant impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Rolling Hills lies within the Los Angeles
Basin, a sedimentary basin formed by the Peninsular Ranges and the Transverse Ranges in Southern
California. Much of this area is known to have high potential for fossil-rich sedimentary rocks. As noted
in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned,
privately owned parcels located throughout the City. These 20 vacant lots have the potential to be
developed during the 2021-2029 planning period, although no projects are currently proposed or
would be approved with approval of the proposed Project. The 20 residential lots are undeveloped;
therefore, paleontological resources may be present in fossil-bearing sediments and geologic units
below the ground surface and could be unearthed during excavation for new development. Ground-
disturbing activities in geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity have the potential to
damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present. Therefore, activities resulting from
implementation of the 2021-2029 HEU, including development of the 20 vacant lots, could damage
or destroy fossils in these geologic units resulting in a significant impact.
Effects on paleontological resources would only become evident once a specific project has been
proposed, because the effects greatly depend on the individual project’s site conditions (in this case,
the geologic setting) and the characteristics and extent of the proposed ground-disturbing activity.
However, to ensure development on the 20 vacant residential lots does not have an adverse effect
on paleontological resources, each project will need to be assessed as it is proposed in terms of the
potential for paleontological resources to be present. Neither the City’s General Plan nor the RHMC
address the discovery or conservation of paleontological resources. Projects would be required to
comply with regulatory standards enumerated under in PRC Section 5097.574, which sets the protocol
for proper handling and projects implemented during the 2021-2029 planning period would be
subject to MM GEO-1 described below.
GEO-1 Prepare Paleontological Resources Study and Implement Study Recommendations
386
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
24
For any development in Rolling Hills that occurs within high sensitivity geologic units, whether they
are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface, the City shall require a site-
specific paleontological study and avoidance and/or mitigation for potential impacts to
paleontological resources. The City shall require the following specific requirements for projects that
could disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity, whether they are mapped at the
surface or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface.
1. Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance within highly sensitive
geologic units, the applicant shall retain a project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who
meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards for Qualified Professional
Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources (SVP 2010).
A qualified paleontologist (Principal Paleontologist) is defined by the SVP standards as an
individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with
paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California,
and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least 1 year.
2. Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to construction activity, a qualified
paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be
implemented during ground disturbance activity for the proposed project. This program shall
outline the procedures for construction staff Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training, paleontological monitoring extent and duration, salvage and preparation of fossils, the
final mitigation and monitoring report, and paleontological staff qualifications.
3. Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction,
the project paleontologist or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel
regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff shall
fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-
construction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. In the event of a fossil
discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and
a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the
area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the qualified
paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil
resources.
4. Paleontological Monitoring. Ground disturbing construction activities (including grading,
trenching, foundation work and other excavations) at the surface in areas mapped as high
paleontological sensitivity and exceeding 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high
paleontological sensitivity units shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified
paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbance. The Paleontological Mitigation and
Monitoring Program shall be supervised by the project paleontologist. Monitoring shall be
conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has
experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and timing of
the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist. If the project paleontologist
determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend that
monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring would be
reinstated if any new or unforeseen deeper ground disturbances are required, and reduction or
suspension would need to be reconsidered by the supervising paleontologist. Ground disturbing
activity that does not occur in areas mapped as high sensitivity or that do not exceed 5 feet in
depth in areas overlying potentially high sensitivity units would not require paleontological
monitoring.
387
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
25
5. Salvage of Fossils. If significant fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist or
paleontological monitor shall recover them. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a
single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as
complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer
salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct,
divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely
manner. Work may continue outside of a buffer zone around the fossil, usually 50-100 feet
(specific distance may be determined by the project paleontologist).
6. Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be
identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and
curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the
University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos,
data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant
curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist.
7. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and
curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and
monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall
include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections,
any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were
curated.
With implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than
significant.
5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
5.8.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant. Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are referred
to as greenhouse gasses (GHG). The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-
induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O),
388
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
26
fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the
atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as
oceanic evaporation. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these
gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2
are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with
agricultural practices and landfills. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials
(GWP), which are the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified
timescale (generally 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference
gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the GHG emissions, referred
to as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP.
CO2 has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect
is 28 times greater than that of CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC] 2014.
In response to climate change, California implemented AB 32, the “California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions
levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of
rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG
emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by
requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the
other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017
Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies
on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade
Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and
legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane,
hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The
2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology,
and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017
Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it
recommends local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds
consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of
CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017).
The HEU includes objectives for energy conservation and, furthermore, encourages sustainable
development and provides energy conservation recommendations, including adoption of the
California Green Building Code. Development under the 2021-2029 HEU, including the 20 vacant
residential lots, would not conflict with an existing plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Residential development, such as potential future
development of the 20 vacant residential lots, is generally not associated with ongoing or significant
GHG emissions; however, construction activities would generate GHG emissions from construction
vehicles and equipment; these impacts would be temporary. Projects will be required to comply with
the RHMC, LABC, and CBC, including the CALGreen code, which helps reduce GHG emissions through
sustainable design and renewable energy considerations. Compliance with these regulations will
ensure impacts are less than significant.
389
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
27
5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project
area?
(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires?
5.9.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant. Quantities of hazardous materials are generated, stored, or transported within
Rolling Hills. Hazardous-related transportation incidents from fixed facilities (such as an accidental
spill or accident at a manufacturing facility) or from pipelines, and dumping may occur. Additionally,
as the entire City is likely to experience ground shaking during an earthquake, all sites in the City may
be subject to seismic activity during such an event (California State Water Resources Control Board
2021).
The LAFD is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) that provides regulatory oversight over
hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs in both Los Angeles and Rolling Hills. Additionally,
the Safety Element contains goals and policies designed to protect residents and businesses from
390
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
28
hazardous materials and to minimize community exposure to hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials.
The HEU is a policy document consistent with the City’s General Plan and does not, in and of itself,
directly propose physical changes in the environment or enable future development. However, the
HEU does focus on development of 20 vacant residential sites. If these 20 sites were to be developed,
during construction, construction equipment would require the use of fuel and petroleum-based
lubricants and would require regular maintenance of equipment as required by SWRCB and the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). However, construction would be
temporary and material would be in relatively small quantities.
During operation, the 20 vacant residential lots, may contain household hazardous materials such as
paint, herbicides/pesticides, diesel fuel, and cleaning products that have the potential to spill;
however, residential uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. All new
development would be required to adhere to federal, State, and local regulations regarding handling
hazardous materials and cleanup standards in case of a spill during construction and operation of all
projects implemented under the 2021-2029 HEU.
If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, it is assumed that development would adhere to federal,
State, and local regulations and standard protocols during the storage, transportation, and usage of
any hazardous materials, as well as compliance with 2021-2029 HEU and Safety Element Policies,
which would minimize and avoid the potential for significant upset and accident condition impacts.
With adherence to the regulations mentioned above, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to
occur, it is assumed impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant. One school, Rancho Del Mar High School, is currently in place and operational
in the City and is within 0.25 mile of one of the 20 vacant residential lots. The 2021-2029 HEU would
facilitate new residential development throughout Rolling Hills on sites that could be located near or
adjacent to schools. Residential uses could involve use and transport of very small quantities of
hazardous materials in the form of fertilizer or household cleaning products and would, therefore, not
emit or handle hazardous materials in such a way that it would impact those outside the home or
property. However, construction activities related to the development of residential structures could
result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing
school. Projects proposed under the 2021-2029 HEU, including development of the 20 vacant
residential lots, would be subject to State and federal regulations that apply to the use, storage, and
transport of hazardous materials with 0.25 mile of a school. With compliance to these regulations,
impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
No Impact. No potential hazardous waste sites are under evaluation in Rolling Hills (DTSC 2021;
SWRCB 2021). The City and surrounding area do not contain heavy industrial uses that would create
a hazardous material risk in the event of a spill, release, or natural disaster. Additionally, the City is
391
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
29
not located near any major transit routes involving transport of a substantial quantity of hazardous
material through the City (City 1990).
The Project involves a policy document and does not directly propose physical changes in the
environment. Development on the 20 vacant residential lots identified in the 2021-2029 HEU does
not have the potential to encounter sites previously developed with uses that could include hazardous
materials (e.g., automotive repair facilities, dry cleaners, gas stations) because the lots have not been
previously developed.
Furthermore, future development would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements
concerning the proper handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would
result in no impacts related to location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant Impact. The HEU is a policy document that analyzes housing needs in the City.
The City is within 2 miles of the Torrance Airport, which is approximately 1.4 miles from the northern
boundary of the City. However, the City is not located within the airport or airfield safety hazard zone
(ALUC 2003). If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, it will be subject to State and local
regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and to City planning,
engineering, and building requirements. Furthermore, residential development is not generally
associated with excessive noise or safety hazards. Temporary noise increases would occur during
construction; however, these increases would be temporary, intermittent, and typical of residential
construction. Less than significant impacts relative to noise hazards are expected to occur as a result
of the Project and potential development of the 20 vacant lots.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant. The City’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) identifies the potential
evacuation routes listed below, which include options for rapid egress from areas within the City if
threatened by a wildfire.
Main Gate at Rolling Hills Road and Palos Verdes Drive North
Crest Gate at Crest Road near Crenshaw Boulevard
Eastfield Gate at Eastfield Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East
Crest Road East (emergency access only)
Development of the 20 vacant residential lots would involve construction of single family homes
scattered throughout the City. Development is expected to occur during the planning years of 2021-
2029 and therefore not all development would take place at one time. Additionally, construction of
single family homes does not typically require street closure for any reasons. However, if street
closures are required, the City would review construction timing and ensure that adequate alternative
routes were available throughout the City. Therefore, development facilitated by implementation of
392
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
30
the 2021-2029 HEU would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 5.20 Wildfire, the entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by
CAL FIRE, and a substantial amount of land in the City is steep hillsides and canyons (CAL FIRE 2011).
The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures to mitigate the risk
of fire hazards. Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future development in the City,
including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere to the policies in the
Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would minimize potential
project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with
wildland fires.
5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flood on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project inundation?
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
393
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
31
5.10.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Rolling Hills is under the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB, which is
responsible for the preparation and implementation of the water quality control plan for the region.
The RHMC requires owners or developers to implement stormwater pollution control requirements
for construction activities. Provisions of the federal and State Clean Water Act require compliance
with the NPDES storm water permit during construction for projects developing more than 1 acre.
Operators of a construction site would be responsible for preparing and implementing a SWPPP that
outlines project-specific BMPs to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the
potential for discharge of pollutants into the stormwater drainage system. The NPDES also requires
post-construction BMPs. Typical BMPs include covering stockpiled soils, installing silt fences and
erosion control blankets, and handling and disposing of wastes properly.
RHMC Section 8.32 states that new development and redevelopment projects are required to control
pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area and
controlling runoff through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance
with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit.
The 2021-2029 HEU does not propose specific development projects. Therefore, components for
specific proposal square footage, paved surfaces, and number of units are unknown. Future
development under the 2021-2029 HEU would be required to comply with the LID requirements as
outlined in the RHMC and pursuant with NPDES Permit requirements, as described above for projects
on 1 acre or more. For projects on smaller parcels, if more than 10 units or up to 10,000 square feet
of impermeable surface area would be involved, they would be subject to RHMC Section 8.32 and
design would include the runoff control measures described above. With adherence to the RHMC and
General Plan goals and policies, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As further discussed in Section 5.19 Utilities and Service Systems, the
City is located within the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) service area. According to
the 2020 UWMP, the District’s only source of water supply is imported, purchased water from the
394
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
32
WBMWD and groundwater is not being used as a source of supply (CalWater 2021). The WBMWD
Draft 2020 UWMP states that it will be able to serve 100 percent of projected demands in normal,
single-dry and multiple-dry years. As such, the District expects that, under all hydrologic conditions,
purchased water supplies (in combination with the future recycled supplies) will fully serve future
potable demands (CalWater 2021). The projected demand for 2025 for the District is 151,521 acre-
feet per year (AFY). The water demand associated with development of the 20 vacant lots would be
9.24 AFY, which represents a nominal increase in the projected demand.
Any future development that occurs pursuant to the HEU in the City, including the 20 vacant
residential lots, will be subject to State and local regulations regarding water quality, run-off, and
hydrology and to City planning, engineering and building requirements. Since the City doesn’t utilize
groundwater and with compliance to the existing regulations, impacts to groundwater would be less
than significant.
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Less than Significant Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels 06037C2026G, 06037C2027G, and 06037C1940F, the City is not located
in a flood hazard area and currently has a less than 0.2 percent annual chance to be inundated by flood
waters as a result of a storm event (FEMA 2021). Additionally, the City is not located within a tsunami or
seiche zone (DOC 2021b; DWR 2021).
If development of the 20 vacant lots occurs, adherence to the 2020 LABC which amends the 2019 CBC,
would be required. Compliance with the code would ensure that no development would occur in a flood
hazard zone. Therefore, impacts related to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones would be less than
significant.
5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
11. LAND USE/PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Physically divide an established community?
(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
5.11.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately owned
parcels located throughout the City. These parcels have the potential to each be developed with a
single family home, and are scattered throughout the City, most of which would be considered infill
development. Development of these sites with single family homes would not physically divide an
established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
395
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
33
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant. The City has prepared its HEU in accordance with Section 65580 of the
Government Code. The update has also been prepared consistent with the City General Plan and the
community’s vision of its housing needs and objectives. Accordingly, the HEU examines the City’s
housing needs as they exist today and projects future housing needs based on RHNA allocation. No
change to the land use plan or zoning map is proposed as part of the HEU. Additionally, as discussed
in Section 5.14 Population and Housing, the additional population associated with potential
development of the 20 vacant parcels, would be consistent with SCAG and the City’s RHNA allocation.
Connect SoCal was fully adopted by SCAG Regional Council in September 2020. Also known as the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the plan assists with long-range planning, balancing future mobility and housing
needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice,
and public health. The goals included in the plan, and the Project’s consistency with those goals, are
provided in Table 5.11-1 below.
Table 5.11-3. Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis
Connect SoCal Goals Consistency
1 Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness
Consistent. The HEU, which is part of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan,
is a policy document designed to provide the City with a coordinated and
comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and
affordable housing within the community. One of the main goals of the
HEU is to conserve existing housing while providing opportunities for new
housing that would serve a variety of income levels.
2 Improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability, and
travel safety for people and
goods
Consistent. The HEU would not create new streets or roadways; however,
potential future development of the 20 vacant residentially zoned,
privately owned parcels would construct new private driveways.
Furthermore, all future development during the 2021-2029 planning
period would be required to adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and
to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including
those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code.
3 Enhance the preservation,
security, and resilience of the
regional transportation
system
Consistent. The City has no public roads or streets; however, all future
development (including the 20 residential lots) would be required to
adhere to the 2020 LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances,
and policies that address circulation, including those in the General Plan
Circulation Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
4 Increase person and goods
movement and travel choices
within the transportation
system
Consistent. Direct, public transportation is not provided for the City
because all of its roadways are private; however, future development
(including the 20 residential lots) would be required to adhere to the 2020
LABC and 2019 CBC and to all programs, ordinances, and policies that
address circulation, including those in the General Plan Circulation
Element and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
396
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
34
Connect SoCal Goals Consistency
5 Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air
quality
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality, future development of
the 20 vacant residential lots has the potential to generate toxic air
contaminants; however, residential development projects are unlikely to
exceed local thresholds or expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the City’s General Plan and the
RHMC contain policies and measures related to maintaining air quality in
residential neighborhoods, including protecting neighborhoods from air
pollution-generating activities through appropriate development buffers.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
projects will be required to comply with the RHMC, LABC, and CBC,
including the CALGreen code, which helps reduce GHG emissions through
sustainable design and renewable energy considerations.
6 Support healthy and
equitable communities
Consistent. RHNA in all income categories can be met and exceeded with
approved housing units, future affordable housing units on the Rancho Del
Mar site, new ADUs (which have been made easier to develop under a
series of recently passed legislation), and potential future development of
the 20 residential lots. The City has prepared its HEU in accordance with
Section 65580 of the Government Code. Additionally, the update is
consistent with the City General Plan and the community’s vision of its
housing needs and objectives.
7 Adapt to a changing climate
and support an integrated
regional development
pattern and transportation
network
Consistent. The HEU includes objectives for energy conservation and,
furthermore, encourages sustainable development and provides energy
conservation recommendations, including adoption of the California
Green Building Code.
8 Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven
solutions that result in more
efficient travel
Consistent. Any future development would be required to adhere to all
programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation, including
those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the RHMC.
9 Encourage development of
diverse housing types in
areas that are supported by
multiple transportation
options
Consistent. The combination of recently approved housing units, future
affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs, which have
been made easier to develop under a series of recently passed legislation,
in addition to future projects on the 20 residential lots, can accommodate
the RHNA allocation in all income categories (i.e., very low, low, moderate,
and above moderate income) and comprise a variety of housing types.
397
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
35
Connect SoCal Goals Consistency
10 Promote conservation of
natural and agricultural lands
and restoration of habitats
Consistent. The City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project involves an
update to the City’s Housing Element, with no proposed changes to land
use designations or zoning of parcels within the City.
Applicants of future development projects would be required to prepare a
Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), which would characterize the
biological resources (e.g., natural habitats, special-status species) on site,
analyze project-specific impacts to those resources, and propose
appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts.
If a future project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat,
or sensitive natural communities, either during project activities or over the
life of the project, the project applicant would be required to provide
compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual plants and habitat acres.
Future development projects that would remove habitat for nesting birds
would be required to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site, if
feasible, to prevent temporal or permanent habitat loss.
All future development in the City, including the 20 vacant sites, would be required to comply with
existing land use plans, policies, and regulations. If any developments would conflict with any of these
plans, policies, or regulation, further environmental evaluation would be required. With adherence
to the City’s zoning and the RHMC, if development of the 20 vacant lots were to occur, it is assumed
impacts would be less than significant.
5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
5.12.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The City is not designated as having any known mineral resources. Although mineral
resources exist in the area, they are outside the City limits and outside the boundaries of the General
398
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
36
Plan (City 1990). The City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately
owned parcels located throughout the City. No land use or zoning changes are proposed. Therefore,
the Project would have no impacts on the availability of any known resources or locally important
mineral resource recovery sites.
5.13 NOISE
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
5.13.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant. Noise is unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Environmental noise
levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for
this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time
of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted
sound pressure level (dBA). Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling
of distance from point sources (such as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads
typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled
roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance, while noise from a point source
typically attenuates at about 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
The HEU, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that
regulate various aspects of new housing development in the City. However as previously mentioned,
the HEU focuses on development of 20 vacant parcels with 20 single family homes and impacts
associated with that potential future development are analyzed here to the extent possible based on
available information.
Development facilitated under the HEU would be required to be consistent with applicable local,
State, and federal regulations. Section 15.36.020 of the RHMC requires that no work of improvement
or the operation of mechanical equipment used in connection with work of improvement shall occur
399
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
37
within the territorial limits of the City except on Monday through Saturday of each week, commencing
at the hour of seven a.m. and ending at the hour of six p.m. on each day.
Residential uses are not substantial generators of noise, because noise from the structures themselves
is self-contained. Furthermore, residential land uses do not involve manufacturing, processing, or
generation of large amounts of traffic that could produce substantial, temporary, or periodic increases
in ambient noise, and infrastructure uses would be subject to established City noise ordinances.
Therefore, impacts to related to a substantial increase in ambient noise would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Less than Significant. While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in
general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby
construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration
of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred
to as groundborne noise. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor
environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from
vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land
uses.
Long-term operation of future housing development permitted under the HEU would not result in any
groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise, although construction activities may result in
temporary groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels. New development implemented
under the HEU would not exceed permitted noise levels following existing standards in the 2020 LABC
which amends the 2019 CBC. All new development or redevelopment is required to comply with the
standards, which would reduce potential impacts. Therefore, implementation of the HEU would not
result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and would have
result in less than significant impacts.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public us airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The City is within just over one mile of the Torrance Airport but is not within the airport
influence area or airfield safety hazard zone (ALUC 2003). The HEU would not create additional
residential opportunities within an airport noise contour. Therefore, no impact would occur.
400
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
38
5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
5.14.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant. As the regional planning agency for the Los Angeles region, SCAG is responsible
for preparing jurisdiction-level forecasts for each city and county in the region. The latest forecasts
were adopted in September 2020 and describe conditions in a base year (2016) and forecast year
(2045). SCAG forecasts indicate that City growth will be flat through 2045, with the latest published
forecasts showing 700 households in 2016 and 700 households in 2045. Population in the City over
the equivalent period is shown as increasing from 1,900 to 2,000, a growth rate of about 5 percent
over 29 years (SCAG 2020).
The 2021-2029 RHNA allocation for the City is 45 units, including 20 very low income units, 9 low
income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units. As previously shown in
Table 2.5-2, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be occupied in 2022),
future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs, which have been made easier to
develop under a series of recently passed legislation, can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all
income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income units based on
projected ADU production over the planning period. Any subsequent development accomplished
pursuant to the HEU will be consistent with State and regional growth mandates.
As of January 2022, the City had a population of 1,684, a decrease from the previous year of 1,703
persons (DOF 2022a). As of 2021, the City’s average household size was 2.71 persons per household
(DOF 2022b). Based on this average household size if all 20 vacant lots were to be constructed, an
additional 55 persons would be expected to be added to the City. Based on this additional number of
persons, the City’s population would be 1,739, well below the SCAG estimates for 2045.
Based on the population being below the SCAG estimates, and addition of the housing units being
consistent with the RHNA allocation, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
401
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
39
No Impact. As noted in Section 2.6 above, the City’s HEU focuses on the addition of the 20 vacant
residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the City. The Project would not
displace any people or housing, rather, would construct housing consistent with the City’s RHNA
allocation. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
15. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire Protection?
ii) Police Protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
5.15.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Less than Significant. The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LAFD) provides fire protection
services to the City. Fire Station 56, located at 12 Crest Road West, serves the City under Battalion 14.
Since the City is within the CAL FIRE VHFHSZ, the City recently adopted their Safety Element Update
which includes policies to enforce VHFHSZ-specific standards during development. Compliance with
these standards reduces the fire vulnerability of new structures built in the City.
The HEU would not expand the LAFD service area but would facilitate additional structures and
population within the existing service area. As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the
HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. The
minimal increase in residents is not expected to result in a significant increase for fire protection
services.
Additionally, future development associated with the HEU would be required to comply with all
applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services,
including adequate fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants, such as the 2019 California Fire
Code and the LABC adopted in 2020 which amends the 2019 CBC. The 2019 California Fire Code
402
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
40
contains project-specific requirements such as construction standards in new structures and
remodels, road widths and configurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and
engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. The Building Code
requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants, and would be subject to
review and approval. All development plans are reviewed by the LAFD prior to construction to ensure
that adequate fire flows are maintained and that an adequate number of fire hydrants are provided
in the appropriate locations in compliance with the California Fire Code. Additionally, any future
development would be required to pay application and permit fees that would help offset any
required fire protection services. Therefore, HEU impacts related to fire protection services would be
less than significant.
b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Less than Significant. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) is contracted with the City
to provide police services and protection. The Lomita Station of the Sheriff’s Department is located at
26123 Narbonne Avenue. The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update, which implements
policies to promote maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance
objectives for police protection.
The HEU would not expand the LASD service area but would facilitate additional structures and
population within the existing service area. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the
HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. The
minimal increase in residents is not expected to result in a significant increase for police protection
services.
Additionally, any future development would be required to pay application and permit fees that
would help offset any required police protection services. Therefore, the HEU would not result in
significant environmental impacts associated with the need for the provision of new or physically
altered police protection facilities. Impacts related to police protection services would be less than
significant.
c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Less than Significant. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) serves the City.
School-related impacts depend upon the location and intensity of a project, students generated per
household, and the capacity of facilities in a given attendance area. As described in Section 5.14,
Population and Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an
increase of 55 residents. Of these 55 residents, a conservative estimate of school aged children would
be 19, however, the actual number would likely be much lower given the City’s general demographic
including a median age of 55 (Data USA 2022). The minimal increase in potential students is not
expected to result in a significant increase on school facilities. Additionally, any future development
would be required to pay application and permit fees, as well as school fees to PVPUSD that would
403
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
41
help offset any school facilities and/or services. Therefore, impacts related to school facilities would
be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Less than Significant. There is one public park, numerous trails, open space areas, three tennis courts,
and two equestrian facilities located throughout the City. As described in Section 5.14, Population and
Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single family, which may result in an increase of 55
residents. The minimal increase in residents is not expected to result in a significant increase park
usage that would result in an increase for additional park facilities. Additionally, any future
development would be required to pay development impact fees that would help offset any required
need for additional parks or park services. Therefore, impacts related to park services would be less
than significant.
e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
Less than Significant. The HEU is a policy document and does not authorize future development. As
described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the HEU has the potential to develop 20 single
family, which may result in an increase of 55 residents. The minimal increase in residents is not
expected to result in a significant increase in any additional public facilities, including library services,
and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
5.16 RECREATION
16. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
5.16.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
404
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
42
Less than Significant. There is one public park, numerous trails, open space areas, three tennis courts,
and two equestrian facilities located throughout the City. As mentioned in Section 5.14 Population
and Housing, the Project would have a potential to add approximately 55 new residents to the City,
resulting in a total population of 1,739 persons which is well below the SCAG estimates for 2045.
Additionally, over the last year, the City has seen a decline in population. Additionally, any future
development would be required to pay development impact fees that would help offset any required
need for additional parks or park services. With the overall minimal increase in population, consistent
with the SCAG projections, and payment of the development impact fees, the Project is not expected
to result in a substantial increase in the use of recreational facilities. Impacts would therefore be less
than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The Project proposes adoption of the HEU which is a policy document. Although the HEU
doesn't include any development, the HEU focuses on housing within the City and would not include
any recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. Therefore,
no impacts would occur.
5.17 TRANSPORTATION
17. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
(b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
5.17.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant. Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets; thus the City's circulation
infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes (City 2014). As mentioned
previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it does focus on the possible
development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the development of which may result in an
additional 55 residents to the City. With 55 additional residents, this would result in approximately
110 trips per day. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has a technical advisory for analyzing
VMT impacts, which states that projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day, generally may be
405
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
43
assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Additionally, any future development
would be required to adhere to all programs, ordinances, and policies that address circulation,
including those in the General Plan Circulation Element and the RHMC. Thus, circulation-related
impacts would be considered less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant. As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific
developments, it does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned, privately
owned parcels located throughout the City. These parcels have the potential to each be developed
with a single family home, and are scattered throughout the City, most of which would be considered
infill development. If these lots were to be developed, no new streets or roadways would be required,
only private driveways. Additionally, all future development would be required to adhere to the 2020
LABC and 2019 CBC. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous designs or inadequate emergency
access would be less than significant.
5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
18.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
(b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
5.18.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
406
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
44
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the California PRC Section 21084, a
project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project “may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) specifies that a
project with the potential for adverse effects on tribal cultural resources may be considered a
significant effect on the environment. Additionally, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires a government-to-
government consultation process initiated by the local governmental agency prior to adoption or
amendment of a General or Specific Plan.
The City, as the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA and as required by AB 52 and SB 18, has consulted
with the local Native American Tribes in the Project Area. Tribes that are located regionally include:
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians, Gabrielino /Tongva Nation, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe,
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Letters were sent to these
Tribes on December 13, 2021. Tribes were requested to respond to AB 52 by January 12, 2022, and
SB 18 by January 27, 2022.
At that time, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation responded with two separate letters
on December 21, 2021 noting that they had no comments or concerns and no additional information
to provide, but requesting consultation for any and all future projects with ground disturbance as
shown in Appendix B: Tribal Consultation Response. Additionally, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California responded noting that the City is a highly culturally sensitive area and expressed interest in
finding out more information regarding the project, however, after review of the project, they
submitted a follow up email stating that they have no concerns, but requested notification on future
projects.
Since the initial consultation, the City decided to revise the environmental document associated for
this Project. The revision itself resulted in no changes in policy perspectives to the HEU and all
legislative actions remained the same. The City sent a follow up letter to both tribes making them
aware of this change on June 13, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians -
Kizh Nation responded noting that if there is not going to be ground disturbances, there is no need
for consultation. On July 18, 2022, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California responded to keep them
involved for further activity.
The HEU is a policy document that would not result in direct development or construction. Similar to
the Project, future projects including development of the 20 vacant parcels, would be required comply
with the CEQA process and if not exempt from CEQA may require tribal consultation through AB 52
and/or SB 18. However, in order to ensure impacts to any potential Tribal Cultural Resources would
remain less than significant, all future development associated with the HEU that is not exempt from
CEQA, shall at minimum implement MM TCR-1 and TCR-2.
407
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
45
TCR-1 Retain and Utilize a Native American Construction Monitor
If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific
development projects or during construction of such projects, the project applicant for that project
shall obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground
disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined as activities that include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) shall be present on-site during the
construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s)
shall complete monitoring logs daily to provide descriptions of the daily activities, including
construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring
shall end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when the
monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.
TCR-2 Evaluate Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources
If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for future specific
development projects or during construction of such projects, a qualified archaeologist and Native
American Monitor shall be present during construction-related ground disturbance activities to
identify any unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist and
Native American monitor may be different individuals or the same individual if the City determines
that individual qualifies as both a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. All
archaeological resources unearthed by construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist and Native American Monitor. If the resources are determined to be human remains
(see also Mitigation Measure CUL-3) the Coroner shall be notified, and if the human remains are
Native American in origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated by State law, who will then
appoint an MLD, who shall then coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of
these resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If
a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to PRC Section
21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a
formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan
established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for
historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in
place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,
treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the
resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological
material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with
a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if
such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material,
they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
With implementation of MM’s TCR-1 and TCR-2, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be
less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
408
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
46
5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
19. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
(e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid wastes?
5.19.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or expansion of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant. Reasonably foreseeable development under the 2021-2029 Housing Element
would occur in urban areas that are served by existing utilities infrastructure, including water,
wastewater, stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.
Water and wastewater are further discussed in Thresholds b and c below. Stormwater is under the
jurisdiction of the LARWQCB, electric is provided by Southern California Edison, and natural gas is
provided by Southern California Gas Company.
As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it does focus
on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the development of which may
result in an additional 55 residents to the City. These lots are scattered throughout the existing
development in the City which would allow for easy connections to existing utility lines.
Rolling Hills is under the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB, which is responsible for the preparation and
implementation of the water quality control plan for the region. The RHMC requires owners or
developers to implement stormwater pollution control requirements for construction activities. The
409
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
47
addition of 20 single family homes would not result in a significant of increase to stormwater
generation.
The increase in electricity and natural gas for 20 single family homes, or 55 additional residents, would
be considered nominal. Additionally, if the 20 single family homes were to be built, they would be
subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the
California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11
of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation
standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California.
This code applies to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and
lighting systems of buildings and appliances and provides guidance on construction techniques to
maximize energy conservation. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts regarding the
construction or expansion of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant. The City is located within the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD)
service area. As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific developments, it
does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the development of
which may result in an additional 55 residents to the City. The WBMWD Draft 2020 UWMP states that
the 2020 weighted average per capita water use is roughly 150 gallons per capita per day (GPCD)
(CalWater 2021). This would equate to a yearly additional water use of 3,011,250 gallons per year or
9.24 AFY.
According to the 2020 UWMP, the District’s only source of water supply is imported, purchased water
from the WBMWD (CalWater 2021). The WBMWD Draft 2020 UWMP states that it will be able to
serve 100 percent of projected demands in normal, single-dry and multiple-dry years. As such, the
District expects that, under all hydrologic conditions, purchased water supplies (in combination with
the future recycled supplies) will fully serve future potable demands (CalWater 2021). The projected
demand for 2025 for the District is 151,521 AFY. The water demand associated with development of
the 20 vacant lots represents a nominal increase in the projected demand. Therefore, the Project
would result in less than significant impacts related to water supply availability.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant. Wastewater treatment in the City generally occurs through private septic tanks,
as only several parcels on the western periphery of the City have access to sanitary sewer. For these
several parcels, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) owns, operates, and maintains
the sewer system consisting of gravity sewers, pumping stations, and force mains to collect
wastewater from the Palos Verdes District service area (Sanitation District #5). The LACSD’s Joint
Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) provides the wastewater service for the District service area.
It provides advanced primary and partial secondary treatment for 400 million gallons per day (MGD)
410
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
48
of wastewater and serves a population of approximately 4.8 million people (LACSD 2021). This plant
currently processes 260 MGD; thus, the system has adequate capacity for the Project (CalWater 2021).
If the 20 vacant lots were to be developed, it is likely that the 20 single family homes would contain
separate septic systems. However, if all systems were to be connected to wastewater, wastewater
generation would be approximately 0.006 (MGD)2. This amount would represent a nominal increase
in wastewater generation for the District. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant
impacts related to wastewater treatment.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant. As mentioned previously, while the HEU does not approve any specific
developments, it does focus on the possible development of 20 vacant residentially zoned lots, the
development of which may result in an additional 55 residents to the City. According to CalRecycle, a
conservative estimate for single family waste generation is 12.23 pounds per household per day
(CalRecycle 2022a). This would result in 673 total pounds per day or 0.3 tons per day.
The closest landfill to the City is the Savage Canyon Landfill in Whittier, California. This landfill has a
remaining capacity of 9,510,833 tons with a max permitted throughput of 3,350 tons per day and is
not expected to close until 2055 (CalRecycle 2022b). Development of the 20 vacant sites with 20 single
family homes would result in a nominal increase to the max permitted throughput and remaining
capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant. A significant impact could occur if the 2021-2029 HEU would conflict with any
statutes and regulations governing solid waste. In compliance with State legislation, any development
project facilitated by the 2021-2029 HEU would be required to implement a Solid Waste Diversion
Program and divert at least 75 percent of the solid waste generated from the applicable landfill site.
Reasonably foreseeable development under the 2021-2029 HEU would comply with federal, State,
and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as the California Waste Integrated
Waste Management Act (AB 939), the Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan, and the City’s recycling
program. Since future projects facilitated by the 2021-2029 HEU would comply with applicable
federal, State, and local regulations involving solid waste, 2021-2029 HEU impacts related to conflict
with statutes and regulations governing solid waste would be less than significant.
2 Wastewater generation generally equates to 75 percent of water demand. Water demand is 55 residents * 150 GPCD = 8,250
gallons per day * 0.75 = 6,187.5 gallons per day.
411
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
49
5.20 WILDFIRE
20.
WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
(c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
(d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
5.20.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant. The entire City is designated as a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2011). As
mentioned in Section 5.9, the City’s CWPP identifies the potential evacuation routes described below,
which include options for rapid egress from areas within the City if threatened by a wildfire.
Main Gate at Rolling Hills Road and Palos Verdes Drive North
Crest Gate at Crest Road near Crenshaw Boulevard
Eastfield Gate at Eastfield Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East
Crest Road East (emergency access only)
The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which addresses the protection of the existing
and future population and development from both natural and man-made hazards through a number
of goals, policies, implementation programs, principles, and standards. Among these are measures to
mitigate the risk from the hazards of fire. The HEU is a policy level document that does not grant
entitlements for development that would have the potential to directly cause wildfire. However,
future development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to
adhere to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies
would minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant
impacts associated with impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
412
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
50
b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant. As mentioned above, the entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE, and a
substantial amount of land in the City is steep hillsides and canyons (CAL FIRE 2011). The City recently
adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures to mitigate the risk of fire hazards.
Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future development in the City, including
development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere to the policies in the Safety
Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would minimize potential project
impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with
exacerbating wildfire risks.
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant. Principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property
in the City are the undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system,
and conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. The entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by
CAL FIRE; however, the City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures
to mitigate the risk of fire hazards. Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future
development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere
to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would
minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with installation of associated infrastructure.
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes?
Less than Significant. As mentioned above, the entire City is designated a VHFHSZ by CAL FIRE, and a
substantial amount of land in the City is steep hillsides and canyons highly susceptible to landslide
risks (CAL FIRE 2011). The City recently adopted their Safety Element Update which includes measures
to mitigate the risk of fire hazards. Although the HEU itself does not entitle development, future
development in the City, including development of the 20 vacant parcels would be required to adhere
to the policies in the Safety Element Update and the CWPP. Implementation of these policies would
minimize potential project impacts. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with exposure of people or structures to the risk of downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes.
413
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
51
5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects?)
(c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
5.21.1 Impact Analysis
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The intent of the 2021-2029 HEU is to update the
Housing Element to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA, and ensure that a safe, decent supply of housing is
provided for current and future Rolling Hills residents. The 2021-2029 HEU would not facilitate
development that would eliminate or threaten wildlife habitats or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory. Furthermore, this IS MND proposes mitigation
that will address nesting birds, jurisdictional features, and pre-construction surveys, cultural
resources, and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, as discussed in more detail in Sections 5.4,
Biological Resources, 5.5, Cultural Resources, and 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the 2021-2029 HEU
would result in a less-than-significant impact related to biological and cultural resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the 2021-2029 HEU would
result in beneficial housing cumulative impacts across the City. Mitigation included in this IS MND
414
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
52
would ensure that impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal
Cultural Resources would be reduced to less than significant. Furthermore, implementation of the
2021-2029 HEU would be consistent with General Plan policies aimed at improving housing in the City
for current and future residents. Therefore, the 2021-2029 HEU would result in an overall less than
significant cumulative impact related to all CEQA topics addressed within this document.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As demonstrated throughout this document, the
Project would have less than significant impacts to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality,
Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services,
Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfires. Furthermore, mitigation
measures included in this IS MND would ensure impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources would remain less than significant. The 2021-2029
HEU would not result in adverse effects on human beings. Rather, as discussed throughout this
document, the 2021-2029 HEU would serve as a pathway to improve housing and ensure that a safe,
decent supply of housing is provided for current and future Rolling Hills residents. Therefore, the
Project would have no impacts or cumulatively considerable impacts on the environment or human
beings.
415
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
53
SECTION 6.0 – REFERENCES
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
2003 Torrance Airport, Airport Influence Area adopted May 13, 2003. Available online at:
https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-torrance.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2017 California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available online at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.p
df
California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2017 State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. Available online at:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initi
al%20Study/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Cons
ervation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf.
2021a California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed December 2021. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
2021b Tsunami Hazard Area Map. Accessed December 2021. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=-
13249590.3641%2C3986280.7635%2C-
13132183.0887%2C4038410.8168%2C102100&utm_source=cgs+active&utm_content=l
osangeles.
2022 Regulatory Maps Geo Application. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
California Department of Finance (DOF)
2022a E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State with Annual Percent Change
- January 1, 2021 to 2022. Accessed online at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/
2022b E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022.
Accessed online at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-
population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
2011 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA: Rolling Hills. Available online at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5840/rolling_hills.pdf.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
2022a Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed July 2022. Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates.
416
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
54
2022b SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Savage Canyon Landfill (19-AH-0001). Accessed July
2022. Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3494?siteID=1399.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
2021 EnviroStor. Accessed December 2021. Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=rolling+hills%2C+CA.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2021 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed December 2021. Available online
at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c
c8e8057116f1aacaa.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
2021 California Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Accessed December 2021.
Available online at: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2.
California Water Service (CalWater)
2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: Palos Verdes District. Available online at:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/PV_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. June.
City of Rolling Hills (City)
1990 City of Rolling Hills General Plan. Available online at: https://www.rolling-
hills.org/government/planning_and_community_services/index.php.
2014 2014-2021 Update of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Available online at:
https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/Goverment/Planning%20And%20Commun
ity%20Services/Housing%20Element%202014%20_201402111636398968.pdf.
Data USA
2022 Rolling Hills, CA Data. Available online at: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/rolling-hills-ca.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
2021 National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Accessed December 2021. Available online at:
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338
b5529aa9cd.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
2014 The Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Available online at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
2003 Torrance Airport. Available online at:
https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-torrance.pdf.
417
City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21330
55
Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD)
2021 Wastewater Treatment Process at JWPCP. Accessed on December 23, 2021, at:
https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/joint-water-pollution-
control-plant/wastewater-treatment-process-at-jwpcp.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
1999 Map of Jurisdiction. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/default-document-library/map-of-jurisdiction.pdf.
2016 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status for South Coast
Air Basin. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-
plans/air-qualitymanagement-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14.
2021 2022 AQMP. Accessed December 2021. Available online at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan#.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
2020 The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the
Southern California Association Of Governments: Connect SoCal. Available online at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-
plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
2021 GeoTracker. Accessed December 2021. Available online at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=rolling+hills
%2C+CA.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
2021 National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed December 2021. Available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.
418
APPENDIX A – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE ASSESSMENT 419
1
July 19, 2022
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750
Santa Ana, CA 92707
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment for the City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element
Update and Safety Element Update Project
Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) was retained by the City of Rolling Hills to conduct a literature review and
biological reconnaissance-level survey for the City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety
Element Update (HEU) Project (Project). The City’s HEU includes a total of 34 vacant sites within the City, but focuses
on only 20 vacant residentially zoned lots that have the ability to be developed. The purpose of this survey was to
document existing vegetation communities, identify special status species with a potential for occurrence, and map
habitats that could support special status plant and wildlife species as well as evaluate potential impacts to these
resources, for the 20 vacant sites, as part of the Project.
Project Site Location and Description
The Project sites evaluated as part of the Project consist of 20 vacant undeveloped sites of one acre or more, totaling
approximately 113.4 acres (Survey Area) and is located in the City of Rolling Hills, within the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) San Pedro and Torrance, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. The 20 vacant sites are numbered and
are located within an equestrian residential community on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County
(Attachment 1: Figure 2 Survey Area). Palos Verde Drive North borders the northern portion of the site, Crenshaw
Boulevard borders the western portion, Palos Verdes Drive East borders the eastern boundary, and Palo s Verde Drive
South borders the southern portion of the site. The vacant lots within the Project site are surrounded by open space
vegetated hillsides, residential roads, and residential homes. A map of the Project Location and Project Vicinity is
provided in Attachment 1: Figure 1.
Methods
The Survey Area encompasses the 113.4-acre Project site which includes the entirety of 20 vacant lots, variously
numbered as shown in Attachment 1: Figure 2 – Survey Area.
Literature Review
Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance survey, Chambers Group staff conducted a literature review for soils,
jurisdictional water features that contribute to hydrology, and special status species known to occur within the vicinity
(approximately 5 miles) of the Survey Area.
Soils
Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance survey, soil maps for the Survey Area were referenced in accordance
with categories set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service and the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022).
420
2
Hydrology
A general assessment of waters potentially regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was conducted for the
Survey Area. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill
material into waters of the United States. The State of California (State) regulates discharge of material into waters of
the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600 -1602 of the
California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or
bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. A desktop assessment was conducted
of available data prior to the biological reconnaissance survey in the field.
Special Status Habitats and Species
The most recent records of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by CDFW (2022) and the
California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California
(CNPS 2022) were reviewed for the following quadrangles containing and surrounding the Project: San Pedro, Torrance,
Redondo Beach, Venice, Inglewood, South Gate, and Long Beach, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
quadrangles. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federally or State-listed endangered or
threatened species, California Species of Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that may occur
within or in the immediate vicinity of the Survey Area (Attachment 1: Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences Map).
Biological Reconnaissance Survey
The biological reconnaissance survey was conducted on foot within the Survey Area. During the survey, the biologists
identified and mapped all vegetation communities found within the Survey Area onto aerial photographs (Attachment
2: Vegetation Communities Map). Plant communities were determined in accordance with the Manual of California
Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants
of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Plant and wildlife species observed or detected within the Survey
Area were recorded (Attachments 3: Plants Species Observed and 4: Wildlife Species Observed/Detected, respectively).
In addition, site photographs were taken depicting current site conditions (Attachment 5: Site Photographs).
Results
Chambers Group biologists Mauricio Gomez and Jessica Calvillo conducted the biological reconnaissance survey within
the Survey Area to identify vegetation communities, the potential for occurrence of special status species, and/or
habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The survey was conducted on foot between 0630 and 1730
hours on June 9 and 10, 2022. Weather conditions included temperatures from 61 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit (oF), wind
speeds from 0 to 4 miles per hour, cloud cover of 0 to 100 percent throughout the day, and no precipitation throughout
the survey.
Biological Site Conditions
Soils
According to the results from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022), the Project site is located in the Los Angeles
County (CA696) southeastern part of the soil map. Three soil types are known to occur within and/or adjacent to the
Project site (Attachment 1: Figure 5 – USDA Soils Map). These soil types are described below.
Dapplegray-Urban Land-Lunada complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes. This soil type occurs on hillslopes and canyons at
elevations of 290 to 1,370 feet. This soil exhibits very high runoff and has a low to high water supply availability. Parent
421
3
material is human-transported material consisting of mostly colluvium from calcareous shale (USDA 2022). This soil
type occurs at all 20 Survey Areas.
Lunada-Zaca complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes. This soil type occurs on hillslopes and canyons at elevations of 80 to
1,400 feet. These soils exhibit very high runoff and have a low to moderate water supply availability. Parent material is
colluvium derived from calcareous shale (USDA 2022). This soil type occurs at the following Survey Areas within the
Project area: 1, 18, 19, 25, 31, 32, and 33.
Haploxerepts, 10 to 35 percent slopes. This soil type occurs on hillslopes and landslides at elevations of 0 to 1,210 feet.
These soils exhibit high runoff and have a moderate water supply availability. Parent material is composed of mixed
slide deposits derived mostly from calcareous shale (USDA 2022). This soil type occurs at Survey Area 21.
Hydrology
The Project site is located within the Alamitos Bay-San Pedro Bay and Frontal Santa Monica Bay-San Pedro Bay
watersheds within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone (Hydrologic Unit Codes
[HUC10] 1807010607 and 1807010405, respectively) (Attachment 1: Figure 6 – Watersheds). The Alamitos Bay-San
Pedro Bay watershed is bordered by the San Gabriel River in Seal Beach to the east, and it encompasses a large portion
of southern and southeastern cities in Los Angeles County. The Frontal Santa Monica Bay-San Pedro Bay watershed is
bordered by the Ballona Creek in Santa Monica to the northwest and the Los Angeles Harbor in San Pedro to the east.
Both watersheds primarily facilitate urbanized run-off and nuisance water and ultimately terminate in the Pacific
Ocean. Several NWI mapped bluelines occur within the Survey Area.
The Survey Area is not within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard zones. Site 21 is
immediately west of an Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard (Attachment 1: Figure 7 – FEMA Flood Hazard Zones). No
other sites are within or adjacent to Flood Hazard Zones.
Site 28 had an erosional feature (non-jurisdictional), originating from the residential home just south of site 28, that
was dry during the field survey. The erosional feature (non-jurisdictional) appears to flow northwest along the western
boundary end of site 28 and ultimately terminating outside the property boundary. All sites except for 21, 25, 28, and
34 contain ephemeral drainages within the property boundaries. The features within sites 3, 4, and 20 flow southwest
through the property; and ultimately terminating in the Pacific Ocean. The features within sites 1, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24,
26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 flow northeast through the property; however, they do not appear to connect to any
tributaries and appear to terminate right outside the property boundary (Attachment 1: Figure 8 – Jurisdictional Waters
NWI and NHD).
Water features were observed at all the sites except for 21, 25, 28, and 34 (Attachment 1: Figure 8 – Jurisdictional
Waters NWI and NHD). However, all the features occur in the lower portion of each site, outside of the proposed
impact areas. Work activities are not anticipated to occur within or directly adjacent to any of the features and no
impacts to any features are anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities.
Vegetation Communities and Other Areas
Seven native vegetation communities and six non-native or other land types were mapped within the Survey Area
during the biological reconnaissance survey. The communities are described in the following subsections.
Native Vegetation Communities
Arroyo Willow Thickets
Arroyo Willow Thickets are found along stream banks, slope seeps, and drainages (Sawyer et al. 2009). Arroyo willow
(Salix lasiolepis) is dominant or co-dominant in the tall shrub or low tree canopy with big leaf maple (Acer
422
4
macrophyllum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), western sycamore (Platanus
racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willows (Salix spp.) and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). As
a shrubland, emergent trees may be present at low cover.
Areas with Arroyo Willow Thickets vegetation are present within approximately 0.50 acre of the Project site within
Survey Area 18. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include California
blackberry (Rubus ursinus), arroyo willow, and black willow (Salix gooddingii).
Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub
Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub is found on steep slopes of variable aspects with alluvial or
colluvial derived soils (Sawyer et al. 2009). California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Ashy Buckwheat (Eriogonum
cinereum) and/or purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), are dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with chamise
(Adenostoma fasciculatum), coyote brush, orange bush monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), California bush
sunflower (Encelia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), interior golden bush (Ericameria linearifolia), golden
yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), coast golden bush (Isocoma menziesii), southern honeysuckle (Lonicera
subspicata), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia),
sage (Salvia spp.), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Emergent trees or tall shrubs may be present at low
cover, including southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and blue
elderberry.
Areas with Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub vegetation are present within approximately
1.02 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32. Native plant species found on the Project
site typical of this vegetation community include California sagebrush, orange bush monkeyflower, California bush
sunflower, ashy buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), purple sage (Salvia
leucophylla), and black sage (Salvia mellifera).
Black Sage Scrub
Black Sage Scrub is found along dry slopes and alluvial fans with shallow soils (Sawyer et al. 2009). Black sage is dominant
or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with chamise, California sagebrush, coyote brush, orange bush monkeyflower,
California bush sunflower, buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.) deerweed (Lotus scoparius), Chaparral bush mallow
(Malacothamnus fasciculatus), laurel sumac, prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), and lemonade berry. Emergent trees may be
present at low cover.
Areas with Black Sage Scrub vegetation are present within approximately 0.82 acre of the Project site within Survey
Area 20. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include California
sagebrush, California bush sunflower, California buckwheat, and black sage.
Giant Wild Rye Grassland
Giant Wild Rye Grassland is found on moderately steep slopes at low elevations with loam soils (Sawyer et al. 2009).
Giant wild rye (Elymus condensatus) is dominant or co-dominant in the herbaceous layer with non-native wild oat
(Avena fatua), black mustard (Brassica nigra), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), field
mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and cliff aster (Malacothrix saxatilis). Native shrubs include California sagebrush, coyote
brush, and purple sage. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including trees southern California black walnut
and coast live oak.
Areas with Giant Wild Rye Grassland vegetation are present within approximately 0.39 acre of the Project site within
Survey Area 20. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community include giant wild
423
5
rye and coyote brush. Non-native species include black mustard, foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis subsp. madritensis),
and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis).
Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral
Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral is found along steep north facing slopes with soils derived from bedrock or
colluvium (Sawyer et al. 2009). Holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with
California sagebrush, Chaparral clematis (Clematis lasiantha), orange bush monkeyflower, California buckwheat,
California ash (Fraxinus dipetala), chaparral beard tongue (Keckiella spp.), oak (Quercus spp.) and black sage. Emergent
trees may be present at low cover, including southern California black walnut and coast live oak.
Areas with Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral vegetation are present within approximately 0.22 acre of the Project
site within Survey Areas 23 and 27. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community
include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), laurel sumac, California man-root (Marah fabacea), and holly leaf cherry.
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Laurel Sumac Scrub is found along often steep slopes with soils that are shallow and fine textured (Sawyer et al. 2009).
Laurel sumac dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with California sagebrush, orange bush monkey flower,
California bush sunflower, buckwheat, toyon, lemonade berry, and poison oak. Emergent trees or tall shrubs may be
present at low cover, including southern California black walnut, western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak,
and blue elderberry.
Areas with Laurel Sumac Scrub vegetation are present within approximately 0.05 acre of the Project site within Survey
Area 18. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included laurel sumac and
coyote brush.
Lemonade Berry Scrub
Lemonade Berry Scrub is found along gentle to abrupt slopes and coastal bluffs of variable aspects with loam and clay
soils (Sawyer et al. 2009). Lemonade berry is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with chamise, California
sagebrush, orange bush monkeyflower, California bush sunflower, ashy buckwheat, California buckwheat, chaparral
Yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei), toyon, chaparral bush mallow, laurel sumac, sage (Salvia spp.), and blue elderberry.
Shrubs are typically less than 16 feet in height. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including southern
California black walnut and coast live oak. Canopy is open to continuous, two tiered with an open herbaceous layer.
Areas with Lemonade Berry Scrub vegetation are present within approximately 59.84 acres of the Project site within
Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Native plant species found on the
Project site typical of this vegetation community included California sagebrush, orange bush monkeyflower, toyon,
purple sage, and blue elderberry.
Non-Native Vegetation Communities and Other Areas
Himalayan Blackberry Brambles
Himalayan Blackberry Brambles are found in a variety of habitat types including pastures, roadsides, streams, fence
lines, and mesic disturbed areas (Sawyer et al. 2009). Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) is dominant or co-
dominant in the shrub canopy. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including white alder (Alnus rhombifolia),
Fremont cottonwood, coast live oak and red willow (Salix laevigata).
Areas with Himalayan Blackberry Brambles vegetation are present within approximately 0.08 acre of the Project site
within Survey Areas 18 and 19. No other plants were observed within this vegetation community.
424
6
Ornamental Landscaping
Ornamental Landscaping includes areas where the vegetation is dominated by non-native horticultural plants (Gray and
Bramlet 1992). Typically, the species composition consists of introduced trees, shrubs, flowers and turf grass.
Areas with Ornamental Landscaping are present within approximately 12.38 acres of the Project site within Survey
Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34. Pla nt species found on the project site typical of this
community include: Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus
terebinthifolius), oleander (Nerium oleander), English ivy (Hedera helix), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), cyclops
acacia (Acacia cyclops), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.), Shamel ash (Fraxinus
uhdei), pomegranate (Punica granatum), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia
robusta). Native species including lemonade berry, laurel sumac, or toyon were also observed.
Ruderal
Areas classified as Ruderal tend to be dominated by pioneering herbaceous species that readily colonize disturbed
ground and that are typically found in temporary, often frequently disturbed habitats (Barbour et al. 1999). The soils
in ruderal areas are typically characterized as heavily compacted or frequently disturbed. The vegetation in these areas
is adapted to living in compact soils where water does not readily penetrate the soil. Often, Ruderal areas are
dominated by species of the Centaurea, Brassica, Malva, Salsola, Eremocarpus, Amaranthus, and Atriplex genera.
There were approximately 34.24 acres of Ruderal vegetation present within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24,
25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Plant species found on the project site include: Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus
subsp. pycnocephalus), tocalote, prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper subsp. asper), black mustard, shortpod mustard
(Hirschfeldia incana), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), giant reed (Arundo donax), ripgut grass, and foxtail chess.
Shamel Ash Grove
Shamel Ash Groves are found within disturbed riparian corridors with alluvial soils. Shamel Ash is the dominant species
in the tree canopy. Shamal Ash is native to Mexico and currently listed on the California Invasive Plant Councils
Assessment list (Cal-IPC 2022).
Shamel Ash Groves are present within approximately 0.91 acre of the Project site within Survey Areas 26, 32, and 33.
No native plant species were observed within this plant community on site.
Barren
Barren areas, as described by (Gray and Bramlet 1992), are devoid or mostly devoid of vegetation due to disking,
grading, or other human activities.
Barren areas are present within approximately 1.24 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 18, 19, 26, 28, and 31.
Developed
Developed areas are areas that have been altered by humans and now display man-made structures such as houses,
paved roads, buildings, parks, and other maintained areas.
Developed areas are present within approximately 1.65 acres of the Project site within Survey Areas 3, 4, 18, 23, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, and 30.
General Plants
A total of 85 plant species were observed within the Survey Area during the biological reconnaissance survey
(Attachment 3: Plant Species Observed). Plant species observed during the survey were representative of the existing
Survey Area conditions. No special status plant species were observed during the survey.
425
7
General Wildlife
A total of 15 wildlife species were observed within the Survey Area during the biological reconnaissance survey. Wildlife
species observed or detected during the survey were characteristic of the existing Survey Area conditions. No sensitive
wildlife was observed during the survey effort. A complete list of wildlife species observed or detected is provided in
Attachment 4: Wildlife Species Observed/Detected List.
Sensitive Species
Special Status Species
The following information is a list of abbreviations used to help determine special status biological resources
potentially occurring in the Survey Area.
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
1A = Plants presumed extinct in California.
1B = Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range.
2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their
range.
3 = Plants about which we need more information, a review list.
4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.
CRPR Extensions
0.1 = Seriously endangered in California (greater than 80 percent of occurrences
threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat).
0.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened).
0.3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened).
Federal
FE = Federally listed; Endangered
FT = Federally listed; Threatened
State
ST = State listed; Threatened
SE = State listed; Endangered
RARE = State listed; Rare (Listed “Rare” animals have been re-designated as Threatened, but Rare
plants have retained the Rare designation.)
SSC = State Species of Special Concern
WL = CDFW Watch List
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
The following information was used to determine biological resources potentially occurring within the Survey Area. The
location of prior CNDDB and USFWS records of occurrence were used as additional data, but since the CNDDB is a
positive-sighting database; this data was used only in support of the analysis from the previously identified factors. The
PFO was determined through a combination of these databases and habitat quality identified during field survey efforts.
The criteria used to evaluate the potential for special status species to occur within the Survey Area are outlined in
Table 1.
426
8
Table 1: Criteria for Evaluating Special Status Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO)
PFO* CRITERIA
Absent: Species is restricted to habitats or environmental conditions that do not occur within the Project
site.
Low:
Historical records for this species do not exist within the vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the
Project site, and/or habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are of
poor quality.
Moderate:
Either a historical record exists of the species within the vicinity of the Project site
(approximately 5 miles) and marginal habitat exists on the Survey Area, or the habitat
requirements or environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Survey
Area, but no historical records exist within 5 miles of the Project site.
High:
Both a historical record exists of the species within the Survey Area or its immediate vicinity
(approximately 1 mile), and the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated
with the species occur within the Survey Area.
Present: Species was detected within the Survey Area at the time of the survey.
*PFO: Potential for Occurrence
Special Status Plant Species
Database searches (CDFW 2022; CNPS 2022) resulted in a list of 24 federally and/or state-listed threatened,
endangered, CRPR 1 through 3, or otherwise special status plant species documented to historically occur within the
vicinity of the Survey Area. Of the 24 plant species that resulted from the database search, it was determined that 20
species are considered absent from the Survey Area due to lack of suitable habitat. Four special status plant species
have a moderate to high potential to occur on site. No special status plant species were found during the biological
reconnaissance survey.
The following 18 plant species are considered Absent from the Survey Area due to lack of sandy soils and suitable
marsh, alkali scrub, vernal pool, coastal dune, coast bluff scrub habitat:
• aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) – CRPR 1B.2
• Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri) – CRPR 1B.2
• south coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) – CRPR 1B.2
• Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii) – CRPR 1B.1
• Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) – CRPR 1B.2
• smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens subsp. laevis) – CRPR 1B.1
• salt marsh bird’s beak (Chloropyron maritimum subsp. maritimum) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.2
• island green dudleya (Dudleya virens subsp. insularis) – CRPR 1B.2
• San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.1
427
9
• mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) – CRPR 1B.1
• decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens) – CRPR 1B.2
• Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata subsp. coulteri) – CRPR 1B.1
• Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei) – CRPR 3.1
• mud nama (Nama stenocarpa) – CRPR 2B.2
• prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) – CRPR 1B.2
• coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata) – CRPR 1B.2
• Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) – CRPR 1B.1
• estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa) – CRPR 1B.2
• salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) – CRPR 2B.2
• San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) – CRPR 1B.2
The following four special status plant species have a Moderate to High potential to occur within one or more of the
Survey Areas on site:
• Lewis' evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) – CRPR 3
• southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. australis) – CRPR 1B.1
• Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum) – CRPR 1B.2
• Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.1
Lewis’ evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) – CRPR 3
Lewis’ evening-primrose is a CRPR 3 species in the Onagraceae family. This annual herb flowers between March
and May and has been known to flower as late as June. Habitats include sandy areas or clay soils of coastal bluff
scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations
upwards of 1,000 feet amsl. Known ranges include Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego counties, and Baja California.
Although there have not been any historical occurrences of this species found within 5 miles of the Survey Area,
there is a moderate potential for this species to be found within one or more of the following habitats onsite:
Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Lemonade Berry Scrub, and/or
Giant Wild Rye Grassland. These habitat types occur within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) – CRPR 1B.1
Southern tarplant is a CRPR 1B.1 species in the Asteraceae family. This annual herb flowers between May and November
in seasonally moist saline soils of marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations
upwards to 1,575 feet amsl. Known ranges include: Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Ventura counties,
Santa Catalina Island, and Baja California. This species has been known to grow intertwined with slender tarweed
(Deinandra fasiculata), a common tarweed that can look similar to the untrained eye. Threats to southern tarplant
include: urbanization, vehicles, development, and foot traffic. This species has been historically known to occur within
3 miles of the Survey Area and there is a high potential for this species to be found within the understory of the Arroyo
Willow Thickets in Survey Area 18 or 19.
Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum) – CRPR 1B.1
428
10
Catalina crossosoma is a CRPR 1B.2 species in the Crossosomataceae family. This deciduous shrub flowers between
February and May in dry, rocky soils and canyons of chaparral and coastal scrub at elevations upwards to 1,640 feet
amsl. Known ranges include: Los Angeles County, San Clemente and Santa Catalina islands, and Isla Guadalupe in Baja
California. Catalina crossosoma is threatened by development on the mainland, but it is recovering on San Clemente
Island. This species has been historically known to occur within 5 miles of the Survey Area and there is a high potential
for this species to be found within one or more of the following habitats onsite: Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush
– Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral, Laurel Sumac Scrub, and/or Lemonade
Berry Scrub. These habitat types occur within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, and 33.
Lyon’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii) – FE, CE, CRPR 1B.1
Lyon’s pentachaeta is a federal- and state-listed endangered and CRPR 1B.1 species in the Asteraceae family. This
annual herb flowers between March and August on dry coastal habitats. Habitat includes chaparral openings, coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations between 100 to 2,265 feet amsl. The known range of this species
exists in Los Angeles and Ventura counties and Santa Catalina Island. This species has been historically known to occur
within 5 miles of the Survey Area and there is a high potential for this species to be found within one or more of the
following habitats onsite: Ashy Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Holly Leaf
Cherry – Toyon Chaparral, Laurel Sumac Scrub, Lemonade Berry Scrub, and/or Giant Wild Rye Grassland. These habitat
types occur within Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Database searches (CDFW 2022; USFWS 2022c) resulted in a list of 29 federally and/or state listed endangered or
threatened, State Species of Concern, or otherwise special status wildlife species documented to occur within the
Survey Area. After a literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types within the Survey Area, it was
determined that 19 special status wildlife species are considered absent, seven species are considered to have a low
potential to occur, one species is considered to have a moderate potential to occur, and two species are considered to
have a high potential to occur.
The following 19 wildlife species are considered Absent from the Survey Area due to the absence of suitable habitat
present within the site:
• tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) - ST, SSC
• burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – SSC
• western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) - FT, SSC
• yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) - SSC
• southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) - FE, SE
• western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) - SSC
• American badger (Taxidea taxus) - SSC
• California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) - ST, FP
• south coast marsh vole (Microtus californicus stephensi) - SSC
• San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) - SSC
• pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) - SSC
• big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) - SSC
429
11
• Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) - SE
• Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) - FE, SSC
• bank swallow (Riparia riparia) - ST
• Mohave tui chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis) - FE, SE
• southern California saltmarsh shrew (Sorex ornatus salicornicus) - SSC
• western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) – SSC
• California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) - FE, SE
The analysis of the CNDDB search and field survey resulted in seven species with a low potential to occur on the Project
site:
• cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus)
• western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) - FT, SE
• western mastiff batt (Eumops perotis californicus) - SSC
• El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) – FE
• Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis)
• coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) - SSC
• Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) - FE
The analysis of the CNDDB search and field survey resulted in one species with a moderate potential to occur on the
Project site. The southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) has a moderate potential to occur and is described
below:
The southern California legless lizard is an SSC and can be found in a wide variety of habitats, which include broadleaved
upland forest, chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. This species can generally be found in moist loose soils,
preferring soils with high moisture content (CNDDB 2022). Moderate suitable habitat is present within the Ashy
Buckwheat – California Sagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub, Black Sage Scrub, Holly Leaf Cherry – Toyon Chaparral, Laurel
Sumac Scrub, and Lemonade Berry Scrub communities within sites 1, 3, 4, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 33, and
historical records show this species within 3 miles of the Project site. Therefore, this species has a moderate potential
to occur on the Project site.
The analysis of the CNDDB search and the field survey resulted in two species with a high potential to occur within the
Project site. The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus) have a high potential to occur and are described below:
The coastal California gnatcatcher is a FT and SSC species. Its range extends from southern Ventura County, California
south to Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 1997). This species is found in scrub dominated plant communities, specially
known as a permanent resident in coastal sage scrub communities below 2,500 feet in southern California (CNDDB
2022). Moderate suitable habitat is present within the coastal sage scrub at sites 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 31, and 33. In
addition, this species has been recorded within one mile of the Project site, with multiple occurrences recorded as close
as 0.5 miles of the Project site. Therefore, this species has a high potential to occur on the Project site.
The least Bell’s vireo is a FE and SE species. This species winters in southern Mexico and breeds in southern California,
beginning to arrive mid-March to early April (USFWS 2001). This species is found in riparian forests, riparian woodlands,
and riparian scrub. This species can be found near dry river bottoms and in low riparian areas near water (CNDDB 2022).
430
12
Suitable habitat is present within the riparian habitat occurring at the edges of sites 4, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33.
Although no water was present during the survey, these areas can potentially provide quality habitat during the
breeding season. In addition, this species has been recorded within one mile of the Project site. Therefore, this species
has a high potential to occur within the Project site.
United States Fish Wildlife Service Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat is defined as areas of land, water, and air space containing the physical and biological features essential
for the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species. Designated Critical Habitat includes sites for
breeding and rearing, movement or migration, feeding, roosting, cover, and shelter. Designated Critical Habitats require
special management and protection of existing resources, including water quality and quantity, host animals and plants,
food availability, pollinators, sunlight, and specific soil types. Designated Critical Habitat delineates all suitable habitat,
occupied or not, that is essential to the survival and recovery of the species. According to the USFWS Critical Habitat
WebGIS map, the Project site occurs within designated coastal California gnatcatcher Critical Habitat (USFWS 2022b
and 2022c). In addition, Critical Habitat for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly is present within 1.4 miles of the Project site
to the west and 1.25 miles southeast of the Project site (Attachment 1: Figure 4 – USFWS Critical Habitat Map). Survey
Areas 20 and 21 are located along the designated boundaries of the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP); however, the sites are contained within the City of Rolling
Hills and immediately outside of the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP boundary.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Hydrology
Several aquatic features were observed within the various sites in the Survey Area. All sites except for 21, 25, 28, and
34 contain ephemeral drainages within the property boundaries. However, these features all occur in lower lying
portions of the sites and do not occur in the proposed impact areas. No work is anticipated to occur within or directly
adjacent to these features and all the features can be avoided with the use of Best Management Practices including
straw wattle and/or silt fencing. If any construction activities associated with the development of this Project could
potentially impact any of the features, a Jurisdictional Delineation must be conducted to determine agency jurisdiction,
and applications for a USACE 404 permit, State 401 certification, or CDFW State Streambed Alteration Agreement may
be required for Project authorization.
Special Status Plant Species
Following the literature review and after the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, it was
determined that 24 special status plant species are known to historically occur within the Survey Area. Due to a lack of
suitable soils and habitats, 20 of these species were considered absent within the Survey Area. Four species were found
to have a moderate to high potential to occur within one or more of the Survey Areas. Lewis’ evening-primrose, Catalina
crossosoma, and Lyon’s pentachaeta have potential to occur in Survey Areas 1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Southern tarplant has potential to occur in Survey Areas 18 and 19. No special status
species were found during the biological reconnaissance survey.
Several of the plant species would have been flowering at the time of the survey; however, only a reconnaissance-level
survey was conducted and to confirm presence or absence of these species, protocol-level focused plant surveys may
be required. The focused plant surveys within suitable habitats should be conducted during the appropriate blooming
period for each of the species with a moderate or high potential to occur. All of these species are protected under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and one is a federal and state-listed as endangered species. Mitigation is
likely required should one or more of these special status plant species be found to occur during focused surveys within
431
13
the proposed impact areas: southern tarplant, Catalina crossosoma or Lyon’s pentachaeta. Focused plant surveys are
also recommended for Lewis’ evening-primrose, though not required as the rare plant ranking for this species is a 3, a
plant about which more information is needed.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Following the literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, it was determined
that of the 29 special status wildlife species known to occur within the Project area, 19 species are considered absent
from the Survey Area, seven species are considered to have a low potential to occur, one species is considered to have
a moderate potential to occur, and two species are considered to have a high potential to occur.
Three of the wildlife species with a moderate or high potential to occur are federally or state listed threatened or
endangered species. Although, these species were not detected during the biological reconnaissance survey;
presence/absence surveys are recommended for each species.
Although impacts to aquatic features and associated riparian habitat is not anticipated, focused surveys for least Bell’s
vireo should be completed at the following Survey Areas within the Project site prior to start of construction activities:
sites 4, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33. Focused surveys should be conducted during the breeding season between April
10 to July 31 in accordance with the Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001).
Although no formal protocol exists for the southern California legless lizard, preconstruction clearance surveys for this
species should be conducted at the following Survey Areas prior to the start of construction: sites 1, 3, 4, 18, 20, 24, 26,
28, 29, 30, 32 and 33. This may include full coverage presence/absence surveys within suitable habitat, and raking
surveys (i.e., hand raking in areas of sandy, loose and moist soils typically under sparse vegetation) for legless lizards.
Because sites 1, 3, 4, 18-21, 25-28, and 31-34 occur within designated coastal California gnatcatcher Critical Habitat,
focused surveys will be required and completed within the Project site prior to the start of construction activities.
Focused surveys should be conducted during breeding season (February 15 to August 31) in accordance with the USFWS
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997).
If California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and southern California legless lizard are detected during the surveys,
coordination with USFWS and/or CDFW will be required prior to the start of construction.
To minimize potential impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and nesting birds protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), construction activities should take place outside of nesting season (February 15
to September 1), to the greatest extent practicable.
If construction activities occur during nesting season, preconstruction surveys and biological monitoring should be
conducted. A qualified biologist should conduct and submit a migratory nesting bird and raptor survey report. The
survey should occur no more than seven days prior to initiation of Project activities, and any occupied passerine and/or
raptor nests occurring within or adjacent to the impact area should be delineated. Additional follow-up surveys may be
required by the resource agencies. To the maximum extent practicable, a minimum buffer zone around occupied nests
should be maintained during physical ground-disturbing activities. The buffer zone should be sufficient in size to prevent
impacts to the nest. Once nesting has ceased, the buffer may be removed.
432
14
Please contact me at (949) 261-5414 ext. 7232 if you have any questions or concerns regarding this memo report.
Sincerely,
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
Heather Franklin
Project Biologist
hfranklin@chambersgroupinc.com
(949) 261-5414 ext. 7232
Attachments
Attachment 1: Figure 1 – Project Location and Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Survey Area Map
Figure 3 – CNDDB Occurrences Map
Figure 4 – USFWS Critical Habitat Map
Figure 5 – USDA Soils Map
Figure 6 – Watersheds Map
Figure 7 – FEMA Flood Hazard Map
Figure 8 – Jurisdictional Waters Map
Attachment 2: Vegetation Communities
Attachment 3: Plant Species Observed
Attachment 4: Wildlife Species Observed/Detected
Attachment 5: Site Photographs
433
15
References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors)
2012 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz
1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2022 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 3.1.0. Database Query for the San
Pedro, Torrance, Redondo Beach, Venice, Inglewood, South Gate, and Long Beach, California
USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2022 Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Rare Plant Program, California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, California. Accessed July 2021 from https://www.rareplants.cnps.org for the Torrance
and San Pedro, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles.
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)
2022 California Invasive Plant Council Inventory. www.cal-ipc.org. University of California Press.
Berkeley, California.
Gray, J. and D. Bramlet
1992 Habitat Classification System, Natural Resources, Geographic Information System (GIS) Project.
County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, CA.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens
2009 A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
California.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2022 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Official Soil Series Descriptions Accessed July 2022 from
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
1997 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica): Presence/Absence Survey
Guidelines. Unpublished Paper. Sacramento, CA.
2001 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, Carlsbad, CA. 3pp.
2022a National Wetland Inventory (NWI). http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed July 2022.
434
16
2022b Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Accessed online at:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://services.arcgis.com/QVENGdaPbd
4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/USFWS_Critical_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd July 2022.
2022c Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) List. Accessed July 2022 from
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ZALE5YY4IFD43LVU6XKDY5CUDI/resources.
435
ATTACHMENT 1 – FIGURES 436
CrestRdSilver
S
purRd
I
n
d
i
a
n
P
e
akRd Palos Verdes Dr N
W 1st
S
t
PalosVerdes
Dr
S Mi
ral
esteDrPalosVerdesDrERollingHillsRdCrestridge Rd CrenshawBlvdUV107
SanBernardino
Kern
SanLuisObispo
Ventura
Santa Barbara
RiversideOrange
Los Angeles
San Diego
1:200,000 1:5,000,000
Figure 1
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Project Location
Name: 21330 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location.Mxd
Print Date: 6/21/2022 12:21:39 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet
´
Project Location
Project Location
437
PalosVerdesDrN
CrenshawBlvd1
3
4
18
19
2021
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 33
34
Name: 21330 BIO Fig 2 Survey Area.Mxd
Print Date: 7/13/2022 4:06:18 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
´
Survey Area Figure 2
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Survey Area
438
3mi5mi1mi4238
28
39
28
29
46
41
38
4534 36
35
43
32
40
31
4848
48
47
38
37
48
28
48
28
28
28 28
44
33
8
14
25
13
4
1
26
24
22
5
18
6
19
15
5
5
20
13
5
24
21
5
10
5
14
5
5
12
11
10
14
14 14
14 3
3
20
16
19
12
20
20
6
12
5
12
20
5
5
5
5 55 5
5
5
55
5
5
7
7
55
14
5 5 5
5
5 5
5 55
5 5 5
5 5 55555 55 5
5 5 5
5
5 55
5 5
5
5
55
5
23
5 55 5
7
9
5
14
14
3
7
7
7
14
7
5
555
5
5
5
5
5
55
5
14
14
7
5
5
27
14
5
Name: 21330 BIO Fig 3 Sensitive Species Occurrences Within 5 Miles.Mxd
Print Date: 7/14/2022 4:37:20 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1 20.5
Miles
´CNDDB Occurrences
Animals
Plants
Figure 3
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Sensitive Species Occurrences Within 5 Miles
Survey Area
USFWS Occurrences
Animals 13. Pacific pocket mouse 26. western yellow-billed cuckoo 38. Lyon's pentachaeta
1. bank swallow 14. Palos Verdes blue butterfly 27. yellow-billed cuckoo 39. mesa horkelia
2. cactus wren 15. pocketed free-tailed bat Plants 40. mud nama
3. California least tern 16. Riverside fairy shrimp 28. aphanisma 41. Parish's brittlescale
4. coast horned lizard 17. San Diego desert woodrat 29. Brand's star phacelia 42. prostrate vernal pool navarretia
5. coastal California gnatcatcher 18. San Gabriel chestnut 30. Catalina crossosoma 43. salt marsh bird's-beak
6. Crotch bumble bee 19. sandy beach tiger beetle 31. coast woolly-heads 44. Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn
7. El Segundo blue butterfly 20. Southern California legless lizard 32. Coulter's goldfields 45. smooth tarplant
8. El Segundo flower-loving fly 21. tricolored blackbird 33. Coulter's saltbush 46. south coast saltscale
9. least Bell's vireo 22. western beach tiger beetle 34. Davidson's saltscale 47. Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub
10. mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) 23. western snowy plover 35. decumbent goldenbush 48. southern tarplant
11. Mohave tui chub 24. western spadefoot 36. estuary seablite
12. monarch - California overwintering population 25. western tidal-flat tiger beetle 37. island green dudleya
439
3mi5mi1mi1
1
1
1
1
1
2
22
Name: 21330 BIO Fig 4 USFWS Critical Habitat.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 12:45:02 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1 20.5
Miles
´
Figure 4
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
USFWS Critical Habitat
Survey Area
USFWS Critical Habitat
1. Coastal California gnatcatcher
2. Palos Verdes blue butterfly
440
1172
1178
1272
1272
1273 1172
11721172
1272
1179
1177
1172
1271
1271
1271
1172
1172
1271 1271
1271
1169
1168
1
3
4
18
19
2021
22 23
24
25
26
27
2829
30
31
32 33
34
Name: 21330 BIO Fig 5 USDA Soils.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 11:51:25 AM Author: pcarlos
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
´USDA Soils
1168
1169
1172
1177
1178
1179
1271
1272
1273
Figure 5
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
USDA Soils
Survey Area
USDA Soils
1168 - Haploxerepts, 10 to 35 percent
slopes
1169 - Lunada-San Benito, warm
complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes
1172 - Lunada-Zaca complex, 30 to 75
percent slopes
1177 - Mollic Haploxeralfs, coastal-
Topdeck-Urban land complex, 20 to 55
percent slopes
1178 - Oceanaire-Filiorum complex, 10
to 35 percent slopes
1179 - Zaca-Ballast complex, 10 to 50
percent slopes
1180 - Pits and Quarries
1271 - Urban land-Dapplegray
complex, 5 to 20 percent slopes,
terraced
1272 - Dapplegray-Urban land
complex, 10 to 35 percent slopes,
terraced
1273 - Dapplegray-Urban land-Lunada
complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes
441
Frontal Santa MonicaBay-San Pedro Bay1807010405
DominguezChannel1807010601
Alamitos Bay-SanPedro Bay1807010607
Name: 21330 BIO Fig 6 Watersheds.Mxd
Print Date: 7/14/2022 12:12:40 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1 20.5
Miles
´
Figure 6
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Watershed
Survey Area
Watershed (HUC 10)
442
Zone VE
Zone D
1
3
4
18
19
2021
22 23
24
25
26
27
2829
30
31
32 33
34
Name: 21330 BIO Fig 7 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones.Mxd
Print Date: 7/14/2022 12:25:57 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet
´FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Figure 7
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Survey Area
443
1
3
4
18
19
2021
22 23
24
25
26
27
2829
30
31
32 33
34
Name: 21330 BIO Fig 8 Jurisdictional Waters NWI and NHD.Mxd
Print Date: 7/14/2022 12:25:15 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet
´
NWI
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
Figure 8
City of Rolling Hills
Housing Element Update
Jurisdictional Waters NWI and NHD
Survey Area
NHD
Artificial Path
Coastline
Connector
Pipeline
Stream/River
444
ATTACHMENT 2 – VEGETATION COMMUNITIES MAP 445
CrestR d
SilverSpurRdIndian
P
e
a
k
RdPalos Verdes Dr N
M ir a le s te D rRollingHillsRdP a lo s V e rd e s D rS CrenshawBlvdPalosVerdesDrEUV107
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
11
9
6
12
13
14
15
Attachment 2Housing and Safety Elem ent UpdatesVegetation Com m unitiesOverview
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet
Nam e: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Com m unities.MxdPrint Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Com m unities
1. Ruderal
2. Barren
3. Ornam ental Landscaping
4. Developed
5. Sham el Ash Grove
6. Lem onade Berry Scrub
7. Holly Leaf Cherry – T oy on Chaparral
8. Black Sage Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw heat – CaliforniaSagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub10. Laurel Sum ac Scrub
11. Giant Wild Ry e Grassland
12. Him alay an Black Berry Bram bles
13. Arroy o Willow T hickets
446
CrenshawBlvd5
1
1
19
6
6
3
31
32
33
34
Attachment 2Ho using and Safety Element Up datesV egetatio n Co mmunitiesPage 1 o f 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 V egetatio n Co mmunities.MxdPrint Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Autho r: p carlo s
´
Survey Area
V egetatio n Co mmunities
1. Ruderal
3. Ornamental Landscap ing
5. Shamel Ash Gro ve
6. Lemo nade Berry Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw heat – Califo rniaSagebrush – Purp le Sage Scrub
447
1
1
5
9
9
6
6
6
32
33
Attachment 2Ho using and Safety Element Up datesV egetatio n Co mmunitiesPage 2 o f 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 V egetatio n Co mmunities.MxdPrint Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Autho r: p carlo s
´
Survey Area
V egetatio n Co mmunities
1. Ruderal
5. Shamel Ash Gro ve
6. Lemo nade Berry Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw heat – Califo rniaSagebrush – Purp le Sage Scrub
448
3
2
2
1
1
9 66
6
31
32
33
Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 3 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos
´
Survey Area
Vegeta tion Communities
1. Rudera l
2. Ba rren
3. Orna menta l La ndsca p ing
6. Lemona de Berry Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub
449
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6 6
31
32
33
Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 4 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos
´
Survey Area
Vegeta tion Communities
1. Rudera l
2. Ba rren
6. Lemona de Berry Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub
450
9
2
9
9
3
39
6
9
96
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
2
1
28
29
30
Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 5 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos
´
Survey Area
Vegeta tion Communities
1. Rudera l
2. Ba rren
3. Orna menta l La ndsca p ing
6. Lemona de Berry Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub
451
33
6
32
5
4
3
4
26
Attachment 2
Housing and Safety Element Updates
Vegetation Communities
Page 6 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
2. Barren
3. Ornamental Landscaping
4. Developed
5. Shamel Ash Grove
6. Lemonade Berry Scrub
452
Pal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
3
3
6
1
1
1
4
22
24
Attachment 2
Housing and Safety Element Updates
Vegetation Communities
Page 7 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
1. Ruderal
3. Ornamental Landscaping
4. Developed
6. Lemonade Berry Scrub
453
3
4
3
1
1
3
3
6
3
9
1
6
3
6
41
1
6
2 3
3
3
25
27
Attachment 2Housing a nd Sa fety Element Up da tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 8 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities.MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: p ca rlos
´
Survey Area
Vegeta tion Communities
1. Rudera l
2. Ba rren
3. Orna menta l La ndsca p ing
4. Develop ed
6. Lemona de Berry Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw hea t – Ca liforniaSa gebrush – Purp le Sa ge Scrub
454
1
1
10
4
1
1
1
1
13
21
1
2
4
1
13
2
13
13
6
6
1
8
6
6
9
18
Attachment 2Ho usin g an d Safety Elemen t UpdatesV egetatio n Co mmun itiesPage 9 o f 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 V egetatio n Co mmun ities.MxdPrin t Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Autho r: pcarlo s
´
Survey Area
V egetatio n Co mmun ities
1. Ruderal
2. Barren
4. Develo ped
6. Lemo n ade Berry Scrub
8. Black Sage Scrub
9. Ashy Buckw heat – Califo rn iaSagebrush – Purple Sage Scrub10. Laurel Sumac Scrub
13. Arro yo Willo w Thickets
455
Palos Verdes Dr N
3
6
6
7 1
4
622
23
Attachment 2Hous ing a nd Sa fety Element Upda tesVegeta tion CommunitiesPa ge 10 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Na me: 21330 BIO Atta ch 2 Vegeta tion Communities .MxdPrint Da te: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pca rlos
´
Survey Area
Vegeta tion Communities
1. Rudera l
3. Orna menta l La nds ca ping
4. Developed
6. Lemona de Berry Scrub
7. Holly Lea f Cherry – Toyon Cha pa rra l
456
3
34
3
6
1
1 6
6
6
3
86
25
Attachment 2
Housing and Safety Element Updates
Vegetation Communities
Page 11 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
1. Ruderal
3. Ornamental Landscaping
4. Developed
6. Lemonade Berry Scrub
8. Black Sage Scrub
457
1 3 1
61
Attachment 2
Housing and Safety Element Updates
Vegetation Communities
Page 12 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
1. Ruderal
3. Ornamental Landscaping
6. Lemonade Berry Scrub
458
1
12
3
6
31
3
12
2
6
1
3
19
Attachment 2
Housing and Safety Element Updates
Vegetation Communities
Page 13 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
1. Ruderal
2. Barren
3. Ornamental Landscaping
6. Lemonade Berry Scrub
12. Himalayan Black Berry Brambles
459
8
11
3
11
6
83 1336
8
1
11
1
3
33 6
6
2021
Attachment 2
Housing and Safety Element Updates
Vegetation Communities
Page 14 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
1. Ruderal
3. Ornamental Landscaping
6. Lemonade Berry Scrub
8. Black Sage Scrub
11. Giant Wild Rye Grassland
460
134
3
33
6
1 4
33
1
1
3
43
6
3
4
Attachment 2
Housing and Safety Element Updates
Vegetation Communities
Page 15 of 15
0 200 400100
Feet
Name: 21330 BIO Attach 2 Vegetation Communities.Mxd
Print Date: 7/18/2022 4:34:15 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
1. Ruderal
3. Ornamental Landscaping
4. Developed
6. Lemonade Berry Scrub
461
ATTACHMENT 3 – PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED 462
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21330
Attachment 3. Plant Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name
GYMNOSPERMS
PINACEAE PINE FAMILY
Pinus halepensis* Aleppo pine
ANGIOSPERMS (EUDICOTS)
ADOXACEAE MUSKROOT FAMILY
Sambucus nigra blue elderberry
ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Malosma laurina laurel sumac
Rhus integrifolia lemonadeberry
Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree
Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree
Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak
APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY
Foeniculum vulgare* fennel
APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY
Asclepias fascicularis narrow-leaf milkweed
Nerium oleander* oleander
ARALIACEAE GINSENG FAMILY
Hedera helix* English ivy
ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush
Carduus pycnocephalus subsp. pycnocephalus* Italian thistle
Centaurea melitensis* tocalote
Encelia californica California bush sunflower
Erigeron foliosus leafy daisy
Eriophyllum confertiflorum golden yarrow
Glebionis coronaria* garland daisy
Helminthotheca echioides* bristly ox-tongue
Malacothrix saxatilis cliff malacothrix
Silybum marianum* milk thistle
Sonchus asper subsp. asper* prickly sow thistle
BIGNONIACEAE BIGNONIA FAMILY
Jacaranda mimosifolia* jacaranda
BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
Echium candicans* pride of Madeira
BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica nigra* black mustard
Hirschfeldia incana* shortpod mustard
463
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21330
Scientific Name Common Name
BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Raphanus sativus* radish
CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY
Opuntia ficus-indica* mission prickly pear
Opuntia littorailis coast prickly pear
CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
Symphoricarpos sp. snowberry
CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Salsola tragus* Russian thistle
CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY
Marah fabacea coast wild cucumber
EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Ricinus communis* castor-bean
FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY
Acacia cyclops* cyclops acacia
Lupinus albifrons var. albifrons silver bush lupine
Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine
Melilotus indica* sourclover
FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia coast live oak
GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY
Geranium rotundifolium* round-leaved geranium
HAMAMELIDACEAE WITCH-HAZEL FAMILY
Liquidambar styraciflua* sweet gum
LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
Marrubium vulgare* horehound
Salvia leucophylla purple sage
Salvia mellifera black sage
MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY
Malva parviflora* cheeseweed
MYRSINACEAE MYRSINE FAMILY
Anagallis [Lysimachia] arvensis* scarlet pimpernel
MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus globulus* blue gum
NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY
Bougainvillea sp.* bougainvillea
OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY
Fraxinus uhdei* Shamel ash
Olea europaea* olive
ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
464
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21330
Scientific Name Common Name
Epilobium canum California fuchsia
PHRYMACEAE LOPSEED FAMILY
Diplacus aurantiacus orange bush monkeyflower
PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY
Keckiella cordifolia heart leaved keckiella
POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum cinereum ashy buckwheat, coastal wild buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
PUNICACEAE POMEGRANATE FAMILY
Punica granatum* pomegranate
RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY
Clematis sp. clematis
RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY
Ceanothus thyrsiflorus blue blossom
ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon
Prunus ilicifolia holly-leaf cherry
Prunus persica* peach
Rubus armeniacus* Himalayan blackberry
Rubus leucodermis blackcap raspberry
Rubus ursinus California blackberry
RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY
Galium aparine goose grass
RUTACEAE RUE FAMILY
Citrus sinensis* orange
Citrus limon* lemon
SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY
Salix gooddingii black willow
Salix lasiandra shining willow
SAPINDACEAE SOAPBERRY FAMILY
Aesculus californica California buckeye
SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Solanum americanum small-flowered nightshade
TROPAEOLACEAE NASTURTIUM FAMILY
Tropaeolum majus* garden nasturtium
URTICACEA NETTLE FAMILY
Urtica dioica stinging nettle
ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY
Ulmus parvifolia* Chinese elm
VALERIANACEAE VALERIAN FAMILY
465
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21330
Scientific Name Common Name
Centranthus ruber* red valerian
ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS)
AGAVACEAE AGAVE FAMILY
Yucca elephantipes* giant yucca
ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY
Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm
POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
Arundo donax* giant reed
Avena fatua* wild oat
Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass
Bromus madritensis subsp. madritensis* foxtail chess
Elymus condensatus giant wild rye
Festuca myuros* hairy rat-tail fescue
Hordeum murinum* glaucous foxtail barley
Stipa miliacea var. miliacea* smilo grass
*Non-Native Species
466
ATTACHMENT 4 – WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED/DETECTED 467
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21330
ATTACHMENT 4 – WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
Scientific Name Common Name
CLASS REPTILIA REPTILES
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE
ZEBRA-TAILED, EARLESS, FRINGE-TOED,
SPINY, TREE, SIDE-BLOTCHED, AND HORNED
LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard
CLASS AVES BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk
ODONTOPHORIDAE NEW WORLD QUAIL
Callipepla californica California quail
COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS & DOVES
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
STRIGIDAE TRUE OWLS
Bubo virginianus great horned owl
APODIDAE SWIFTS
Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift
TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird
Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird
PICIDAE WOODPECKERS
Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker
TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Empidonax difficilis Pacific-slope flycatcher
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
HIRUNDINIDAE SWALLOWS
Hirundo rustica barn swallow
CORVIDAE JAYS & CROWS
Aphelocoma californica Western scrub-jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
AEGITHALIDAE BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit
TROGLODYTIDAE WRENS
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren
MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS, THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
ICTERIDAE BLACKBIRDS
Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole
468
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21330
Scientific Name Common Name
EMBERIZIDAE EMBERIZIDS
Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco
Melospiza melodia song sparrow
Melozone crissalis California towhee
Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee
CARDINALIDAE CARDINALS
Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak
FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
CLASS MAMMALIA MAMMALS
LEPORIDAE HARES & RABBITS
Sylvilagus bachmani brush rabbit
SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS
Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
469
21
ATTACHMENT 5 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 470
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21330
ATTACHMENT 5 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1.
General
overview of the
western half of
Survey Area 1.
Photo is facing
northwest.
Photo 2.
General
overview of the
eastern half of
Survey Area 1.
Photo is facing
southeast.
Photo 3.
General
overview of the
top of Survey
Area 3,
adjacent to the
road. Photo is
facing north.
471
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21330
Photo 4.
General
overview of the
west-facing
hillside within
Survey Area 3.
Photo is facing
west.
Photo 5.
General
overview of the
top of Survey
Area 4,
adjacent to the
road. Photo is
facing
northwest.
Photo 6.
General
overview of the
hillside of
Survey Area 4,
and dense fog.
Photo is facing
north.
472
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21330
Photo 7.
Access road
leading to the
top of property
within Survey
Area 18. Photo
is facing
northwest.
Photo 8.
Horse stable
located at the
top
(westernmost
end) of Survey
Area 18. Photo
is facing
southeast.
Photo 9.
General
overview of the
vegetated
hillside leading
down to
stream within
Survey Area 18.
Photo is facing
north.
473
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21330
Photo 10.
General
overview of the
vegetated
hillside on the
eastern side of
Survey Area 19.
Photo is facing
north.
Photo 11.
General
overview of the
vegetated
hillside and the
stream,
adjacent to the
hiking trail
within Survey
Area 19. Photo
is facing
northwest.
Photo 12.
General
overview of the
vegetated
hillside within
Survey Area 19.
Photo is facing
southwest.
474
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21330
Photo 13.
General
overview of
western most
open area,
adjacent to the
road, within
Survey Area 19.
Photo is facing
southwest.
Photo 14.
General
overview of
northern end
of Survey Area
20. Photo is
facing
southwest.
Photo 15.
General
overview of
western end of
Survey Area 20.
Photo is facing
west.
475
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21330
Photo 16.
General
overview of the
dry streambed
from the
drainage
leading into
Survey Area 20.
Photo is facing
northwest.
Photo 17.
General
overview of the
open area
(westernmost
end) of Survey
Area 21. Photo
is facing east.
Photo 18.
General
overview of the
fog and hillside
(easternmost
end) of Survey
Area 21. Photo
is facing
southwest.
476
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21330
Photo 19.
General
overview of the
northern end
of Survey Area
22. Photo is
facing south.
Photo 20.
General
overview of
Survey Area 22
within gated
private
property.
Photo is facing
southwest.
Photo 21.
General
overview of
Survey Area 23.
Photo is facing
southwest.
477
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 8
21330
Photo 22.
General
overview of
Survey Area 23.
Photo is facing
north.
Photo 23.
General
overview of
Survey Area 24.
Photo is facing
southeast.
Photo 24.
General
overview of
Survey Area 24.
Photo is facing
northwest.
478
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 9
21330
Photo 25.
General
overview of dry
streambed at
the northern
end of Survey
Area 24. Photo
is facing east.
Photo 26.
General
overview of
western end of
Survey Area 25.
Photo is facing
northwest.
Photo 27.
General
overview of
Survey Area 25.
Photo is facing
southeast.
479
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 10
21330
Photo 28.
General
overview of the
hillside on the
northern end
of Survey Area
25. Photo is
facing
northeast.
Photo 29.
General
overview of
southeastern
end of Survey
Area 25. Photo
is facing west.
Photo 30.
General
overview of the
northern end
of Survey Area
26. Photo is
facing east.
480
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 11
21330
Photo 31.
General
overview of
southern end
of Survey Area
26 and the dry
streambed
north of the
road. Photo is
facing
northeast.
Photo 32.
General
overview of
Survey Area 27.
Portuguese
Bend Road is
located within
Survey Area 27.
Photo is facing
west.
Photo 33.
General
overview of the
western end of
Survey Area 27
(west of
Portuguese
Bend Road).
Photo is facing
southwest.
481
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 12
21330
Photo 34.
General
overview of the
eastern end of
Survey Area 28.
Photo is facing
north.
Photo 35.
General
overview of the
hillside
(western end)
of Survey Area
28. Photo is
facing
northwest.
Photo 36.
General
overview of
eastern end of
Survey Area 29.
Photo is facing
west.
482
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 13
21330
Photo 37.
General
overview of the
hillside
(western end)
of Survey Area
29. Photo is
facing
northwest.
Photo 38.
General
overview of
Survey Area 30.
Photo is facing
north.
Photo 39.
General
overview of the
northeastern
end of Survey
Area 30. Photo
is facing west.
483
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 14
21330
Photo 40.
General
overview of the
hillside
(western end)
of Survey Area
30. Photo is
facing
southwest.
Photo 41.
General
overview of the
western end of
Survey Area 31.
Photo is facing
north.
Photo 42.
General
overview of the
hillside
(eastern end)
of Survey Area
31. Photo is
facing north.
484
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 15
21330
Photo 43.
Close-up of
California sage
brush patch
within Survey
Area 31. Photo
is facing west.
Photo 44.
General
overview of the
eastern end of
Survey Area 32.
Photo is facing
southwest.
Photo 45.
General
overview of the
hillside
(western end)
of Survey Area
32. Photo is
facing west.
485
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 16
21330
Photo 46.
General
overview of the
hillside
(western end)
of Survey Area
32. Photo is
facing
northeast.
Photo 47.
General
overview of the
western end of
Survey Area 33.
Photo is facing
south.
Photo 48.
General
overview of the
northern end
of Survey Area
33. Photo is
facing south.
486
Biological Technical Report for City of Rolling Hills 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update Project
Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 17
21330
Photo 49.
General
overview of
vegetated
hillside that
runs along the
eastern end of
Survey Area 33.
The dry stream
bed feature
runs between
the trail and
vegetated
hillside. Photo
is facing north.
Photo 50.
General
overview of
Survey Area 34.
Photo is facing
southwest.
Photo 51.
General
overview of
Survey Area 34.
Photo is facing
northwest.
487
APPENDIX B – TRIBAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES 488
1
From:CHRISTINA CONLEY-HADDOCK <christina.marsden@alumni.usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, July 18, 2022 5:17 PM
To:John Signo
Cc:Robert Dorame; Connie Viramontes; Victoria Boyd
Subject:Re: FOLLOW-UP – REGARDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT
Thank you John for the update and please keep us on your distribution list for further activity.
Take care,
Christina
tehoovet taamet
C H R I S T I N A C O N L E Y
•Native American Monitor - Caretaker of our Ancestral Land
•Cultural Resource Administrator Under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame (Most Likely Descendant)
•Native American Heritage Commission Contact
•Fully qualified as a California State Recognized Native American Tribe fulfilling SB18, AB52 Compliance Regulations
•HAZWOPER Certified
•626.407.8761
__________________________________________________________
G A B R I E L I N O T O N G V A I N D I A N S O F C A L I F O R N I A
The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California are recognized in the State of California Bill AJR96 as the aboriginal tribe to encompass
the entire Los Angeles Basin area and the Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicholas and San Clemente
NAHC recognizes GTIOC Tribal Territory
On Jun 13, 2022, at 1:14 PM, John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net> wrote:
Greetings. Please see attached letter.
Regards,
John F. Signo, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Services
<image003.jpg> City of Rolling Hills – City Hall
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
O: 310.377.1521
489
2
<Tongva Follow Up – Rolling Hills HEU.pdf>
490
1
From:John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>
Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:12 PM
To:Victoria Boyd
Subject:FW: FOLLOW-UP – REGARDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT
From: Gabrieleno Administration <admin@gabrielenoindians.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:50 AM
To: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>
Subject: Re: FOLLOW‐UP – REGARDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT
Hello John
Thank you for your email. If there is not going to be any ground disturbances taking place there will be no need
for a consultation.
Admin Specialist
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
PO Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
Office: 844-390-0787
website: www.gabrielenoindians.org
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
The region where Gabrieleño culture thrived for more than eight centuries encompassed most of Los Angeles County, more than half
of Orange County and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It was the labor of the Gabrieleño who built the missions,
ranchos and the pueblos of Los Angeles. They were trained in the trades, and they did the construction and maintenance, as well as the
farming and managing of herds of livestock. “The Gabrieleño are the ones who did all this work, and they really are the foundation of
the early economy of the Los Angeles area “ . “That’s a contribution that Los Angeles has not recognized--the fact that in its early
decades, without the Gabrieleño, the community simply would not have survived.”
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:04 PM John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net> wrote:
Greetings. Please see attached letter.
Regards,
491
2
John F. Signo, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Services
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS – CITY HALL
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
O: 310.377.1521
492
Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary
Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders
PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians.org admin@gabrielenoindians.org
GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
Historically known as The Gabrielino Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin
December 21,2021
Project Name: The City of Rolling Hills Housing and Safety Element
Updates Project
Dear John F. Signo,
Thank you for your email dated December 13,2021. Regarding the
project above. This is to concur that we are in agreement with the Housing
Element Update. However, our Tribal government would like to request
consultation for any and all future projects within this location.
Sincerely,
493
Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary
Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders
PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians.org admin@gabrielenoindians.org
GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
Historically known as The Gabrielino Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin
December 21,2021
Project Name: The City of Rolling Hills Safety Element
Thank you for your letter regarding the project above. This is to
concur that we are in agreement with the Safety Element. However, our Tribal
government would like to request consultation for any and all future projects
when ground disturbance will be occurring within this location.
Sincerely,
Andrew Salas, Chairman
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
1(844)390-0787
494
1
From: CHRISTINA CONLEY-HADDOCK <christina.marsden@alumni.usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 1:17 PM
To: Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com>
Cc: Robert Dorame <gtongva@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: Follow-up re: 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52 Consult Request
Good afternoon Richard,
Apologies for the delay - I have been out on the field.
At this time, as there are no specific developments planned, we have no concerned.
We are requesting to be notified on
any future projects in the city of Rolling Hills as aforementioned, it is a sensitive area for our tribe.
Take good care,
Christina
tehoovet taamet
C H R I S T I N A C O N L E Y
Native American Monitor - Caretaker of our Ancestral Land
Cultural Resource Administrator Under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame (MLD)
HAZWOPER Certified
626.407.8761
__________________________________________________________
G A B R I E L I N O T O N G V A I N D I A N S O F C A L I F O R N I A
On Jan 3, 2022, at 12:56 PM, Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com> wrote:
Good afternoon and happy new year Christina.
I am following up on your recent letter (below). Chambers Group is assisting the City of Rolling
Hills with their requirement to conduct SB 18 and AB 52 consultations related to the proposed
Housing and Safety Element Updates to the General Plan and policies.
As noted in the attached consultation request letter there are no specific developments planned
at this time, and the consultation is being requested for comments or concerns with the
proposed Element Updates. Chambers Group and the City of Rolling Hills greatly appreciate the
concerns of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and wish to allay any
apprehensions that the resources listed, and not listed, below would be affected by the
proposed Element Updates.
495
2
From: CHRISTINA CONLEY-HADDOCK <christina.marsden@alumni.usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2021 10:27 AM
To: Kellie Kandybowicz <kkandybowicz@chambersgroupinc.com>
Cc: Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com>; Robert Dorame <gtongva@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: Follow-up re: 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52
Consult Request
Good morning John,
If the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council wish to consult under SB 18 or AB 52
concerning these proposed Element Updates please contact John Signo, AICP, at the City of
Rolling Hills (jsigno@cityofrh.net - City Of Rolling Hills – City Hall 2; Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills CA 90274; O: 310.377.1521 | F: 310.377.7288). Alternatively, feel free to contact
either Kellie or myself and we will coordinate with the City.
Please let Kellie or me know if you have any questions or concerns, and we will be happy to
help.
Thank you,
Richard
We are in receipt of your 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52
Consult Request. Thank you for reaching out.
After conferring with Tribal Chair Dorame (the Most Likely Descendent), this property is highly culturally
sensitive to the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California (GTIOC) as it resides near one of our villages. The
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California request an AB52 and SB18 consultation for this project.
There are a minimum of 7 identified sties near the project area; LAN 110, LAN 191, LAN 276, LAN277,
LAN278, LAN 279, LAN 280 (LAN 275 borders your project area).
The concern with all of these sites is that they are significant evidence of the existence of a village site
and the area may still yield evidence of buried deposits. Artifacts unearthed in previous projects
included obsidian projectiles, sandstone bowls, cog stones and more importantly, human remains.
The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California tribe is deeply concerned with any ground disturbances in
your project area and this project will need a monitor from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
for only ground disturbances.
Attached are our treatment plans for your project site.
Please let us know what your next steps are and how we may assist you.
Take good care and happy new year,
Christina
496
3
tehoovet taamet
C H R I S T I N A C O N L E Y
Native American Monitor - Caretaker of our Ancestral Land
Cultural Resource Administrator Under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame (Most Likely Descendent)
HAZWOPER Certified
626.407.8761
__________________________________________________________
G A B R I E L I N O T O N G V A I N D I A N S O F C A L I F O R N I A
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
From: Kellie Kandybowicz
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 9:28 AM
To: 'christina.marsden@alumni.isc.edu' <christina.marsden@alumni.isc.edu>
Cc: Richard Shultz <rshultz@chambersgroupinc.com>
Subject: 21330 City of Rolling Hills Housing & Safety Element Project SB 18/AB 52
Consult Request
Dear Christina Conley,
The City of Rolling Hills (City) is commencing its Senate Bill (SB) 18 and
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation processes for the Housing and Safety Element
Updates Project (Project). Pursuant to Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4
SB 18 require local governments to consult with California Native American
tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the
purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places
when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.
Additionally, AB 52 (Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2) requires
public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by
the NAHC for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to
tribal cultural resources (TCRs) as defined, for California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) projects. This letter is being provided to you because your Tribe, the
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, was listed on the NAHC
directory as an individual or group who may have additional knowledge
pertaining to tribal cultural resources within this geographic area.
The Project consists of a Housing Element Update of the City of Rolling Hills
General Plan and an update to the City’s Safety Element to address various
natural and human-caused hazards the City has dealt with including
earthquakes, wildfires, droughts, and land movement.
497
4
The Housing Element and Safety Element Updates are policy updates only, and
no specific developments are proposed at this time. A description of each of the
updates is provided below.
Housing Element Update
The City’s Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan, and
is subject to detailed statutory requirements, including a requirement to be
updated every eight years, and mandatory review by the California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City is currently adopting
their 6thcycle Housing Element Update (HEU). The City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) for this 6th cycle, is 45 units which the City determined
can be met with existing approved developments, the underutilized Rancho Del
Mar school site, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Therefore, the HEU, is a
policy document; no actual development nor rezoning of parcels is included as
part of the approval.
Safety Element Update
The Safety Element Update (SEU) provides the City goals, policies, and actions to
minimize the hazards to safety in and around the City. The SEU evaluates
natural and human-caused safety hazards that affect existing and future
development and provides guidelines for protecting the community from harm.
The SEU describes existing and potential future conditions and sets policies for
improved public safety. The goal of the SEU is to reduce the risk of injury, death,
property loss, and other hardships to acceptable levels.
As part of the proposed updates the City has requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF)
search by the NAHC. The result of the SLF search conducted through the NAHC
was negative for the Project site. The City of Rolling Hills is a rural, equestrian
residential community, consisting entirely of large lot residential parcels of one
acre or more (Figure 1). The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land
(approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los
Angeles.
Please consider this letter notification and preliminary Project information as the
initiation of the SB 18 and AB 52 requests for consultation. Pursuant to PRC
21080.3.1(d), the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council have 30
days upon receipt of this letter to provide a request for AB 52 consultation on the
Project. Pursuant to GC 65352.3, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council have 90 days upon receipt of this letter to provide a request for SB
18 consultation. Due to the abbreviated timeline regarding funding opportunities
for this affordable housing Project, we respectfully ask that requests for SB 18
consultation also be provided within 45 days, if practicable.
498
5
Your comments are important to the City of Rolling Hills. If the Gabrielino Tongva
Indians of California Tribal Council have any concerns regarding the proposed Project as
it relates to Native American issues or interests, or has any information regarding sacred
sites in the vicinity of the proposed Project that may help avoid impacts to those sites,
please send your response to:
John F. Signo, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Services
6
<image006.jpg> City of Rolling Hills – City Hall
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
O: 310.377.1521 | F: 310.377.7288
jsigno@cityofrh.net
Attachments – Project Location Map
Kellie Kandybowicz | Cultural Resources Specialist
<image002.png>
t | 858.541.2800 : x7140 f | 866.261.3100 m | 760.521.9005
kkandybowicz@chambersgroupinc.com www.chambersgroupinc.com
<21330_CityofRollingHillsHousing&SafetyElementProject_20211215_Conley.pdf><2133
0 PLAN Fig 1 Project Location_small.pdf>
<SB18-AB52 Letter Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council.pdf>
499
APPENDIX B – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 500
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Rolling Hills, CA
Prepared for:
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Prepared by:
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750
Santa Ana, California 92707
September 2022
501
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures identified
in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) are implemented after a project is approved. Therefore, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during
future development of the 20 vacant, residentially zoned, privately owned parcels located throughout the
City of Rolling Hills that have the potential to be developed during the 2021-2029 planning period.
City of Rolling Hills (City) is the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the MND. This MMRP provides the City with a convenient mechanism for quickly reviewing
all the mitigation measures, including the ability to focus on select information such as timing. The MMRP
includes the following information for each mitigation measure:
The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be implemented;
The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be monitored; and
The enforcement agency.
The MMRP includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation monitoring period. The checklist will verify
the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring activity, and any related remarks for each mitigation
measure.
502
3
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Biological Resources Assessment
Applicants of future development projects should be required to prepare a
Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). The BRA should be prepared by a qualified
biologist. A qualified biologist should conduct field surveys of the project site and
focused plant and wildlife surveys. Focused species-specific surveys should be
required if suitable habitat is present and performed according to established
Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines (CDFW 2021c). The BRA should
characterize the biological resources on site, analyze project-specific impacts to
biological resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures to offset those
impacts. The BRA should provide the following information:
1) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered
species, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats at the
project site and within the area of potential effect, including California
Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species (Fish & G.
Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should
include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or
threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of
land around the project site should also be addressed. A nine-quadrangle
search of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) should be
conducted to obtain current information on any previously reported
sensitive species and habitat (CDFW 2022d);
2) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and
natural communities following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive
Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Adjoining habitat areas should be
included where project construction and activities could lead to direct or
indirect impacts off site;
3) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact
assessments conducted at the project site and within the area of potential
effect. The Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), second edition, should
be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 2009);
4) A rare plant assessment using online databases for rare, threatened, and
endangered plants, including the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022b)
as well as the Calflora’s Information on Wild California Plants database
(Calflora 2022);
5) A discussion regarding project-related indirect impacts on biological
resources in nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats,
riparian ecosystems, and any designated and/or proposed or existing
reserve lands [e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community
Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et. seq.)];
6) Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas,
including access to undisturbed habitats in areas adjacent to the project site.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Prior to issuance of
grading permits / during
ground disturbance
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
503
4
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
BIO-2: Take of Species
Development projects that would impact species listed under CESA and/or ESA
should be required to obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW and/or
USFWS prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permit.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Prior to issuance of
grading permits / during
ground disturbance
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-3: Rare Plant Species or Sensitive Natural Community
If a rare plant species or a Sensitive Natural Community is detected, the project
applicant should fully avoid impacts. The project applicant should retain a qualified
biologist to develop an avoidance plan. An avoidance plan should be submitted to
the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal.
If the project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to rare plants and habitat, or sensitive
natural communities, either during project activities or over the life of the project,
the project applicant should provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of
individual plants and habitat acres, which should include impacts due to fuel
modification and landslide remediation. Impacts on vegetation due hazard
mitigation should also be mitigated as these impacts would result in permanent loss
and perpetual impacts on habitat function and quality. The project applicant should
provide compensatory so that there is no net loss of rare plants and habitat, or
sensitive natural communities. Compensatory mitigation should be appropriate for
the extent of permanently disturbed habitat. Compensatory mitigation should be
higher for impacts on CRPR 1 species, S1 or S2 Sensitive Natural Community, and
Sensitive Natural Community with an additional rank of 0.1 or 0.2. Compensatory
mitigation should be implemented by a qualified restoration ecologist. A
Restoration Plan, at a minimum, should include success criteria and performance
standards for measuring the establishment of rare plants and habitat, responsible
parties, maintenance techniques and schedule, 5-year monitoring and reporting
schedule, adaptive management strategies, and contingencies. A Restoration Plan
should be submitted to the City prior to any grading or vegetation removal.
Prior to grading or
vegetation removal
An Avoidance Plan shall
be submitted to the City
prior to any grading or
vegetation removal.
A Restoration Plan shall
be submitted to the City
prior to any grading or
vegetation removal.
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys
Where a project site and areas adjacent to the project has suitable habitat for
coastal California gnatcatcher, applicants of future development projects should be
required to retain a qualified permitted biologist to survey for coastal California
gnatcatcher and prepare an impact assessment. The qualified biologist should
survey the project site and adjacent areas to determine presence/absence of
coastal California gnatcatcher. The qualified biologist should conduct surveys
according to USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997). The protocol
should be followed for all surveys unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS in
writing (USFWS 1997). Survey results should be provided to USFWS per protocol
guidance. Survey results, including negative findings, and an impact assessment
should be conducted prior to the City’s issuance of a grading permits.
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
Prior to issuance of
grading permits / during
ground disturbance
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
504
5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
BIO-5: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Compensatory Mitigation
Applicants of future development projects should be required to provide
compensatory mitigation for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in
addition to mitigation required by USFWS to prevent temporal or permanent
habitat loss.
Prior to any grading
and vegetation removal
Prior to any grading and
vegetation removal /
during ground
disturbance
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-6: Nesting Birds
Future development projects requiring vegetation disturbance and/or removal,
and/or are adjacent to suitable nesting habitat should be required to avoid impacts
on nesting birds by conducting all project-related activities between September 1
through January 31, outside of the nesting bird season. If construction must occur
during the bird nesting season, project applicants should be required to retain a
qualified biologist to survey suitable nesting habitat for nesting birds on the project
site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent allowable and accessible.
A qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 7 days prior
to any ground and vegetation disturbing activities. If project activities are delayed
or suspended for more than 7 days during the nesting bird season, a qualified
biologist should repeat nesting bird surveys before the project can recommence.
No-disturbance buffers should be established to minimize impacts on any nests and
nestlings. No-disturbance buffers should be maintained until the breeding season
has ended or until a qualified biologist determines that the birds have fledged and
are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.
Prior to and during
ground and vegetation
disturbing activities; if
construction would
occur during nesting
season (September 1 –
January 31) and no
more than 7 days prior
Prior to and during
ground and vegetation
disturbing activities; if
construction would
occur during nesting
season (September 1 –
January 31) and no more
than 7 days prior
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-7: Nesting Bird Habitat
Future development projects removing habitat for nesting birds should be required
to restore or replace habitat in-kind and on site if feasible to prevent temporal or
permanent habitat loss. Projects should provide replacement habitat for both
individual trees and habitat acres.
Prior to any grading
and vegetation removal
During project
construction
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-8: Bat Surveys
Future development projects in areas with suitable roosting and foraging habitat
for bats should be required to retain a qualified bat biologist to conduct a survey
for within the project site and within 100 feet from the project site to the extent
allowable and accessible. A qualified bat specialist should identify potential
daytime, nighttime, wintering, and hibernation roost sites. Surveys should be
conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal.
Prior to ground-
disturbing activities and
vegetation removal
Prior to ground-
disturbing activities and
vegetation removal
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-9: Tree Removal – Bat Impacts
If a project requires tree removal and a qualified bat biologist determines that
roosting bats may be present at any time of year and could roost in trees that need
to be removed, during tree removal, trees should be pushed down using heavy
machinery rather than felling with a chainsaw. To ensure the optimum warning for
any roosting bats that may still be present, trees should be pushed lightly two or
During tree removal During tree removal City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
505
6
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge to
allow bats to become active. The tree should then be pushed to the ground slowly
and remain in place until it is inspected by a qualified bat biologist. Trees that are
known to be bat roosts or could support roosting bats should not be bucked or
mulched immediately. A period of at least 24 hours, and preferable 48 hours, should
elapse prior to such operations to allow bats to escape.
BIO-10: Roosting Bats
If bats roosts are found within the project impact area, the qualified bat biologist
should identify the bats to the species level, evaluate the colony to determine its
size and significance, and establish a species-specific no-disturbance buffer that
should be maintained throughout the duration of the project’s construction.
Prior to ground-
disturbing activities and
vegetation removal
During construction City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-11: Maternity Bat Roosts
If maternity roosts are found, project-related construction and activities should be
scheduled between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting
season when young bats are present but are yet ready to fly out of the roost (March
1 to September 30). If maternity roosts are found and the project must take place
during the maternity roosting season, trees/structures determined to be maternity
roosts should be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Project-related
construction and activities should not occur within 100 feet of or directly under or
adjacent to an active maternity roost. A qualified bat biologist should establish a
no-disturbance buffer that should be maintained throughout the duration of the
project’s construction or until a qualified bat biologist determines that the roost is
no longer active. Project-related construction and activities should also not occur
between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise.
Prior to ground-
disturbing activities and
vegetation removal
During construction City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
BIO-12: Jurisdictional Delineation
Applicants of future development projects that are located adjacent to a river,
stream, or lake should be required to prepare a jurisdictional delineation and
impact assessment provided along with the project’s Biological Resources
Assessment. If such features are present and may be impacted by the future
development, then the project should be required to avoid impacts by
implementing appropriate vegetative buffers and/or setbacks adjoining the stream
or wetland feature to reduce impacts of the project on these resources. If avoidance
is not feasible, the project applicant should be required to notify CDFW pursuant to
Fish and Game Code 1602 and obtain an LSA Agreement from CDFW prior to the
City’s issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant should comply with the
mitigation measures detailed in a LSA Agreement issued by CDFW. The project
applicant should also provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 1:1 for the
impacted stream and habitat acreage, or at a ratio acceptable to CDFW.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
506
7
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Provide Construction Worker Archeological Awareness Training
Prior to the start of construction on sites that are currently undeveloped or where
excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as determined
during plan review, the project archaeologist or their designee shall conduct
training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of archeological
resources and the procedures for notifying archeological staff should artifacts be
discovered by construction staff. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) shall be fulfilled at the time of a pre-construction meeting, which a qualified
archaeologist shall attend. This training will include a printed handout that provides
examples of potential cultural resources. The WEAP training will be repeated when
construction personnel change and periodically renewed if the project has a long
duration (more than 3 months.)
Prior to and during
construction
Prior to and during
construction
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
CUL-2: Conduct Archeological Resources Construction Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit on sites that are currently undeveloped or
where excavation would be to deeper levels than previous excavation levels as
determined during plan review, the property owner/developer shall retain a
qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) to be present
during all initial subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. At the
commencement of construction activities, an orientation meeting shall be
conducted by the qualified archaeologist, construction manager, general
contractor, subcontractor, and construction workers associated with ground-
disturbing activities. The orientation meeting shall describe the potential of
exposing archaeological resources, the types of resources that may be encountered,
and directions on the steps that shall be taken if such a find is encountered.
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
During all initial
subsurface ground-
disturbing construction
activities
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary
Objects
The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient and
historic times, tribal traditions included but were not limited to the burial of
associated cultural resources (funerary objects) with the deceased and the
ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same
manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are
objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably
believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of
death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain
human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. The Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidance specifically states that
the federal agencies will consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the
remains and cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known to have
a cultural relationship to the human remains and other cultural items. Therefore, it
During construction; if
human remains are
encountered
During construction; if
human remains are
encountered
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
507
8
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
is appropriate to consult with local Native American groups as recommended by the
California NAHC.
Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the
County Coroner. Work shall be stopped and the construction manager or
archaeological monitor, if present, shall immediately divert work at a minimum of
50 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The construction manager or
the monitor shall then notify an archaeologist meeting standards of qualification
under the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior and the coroner to assess the
discovery. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines if the
remains are Native American. The discovery shall be kept confidential and secure
to prevent any further disturbance. If the remains are Native American, the coroner
will notify the California NAHC as mandated by State law who will then appoint a
most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD shall provide recommendations as to the
treatment and disposition of the human remains within 48 hours of MLD
designation. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully
documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with a
protective casing to prevent further damage or looting. Each occurrence of human
remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored in accordance with
methods agreed upon between the MLD and the landowner. If the Coroner
determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial
shall be reburied in an appropriate setting, as determined by the Coroner. If the
Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Coroner will take custody of the
remains.
GEO-1: Prepare Paleontological Resources Study and Implement Study
Recommendations
For any development in Rolling Hills that occurs within high sensitivity geologic
units, whether they are mapped at the surface or hypothesized to occur in the
subsurface, the City shall require a site-specific paleontological study and avoidance
and/or mitigation for potential impacts to paleontological resources. The City shall
require the following specific requirements for projects that could disturb geologic
units with high paleontological sensitivity, whether they are mapped at the surface
or hypothesized to occur in the subsurface.
1) Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance
within highly sensitive geologic units, the applicant shall retain a project
paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards for Qualified Professional
Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological
resources (SVP 2010). A qualified paleontologist (Principal Paleontologist)
is defined by the SVP standards as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological
procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of
California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project
supervisor for a least 1 year.
2) Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to construction
activity, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological
Prior to and during
construction, and upon
completion of ground
disturbing activities
Prior to and during
construction, and upon
completion of ground
disturbing activities
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
508
9
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be implemented during ground
disturbance activity for the proposed project. This program shall outline
the procedures for construction staff Worker Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) training, paleontological monitoring extent and duration,
salvage and preparation of fossils, the final mitigation and monitoring
report, and paleontological staff qualifications.
3) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the
start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee,
shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the
appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff
shall fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled
at the time of a pre-construction meeting at which a qualified
paleontologist shall attend. In the event of a fossil discovery by
construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall
cease and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find
before restarting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s)
is(are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete
the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources.
4) Paleontological Monitoring. Ground disturbing construction activities
(including grading, trenching, foundation work and other excavations) at
the surface in areas mapped as high paleontological sensitivity and
exceeding 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high
paleontological sensitivity units shall be monitored on a full-time basis by
a qualified paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbance. The
Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall be supervised by
the project paleontologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has
experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The
duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project
paleontologist. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time
monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend that
monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely.
Monitoring would be reinstated if any new or unforeseen deeper ground
disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension would need to be
reconsidered by the supervising paleontologist. Ground disturbing activity
that does not occur in areas mapped as high sensitivity or that do not
exceed 5 feet in depth in areas overlying potentially high sensitivity units
would not require paleontological monitoring.
5) Salvage of Fossils. If significant fossils are discovered, the project
paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall recover them. Typically,
fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not
disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete
skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and
longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the
authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to
ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. Work
may continue outside of a buffer zone around the fossil, usually 50-100
feet (specific distance may be determined by the project paleontologist).
6) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant
fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared
509
10
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a
permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California
Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos,
data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of
collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project
paleontologist.
7) Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground
disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified
paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report
outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report
shall include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the
monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific
significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated.
TCR-1: Retain and Utilize a Native American Construction Monitor
If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for
future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, the
project applicant for that project shall obtain the services of a qualified Native
American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance activities.
Ground disturbance is defined as activities that include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring,
grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s)
shall be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground
disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall complete monitoring
logs daily to provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction
activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site
monitoring shall end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities
are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential
for archeological resources.
Prior to and during
construction-related
ground disturbance
activities
During construction-
related ground
disturbance activities
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
TCR-2: Evaluate Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources
If tribal cultural resources are identified during future tribal consultation efforts for
future specific development projects or during construction of such projects, a
qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be present during
construction-related ground disturbance activities to identify any unanticipated
discovery of tribal cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist and Native
American monitor may be different individuals or the same individual if the City
determines that individual qualifies as both a qualified archaeologist and Native
American monitor. All archaeological resources unearthed by construction activities
shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor. If
the resources are determined to be human remains (see also Mitigation Measure
CUL-3) the Coroner shall be notified, and if the human remains are Native American
in origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated by State law, who will then
appoint an MLD, who shall then coordinate with the landowner regarding
treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial
or preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the
qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA
Prior to and during
construction-related
ground disturbance
activities
During construction-
related ground
disturbance activities
City of Rolling Hills Less than
Significant
510
11
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Verification of Compliance
Initial Date Remarks
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to
PRC Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the
applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to
reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the resources
shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical
resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If
preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material
that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the material.
If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local
school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
511
Agenda Item No.: 10.B
Mtg. Date: 09/20/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:STEPHANIE GRANT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
ZONING CASE NO. 21-17: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR 1,930 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 7,088-SQUARE-FOOT TENNIS
COURT; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR GRADING EXPORT,
ENCROACHMENT OF THE TENNIS COURT AND PLANTER INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND FRONT YARD AREA, AND
EXCEEDANCE OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DISTURBANCE AREA
LOCATED AT 12 UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 97-1-
RH) ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (KIM)
DATE:September 20, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 198,198 square feet (4.55 acres) and
net lot area is 139,420 square feet (3.2 acres) in size. The main building pad has been
developed with a 10,543 square foot single-family residence and attached garage, 2 pools,
spa. There is an existing legal non-conforming 2,072 square foot guesthouse and 751 square
foot detached garage.
The net lot area is 198,198 square feet (4.55 acres). There is a Rolling Hills Community
Association (RHCA) Bridal Trail located to the north and south of the parcel. Along the east
portion of the parcel, there is a restricted area and flood hazard area, in addition to a bridle
trail.
Applicant Request
The applicant proposes to construct a new tennis court (7,088 square feet) in the front yard, a
512
new “Permavoid” planter box (326 square feet) along the northwest side of the tennis court
and replace the existing stairs on the south side of the tennis court with new concrete stairs
(421 square feet).
A Site Plan Review (SPR) is required for 1,930 cubic yards (CY) of grading; this exceeds the
maximum allowable 750 CY. The total disturbed area will be 13,072 square feet; this exceeds
the maximum 10,000 square foot area of disturbance.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for a recreational sports court (tennis court).
Variance requests are required because the sport court will be located within 50 feet of a
paved road in the front yard and within the front yard setback; a variance is also required
because the cut and fill is not balanced on site, exceeds 750 cubic yards, and exceeds 10,000
square feet of surface area; and disturbed area for the project exceeds the maximum allowed
40%.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Wendi Russel, resident at 9 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road located northwest of the
subject property, expressed concerns regarding the proposed location and height of the tennis
court. The project will negatively affect her views. Her letter is attached.
The applicant Mr. Dave Breiholz , resident at 6 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road located
northwest of the subject property, expressed concerns regarding the non-compliance with the
zoning code and excessive variances. He was concerned about the proposed project
impacting the views on Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. He also said that the proposed
project was massive for the parcel.
Mr. Murray Smith, resident at 10 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road directly north of the subject
property, expressed concerns that the tennis court will be visible from driving down Upper
Blackwater Canyon Road. He also requested the tennis court be located 30 feet south of the
proposed location.
Ms. Valerie Cox, resident at 14 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road south of the subject property,
called to inquire about the project. Staff informed her the tennis court will be on the
northwestern side of the property farthest from her home.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing to a field trip
on October 18, 2022 at 7:30 a.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Plans.pdf
Conceptual Landscape Plan.pdf
Letter from Wendi Russell_9 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527