The URL can be used to link to this page

CL_AGN_250922_CC_AgendaPacket_F_A1 City Council Monday, September 22, 2025, 7:00 PM Regular Meeting City of Rolling Hills The meeting agenda is available on the City’s website. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the City’s website. View both the agenda and the live-streamed video. Members of the public may submit written comments by emailing the City Clerk’s office at CityClerk@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record if received before 3pm on the meeting day. You must provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published. View recordings to City Council meetings online. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Presentations/Proclamations/Announcements 5. Approve Order of the Agenda This is the appropriate time for the Mayor or Councilmembers to approve the agenda as is or reorder. 6. Blue Folder Items (Supplemental) Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file. 6.A. For Blue Folder Documents approved at the City Council Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 7. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 8. Consent Calendar Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the Consent Calendar. The Mayor or any Councilmember 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 Mayor will call on anyone Page 1 of 251 2 wishing to address the City Council on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has not been pulled by Councilmembers for discussion. 8.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of September 22, 2025 RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 8.B. Approve Motion to Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading of All Ordinances and Resolutions Listed on the Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 8.C. Approve the following Minutes of August 25, 2025: City Council Regular and Special Meetings; September 11, 2025: Special Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 8.D. Payment of Bills RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 9. Excluded Consent Calendar Items 10. Commission Items 10.A. Zoning Case No. 24-149: Site Plan Review for construction of a new garage with workshop, non-exempt grading and other improvements; Conditional Use Permit for a detached mixed-use accessory structure (garage with workshop) greater than 200 square feet, and a variance for site disturbance of more than 40% and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act for location at 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler & Adams) (Lot 29-A-EF) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. 11. Public Hearings 12. Discussion Items 12.A. Receive and file an update on the Emergency Outdoor Siren Notification System project; Authorize the City Manager to seek easement licensing from the Rolling Hills Community Association on the two proposed locations at Upper Blackwater and Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) and Chesterfield cul-de-sac; and provide direction on a third (or fourth) pole location. RECOMMENDATION: This evening, staff is seeking City Council direction on the following: 1. Authorize the City Manager to seek easement licensing from the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) for siren pole placement at: a. Upper Blackwater & Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) b. Chesterfield cul-de-sac 2. Provide direction on an additional siren location, selecting from: a. Ringbit (single pole) b. Southfield and Ringbit intersection (single pole) c. Flying Triangle & Southfield/Flying Mane (two poles) 3. Provide guidance on preferred strategies for visual mitigation, including camouflage or Page 2 of 251 3 landscaping, based on vendor proposals. 13. Matters From the City Council 13.A. Approval of Traffic Commission appointment to complete the current term beginning January 2, 2024 and expiring January 1, 2028 RECOMMENDATION: Consider, discuss and approve the appointment of one candidate to assume a seat on the Traffic Commission for the September 25, 2025 meeting. 14. Matters From Staff 14.A. Receive a verbal update on the Rolling Hills Tennis Courts ADA improvements and potential access during construction RECOMMENDATION: Receive a verbal update 14.B. Receive an update on the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Voluntary Buyout Program RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and file the determination letter from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) regarding the City of Rolling Hills’ potential participation in the Hazard Mitigation Program (Attachment A); and 2. Direct staff to formally close out the draft Notice of Interest (NOI) submitted in May 2025, thereby concluding the City’s application process for this funding cycle. 14.C. Receive a verbal update on Planning Department Recruitment(s) RECOMMENDATION: Receive a verbal update 15. Recess to Closed Session 16. Reconvene to Open Session 17. Adjournment Next regular meeting: Monday, October 13, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274. Notice: Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. Page 3 of 251 Item: 6.A. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: For Blue Folder Documents approved at the City Council Meeting Background: Discussion: Fiscal Impact: Recommendation: Receive and file. Attachments: 1. CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A 2. CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item13A Page 4 of 251 BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL) Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file. CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 22, 2025 12A. Receive and file an update on the Emergency Outdoor Siren Notification System project; Authorize the City Manager to seek easement licensing from the Rolling Hills Community Association on the two proposed locations at Upper Blackwater and Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) and Chesterfield cul-de-sac; and provide direction on a third (or fourth) pole location. From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to The City Manager / City Clerk CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A_SoundPropagationMap(LS30).pdf CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A_SoundPropagationMap(LS120).pdf CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A_PublicComment01.pdf CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A_PublicComment02.pdf CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A_PublicComment03a.pdf CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A_PublicComment03b.pdf CL_AGN_250922_CC_Item12A_PublicComment04.pdf Page 5 of 251 BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL) Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file. CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 22, 2025 13A. Approval of Traffic Commission appointment to complete the current term beginning January 2, 2024 and expiring January 1, 2028 From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk CL_AGN_250922_CC _Item13A_SupplementHawkins This Supplemental Item is submitted at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer Page 6 of 251 Item: 8.A. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of September 22, 2025 Background: None. Discussion: None. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Approve. Attachments: 1. CL_AGN_250922_CC_AffidavitofPosting Page 7 of 251 Administrative Report 8.A., File # 2025-139 Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk TITLE APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below. Legislative Body City Council Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City Hall Window City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agendas_meetings.php https://rollinghillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/ Meeting Date & Time SEPTEMBER 22 , 2025 7:00pm Open Session As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was posted at the date displayed below. Christian Horvath, City Clerk Date: September 19 , 2025 Page 8 of 251 Item: 8.C. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Approve the following Minutes of August 25, 2025: City Council Regular and Special Meetings; September 11, 2025: Special Meeting Background: None. Discussion: None. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Approve as presented. Attachments: 1. CL_MIN_250825_CC_Special_F 2. CL_MIN_250825_CC_F 3. CL_MIN_250911_CC_Special_F Page 9 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Monday, August 25, 2025 Page 1 Minutes Rolling Hills City Council Monday, August 25, 2025 Special Meeting 6:00 p .m. 1. Call To Order The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 6:02 p.m. Mayor Pieper presiding. 2. Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper Councilmembers Absent: Staff Present: Karina Bañales, City Manager Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Samantha Crew, Management Analyst Nicolas Papajohn, City Attorney 3. Pledge Of Allegiance – Mayor Piper skipped the pledge. 4. Blue Folder Items (Supplemental) Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to receive and file Blue Folder Item 7A. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 5. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items – None 6. Consent Calendar 6.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for The City Council Special Meeting of August 25, 2025 Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Black to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 7. Matters From the City Council 7.A. Candidate Interviews and potential approval of Traffic Commission appointment to complete the current term beginning January 2, 2024 and expiring January 1, 2028 Mayor Pieper invited Roger Hawkins to be interviewed first and Bill Varner second after a random drawing of the applicant's names by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. Page 10 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Monday, August 25, 2025 Page 2 Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Black to table the discussion. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 8. Adjournment: 6:58 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. on August 25, 2025. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, August 25, 2025 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via City’s website link at: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php All written comments submitted are included in the record and available for public review on the City website. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk Approved, ____________________________________ Jeff Pieper, Mayor Page 11 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25, 2025 Page 1 Minutes Rolling Hills City Council Monday, August 25, 2025 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. 1. Call To Order The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 7:03 p.m. Mayor Pieper presiding. 2. Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Wilson, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper Councilmembers Absent: Black Staff Present: Karina Bañales, City Manager Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Samantha Crew, Management Analyst Reina Schaetzl, Willdan Contract Senior Planner Stephanie Grant, Assistant Planner Nicolas Papajohn, City Attorney 3. Pledge Of Allegiance – Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer Councilmember Black returned to dais at 7:04 p.m. 4. Presentations / Proclamations / Announcements 4.A. Recognize partners and organizations for their donations, contributions and assistance to Rolling Hills residents in the affected utility shut-off areas during 2024 and 2025 Mayor Pieper recognized members of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Rotary Club, the Women’s Community Club of Rolling Hills, the Rolling Hills Block Captain Program and the Rolling Hills Community Association in attendance as well as other vendors and partners that donated services. 5. Approve Order of the Agenda Motion by Councilmember Black , seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. Blue Folder Items (Supplemental) – None Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to receive and file Blue Folder Items 7A and 14A. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None Page 12 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25, 2025 Page 2 7. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Public Comment: Dustin McNabb, David Brown, Kathleen Hughes, Lola Fantappie, Heather Ramsdell, Benita Schwarz, Daniel Bethencourt 8. Consent Calendar 8.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for The City Council Regular Meeting of August 25, 2025 8.B. Approve Motion to Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading of All Ordinances and Resolutions Listed on the Agenda 8.C. Approve the following Minutes of August 11, 2025: City Council Regular Meeting 8.D. Payment of Bills 8.E. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage and Complaint Reports for July 2025 Motion by Councilmember Black , seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilmember Black requested a future item on the SBCCOG dues. 9. Excluded Consent Calendar Items – None 10. Commission Items 10.A. Consideration and discussion regarding potential Rolling Hills Municipal Code changes related to National Weather Service Red Flag Warning Days as recommended by the Traffic Commission and City Staff Presentation by Willdan Contract Senior Planner Schaetzl Motion by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 10.B. Zoning Case No. 24-121: Site Plan Review for a Residential Addition with a new attached garage, non-exempt grading, walls to exceed 3 feet maximum height, and other improvements; and Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessory structure greater than 200 square feet and finding the same exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act located at 6 Quail Ridge Road North (Schimmel) (LOT 107-RH) Presentation by Assistant Planner Grant Page 13 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25, 2025 Page 3 Motion by Councilmembe r Black, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None The Council made a request to minimize and/or lose full plan sets going forward. 11. Public Hearings – None 12. Discussion Items – None 13. Matters From the City Council 13.A. Consideration of authorizing the Mayor to sign a joint Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities letter to Governor Newsom regarding the expansion of Executive Order N-32-25 and suspension of SB9 applications within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Presentation by City Manager Bañales Motion by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve as presented and authorize the Mayor to sign. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 13.B. Consideration of creating a limited Ad Hoc Committee to discuss potential Red Flag Warning Municipal Code changes related to parking and potential prohibition on high-risk outdoor activities; and appointment of two Council members Presentation by Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Horvath Motion by Councilmember Wilson seconded by Councilmember Black to nominate Mayor Pieper and Councilmember Mirsch to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee regarding potential Red Flag Warning municipal code violations. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 14. Matters From Staff 14.A. Receive and file a Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Update Presentation by Management Analyst Crew Public Comment: Mark Ellers, Arlene Honbo, Tom Brody, Martha Bernadette, Michelle Delaconte, Judith Haenel, Marian Visco Motion by Councilmember Black, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Page 14 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25, 2025 Page 4 AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 15. Recess To Closed Session – 8:51 p.m. 15.A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) the City finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation. (3 Cases) A. Name of Case: Connie Andersen, et al. v. California Water Company, et al. (Seaview Case) Case No.: 24STCV20953 B. Name of Case: City Of Rolling Hills v. SCE CPUC Docket No. C.24-10-008 C. Name of Case: City Of Rolling Hills v. SoCalGas CPUC Docket No. C.24-10-009 15.B. Conference With Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation a Closed Session will be held, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(C) and (D)(4) regarding the decision of whether to initiate litigation (1 Case) Recommendation: None 16. Reconvene To Open Session – 9:14 p.m. 17. Adjournment: 9:14 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. on August 25, 2025. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, September 8, 2025 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via City’s website link at: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php All written comments submitted are included in the record and available for public review on the City website. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk Approved, ____________________________________ Jeff Pieper, Mayor Page 15 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Monday, September 11, 2025 Page 1 Minutes Rolling Hills City Council Monday, September 11, 2025 Special Meeting 4:30 p.m. 1. Call To Order The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 4:31 p.m. Mayor Pieper presiding. 2. Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper Councilmembers Absent: Staff Present: Karina Bañales, City Manager Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Nicolas Papajohn, City Attorney 3. Pledge Of Allegiance – Councilmember Black 4. Blue Folder Items (Supplemental) – None 5. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Public Comment: James Black 6. Consent Calendar 6.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for The City Council Special Meeting of September 11, 2025 Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Dieringer, Mayor Pieper NOES: None ABSENT: None 7. Recess to Closed Session – 4:33 p.m. 7.A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) The City Finds, Based on Advice from Legal Counsel, that Discussion in Open Session will Prejudice the Position of the City in the Litigation. (2 Cases) A. Name of Case: City Of Rolling Hills v. SCE CPUC Docket No. C.24-10 -008 B. Name of Case: City Of Rolling Hills v. SoCalGas CPUC Docket No. C.24-10-009 7.B. Conference With Legal Counsel – Threat of Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(2) regarding letter dated September 9, 2025 from attorney Robert E. Reichman on behalf of Danica Iannitti regarding objection to potential siren pole location at Upper Blackwater Canyon and Portuguese Bend Road. 8. Reconvene To Open Session – 5:24 p.m. Page 16 of 251 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Monday, September 11, 2025 Page 2 9. Adjournment: 5:24 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 5:24 p.m. on September 11, 2025. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Mon day, September 22, 2025 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via City’s website link at: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php All written comments submitted are included in the record and available for public review on the City website. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk Approved, ____________________________________ Jeff Pieper, Mayor Page 17 of 251 Item: 8.D. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Payment of Bills Background: None. Discussion: None. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Approve as presented. Attachments: 1. CL_AGN_250908_CC_PaymentOfBills_E 2. CL_AGN_250922_CC_PaymentOfBills_E Page 18 of 251 Page 19 of 251 Page 20 of 251 Page 21 of 251 Page 22 of 251 Item: 10.A. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Reina Schaetzl, Wildan Principal Planner Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Zoning Case No. 24-149: Site Plan Review for construction of a new garage with workshop, non-exempt grading and other improvements; Conditional Use Permit for a detached mixed-use accessory structure (garage with workshop) greater than 200 square feet, and a variance for site disturbance of more than 40% and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act for location at 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler & Adams) (Lot 29-A-EF) Background: Planning Commission Approval On August 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a morning field trip to the subject property, with all commissioners in attendance. The applicants’ engineer and six neighbors were present; no concerns were raised during the site visit. That evening, the Commission convened a public hearing at City Hall, with all commissioners present. Staff presented the project. The project engineer and property owner were present. No members of the public voiced opposition. Following review and discussion, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the project and adopted Resolution No. 2025-07. Zoning, Location and Lot Description The lot located at 3 Outrider Road is a rectangular-shaped parcel zoned RAS-1, and the net lot area is 38,750 square feet (0.89 acres). The subject property is currently developed with a 3,906 square- foot (SF) single-family residence, 513 SF attached garage, 570 SF pool and spa, 25 square feet of pool equipment, 145 SF barbeque with trellis, and a 90 SF service yard. There are three building pads as follows: • The first residential building pad is 14,040 square feet and contains the existing house, garage, swimming pool, barbeque, and trellis. • The second building pad is 3,800 square feet and will include the proposed 825 SF detached garage with workshop, which will be attached to an 800 SF Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.28.040, ADUs are not subject to discretionary review. The ADU, as shown on the plans, has been reviewed and approved for compliance with the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) by Staff. Page 23 of 251 • The third residential building pad is 2,010 square feet and will include the set-aside area for the stable and corral. Previous Approvals On January 17, 1973, the Planning Commission approved Zoning Case No. 122, granting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction of a swimming pool in the front yard. On July 20, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2021-10, granting Variance and Site Plan Review (SPR) approvals for grading, relocation of the swimming pool, addition of a spa, a barbeque, and a trellis in the front yard area. The swimming pool, spa, barbeque, and trellis are all complete. Discussion: Applicant Request On February 24, 2025, an application was filed by the applicant, Criss C. Gunderson, Architect, on behalf of the property owners Cameron Hoyler and Dara Adams, to request approval to construct the following (collectively referred to as “Project”): • 825 SF single-story detached garage with workshop; and • 1,000 SF set aside areas for corral and stable. The Project also includes a new driveway area, walkways, and other improvements. Other improvements, including additional landscaping and hardscape, are not subject to discretionary review. The Project requires 846 cubic yards (CY) of grading to be balanced on site. This includes 423 CY cut and 423 CY fill, which is not exempt and subject to Site Plan Review. DISCUSSION: Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit The RHMC requires a Site Plan Review for the construction of any new building or structure pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020(A)(2). Additionally, a Conditional Use Permit is required per RHMC Section 17.16.040(A)(3) and 17.16.210(A)(6), respectively, because the garage with workshop area is a mixed-use accessory structure that exceeds 200 square feet. The garage area is 547 square feet and can fit two cars. The workshop area is 243 square feet and contains a separate potting area. As part of the approval, the plans shall comply with the RHMC requirements as referenced herein. Variance Since the Project requires site disturbance more than the allowable 40% of the net lot area (RHMC Section 17.16.070(B)), a Variance is being requested to deviate from these provisions to permit a larger buildable area given that the gross area of the lot is 47,920 square feet (1.10 acres) and the net lot area 38,750 square feet (0.89 acres). The applicant is requesting a Variance from the Code to deviate by 19.82% for the grading disturbance area beyond what is permitted for this Project. The disturbed area is already 20,565 square feet, or 53.07% and will increase by 7,680 square feet to 72.89%. Since the increase is necessary to improve the driveway access and other flatwork areas, Staff requested the Commission to consider this impact on the natural terrain. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE Page 24 of 251 Setbacks, Lot Coverage and Building Pad Coverage The Project complies with the remainder of the required setbacks in the RAS-1 Zone. It conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements as well. The net lot area of the property is 38,750 square feet (0.89 acres). The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 6,434 square feet or 16.60% (20% max. permitted), which excludes exempt structures such as the ADU. The total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be 13,734 square feet or 35.44% (35% max. permitted). Neighbor Concerns As of the writing of this report, no neighbor concerns have been submitted to the CIty. Review by RHCA The Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed the design at the June 17, 2025 meeting and requested that stable access be relocated to the south side of the ADU, which the Applicant has addressed. Upon review and approval of these plans by the City, the RHCA recommended resubmittal to their architectural review board for approval. Environmental Review The Planning Commission found the Project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences, as further detailed in Planning Commission Resolution 2025-07. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Receive and File. Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - PL_ADR_250819_3OutriderRd_VicinityMap 2. Attachment 2 - PL_ADR_250819_3OutriderRd_DevelopmentTable 3. Attachment 3 - PL_ADR_250819_3OutriderRd_Plans 4. Attachment 4 - 2025-07_PC_Resolution_3 OutriderRd_ZC24-149_F_E 5. Attachment 5 - CL_PBN_250807_PH_PC_1HackamoreRd_3OutriderRd_Affidavit 6. CL_AGN_250819_PC_Item10A_PublicComment01 Page 25 of 251 City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 TITLE VICINITY MAP CASE NO. Zoning Case No. 24-149 OWNER Hoyler and Adams ADDRESS 3 Outrider Road, Rolling Hills 90274 Page 26 of 251 Development Table Zoning Case No. 24-149 3 Outrider Road Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RA-S-1 Zone SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH POOL/SPA, TRELLIS, AND BBQ AREA GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP, GRADING FOR BARN/STABLE PAD Net Lot Area 38,750 SF 0 SF 38,750 SF Residence 3,906 SF 0 SF 3,906 SF Garage 513 SF 0 SF 513 SF Swimming Pools/Spa 570 SF 0 SF 570 SF Pool Equipment 25 SF 0 SF 25 SF Guest House (ADU) 0 SF 800 SF 800 SF Garage and Workshop 0 SF 825 SF 825 SF Stable minimum: 450 SF 0 SF 450 SF 450 SF Corral minimum: 550 SF 0 SF 550 SF 550 SF Raised Deck 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF Attached Covered Porches 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF Entryway/Porte Cochere, Breezeways 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF Attached Trellises 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF BBQ 145 SF 0 SF 145 SF Service Yard 90 SF 0 SF 90 SF Other 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF Basement Area 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF Depth of Basement 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF Primary Driveway 2,290 SF 900 SF 3,190 SF Paved walkways/Patio Areas/Courtyards 910 SF 0 SF 910 SF Pool Decking 2,310 SF 0 SF 2,310 SF Other Paved Driveways, Road Easements, Parking Pads 1,180 SF 0 SF 1,180 SF Grading (balanced onsite) 0 CY 423 CY CUT 423 CY FILL 846 CY TOTAL Structural Lot Coverage 5,159 SF (13.31%) 1,275 SF (3.29%) 6,434 SF (16.60%) Flatwork Lot Coverage 6,690 SF (17.26%) 900 SF (2.32%) 7,590 SF (19.59%) Total Lot Coverage (Structures and Flatwork): Excl. allowance (ADU deducted) 11,704 SF (12.93%) 2,030 SF (3.29%) 13,174 SF (33.99%)00 Building Pad 1 Coverage 14,040 SF Existing Pad Area 5,014 SF (35.71 %) 14,040 SF Existing Pad Area 0 SF (0.00%) 0 SF Proposed Pad Area 5,014 SF (35.71%) 14,040 SF Total Pad Area Building Pad 2 Coverage 0 SF Existing Pad Area 0 SF (0 %) 0 SF Existing Pad Area 825 SF (21.71%) 3,800 SF Proposed Pad Area 825 SF (21.71%) 3,800 SF Total Pad Area Building Pad 3 Coverage 0 SF Existing Pad Area 0 SF (0 %) 0 SF Existing Pad Area 0 SF (0.00%) 2,010 SF Proposed Pad Area 0 SF (0.00%) 2,010 SF Total Pad Area Total Disturbed Area (40% maximum) 20,565 SF (53.07%) 7,680 SF (19.82%) 28,245 SF (72.89%) Building Heights Maximum Building Heights: 21 FT Maximum 0 FT 12 FT 9IN 12 FT 9IN Page 27 of 251 20 20 40 20 SCALE: 1" = 20' SCALE: 1" = 500'FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLYENGINEERING CORP.C1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RECORD OWNER: ZONING SUMMARY: WORK DESCRIPTION: LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS: 1235 LEGEND ACRONYMS VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 10' SECTION A SCALE: 1" = 10' SECTION B PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN EARTHWORK EXHIBIT EARTHWORK ESTIMATE: Page 28 of 251 PLANSJOB NORTHPROPOSED ADU NO. 3 OUTRIDER RD. , ROLLING HILLS , CA 90274 FOR CAMERON HOYLER & DARA ADAMSDATE: 2/28/2025 0TOTALNET LOT AREA38,750 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 38,750RESIDENCE3,906 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 3,906 sq.ftGARAGE513 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 513 sq.ftSWIMMING POOL/SPA570 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 570 sq.ftPOOL EQUIPMENT25 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 25 sq.ftGUEST HOUSE(ADU)0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftGARAGE AND WORKSHOP0 sq.ft 825 sq.ft. 825 sq.ft0sq.ft450sq.ft450sq.ftRAISED DECK0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftATTACHED COVERED PORCHES0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftATTACHED TRELLISES0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft*DETACHED STRUCTURES:(circle all that applies)145sq.ft0sq.ft145sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftSERVICE YARD95 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 95 sq.ftOTHER:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftBASEMENT AREA:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft(Volume to be included in grading quantities)DEPTH OF BASEMENT0 sq.ft 0 ft 0 ftTOTAL STRUCTURE5,254 sq.ft 1,275 sq.ft 6,529 sq.ft%STRUCTURAL COVERAGE13.56% sq.ft 3.29% sq.ft 16.85% sq.ftTOTAL STRUCTURES5,254 sq.ft 1,275 sq.ft 6,384 sq.ft(ADU deducted from total)% STRUCTURAL COVERAGE13.56% sq.ft 3.29% sq.ft 16.47% sq.ft3 OutriderZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS:ALL STRUCTURES MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLANCALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGEEXCLUDING UP TO 5 AND UP TO 800 sq.ft. detached structures that are not higher than 12 ft. ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE, BREEZEWAYSAREA AND STRUCTURESSTABLE (dirt volume to be included in grading quantitiesEXISTINGPROPOSEDBBQover 15 ft. high and over 120 sq.ft. in areaDATE: 2/28/2025 0TOTALPRIMARY DRIVEWAY2,290sq.ft900sq.ft3,190910sq.ft0sq.ft910sq.ftPOOL DECKING2,310sq.ft0sq.ft2,310sq.ft1,180sq.ft0sq.ft1,180sq.ftTOTAL FLATWORK6,690sq.ft900sq.ft7,590sq.ft17.26%2.32%19.59%11,944sq.ft2,175sq.ft14,119sq.ft30.82%5.61%36.44%11,944sq.ft1,375sq.ft13,174sq.ft(ADU deducted from total)30.82%3.55%34.00%TOTAL DISTURBED AREA20,565sq.ft7,680sq.ft28,245sq.ft% DISTURBED AREA53.07%19.82%72.89%GRADING QUANTITY846C.Y.(include future stable, corral, and access way; basement and all other areas to be graded)*Free standing accessory structures such as sheds, trellises, covered patios, gazebo, fountains, barbecue, outdoor fireplace, etc. are not counted towards coverage and disturbed area unless their combined area exceeds 800 sq.ft., or if there are more than 5 such structures on the property.%TOTAL COVERAGETOTAL STRUCTURAL & FLATWORK COVERAGEExcl. the allowance of up to 5- 800 sq.ft. structures from previous page.% TOTAL COVERAGEPAVED WALKS, PATIO AREAS, COURTYARDSOTHER PAVED DRIVEWAYS, ROAD EASEMENTS, PARKING PADS%TOTAL FLATWORK COVERAGETOTAL STRUCTURAL & FLATWORK COVERAGEAll structures (attached and detached) must be listed.EXISTINGPROPOSEDZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 3 OutriderALL FLATWORK MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLANDATE: 2/28/2025 0TOTALBUILDING PAD14,040 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 14,040RESIDENCE3,906 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 3,906 sq.ftGARAGE513 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 513 sq.ftSWIMMING POOL/SPA570 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 570 sq.ftPOOL EQUIPMENT25 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 25 sq.ftGUEST HOUSE0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft0CABANA0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ftSPORTS COURT0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftSERVICE YARD0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ftATTACHED COVERED PORCHESPrimary Residence0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftAccessory Structures0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftATTACHED TRELLISES0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft*DETACHED STRUCTURES:145 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 145 sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ftOTHER:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftPORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURES(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE, BREEZEWAYSALL DETACHED STRUCTURESZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 3 OutriderSTABLEAREA OF ATTACHED COVERED EXISTINGPROPOSEDCALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGEBUILDABLE PAD AREA AND STRUCTURESPAD NO. 1- Main House PadDATE: 2/28/2025 0TOTALBUILDING PAD0 sq.ft 3,800 sq.ft 3,800 sq.ftRESIDENCE0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftGARAGE0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftSWIMMING POOL/SPA0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftPOOL EQUIPMENT0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftADU0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft0DETACHED GARAGE0 sq.ft 825 sq.ft. 825 sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftSPORTS COURT0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftSERVICE YARD0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ftATTACHED COVERED PORCHES0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftATTACHED TRELLISES0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft*DETACHED STRUCTURES:0 sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft(From 1st page)0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ftOTHER:- sq.ft - sq.ft 0 sq.ft(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 3 OutriderSTABLEAREA OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURESENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE, BREEZEWAYSPAD NO. 2- Garage and ADUALL DETACHED STRUCTURESCALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGEBUILDABLE PAD AREA AND STRUCTURESEXISTINGPROPOSEDDATE: 2/28/2025 0TOTALBUILDING PAD0 sq.ft 2,010 sq.ft 2,010RESIDENCE0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftGARAGE0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftSWIMMING POOL/SPA0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftPOOL EQUIPMENT0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftGUEST HOUSE0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftCABANA0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft0sq.ft450sq.ft450sq.ftSPORTS COURT0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftSERVICE YARD0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ftATTACHED COVERED PORCHESPrimary Residence0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftAccessory Structures-Stable0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ft0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftATTACHED TRELLISES0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft*DETACHED STRUCTURES:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft(From 1st page)0sq.ft0sq.ft0sq.ftOTHER:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ftTOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 30 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 450 sq.ft%BUILDING PAD COVERAGE0.00% sq.ft 22.39% sq.ft 22.39% sq.ftTOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 20 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft% BUILDING PAD COVERAGE0.00% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ftand incl. the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the size of the residence / accs structures(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)Not incl. attached trellises,Not incl. allowed deductions,STABLEAREA OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURESENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE, BREEZEWAYSALL DETACHED STRUCTURESBUILDABLE PAD AREA AND STRUCTURESEXISTINGPROPOSEDZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 3 OutriderCALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGEPAD NO. 3- Stable19BEDROOMFAMILYROOMGARAGEPOTTINGAREACL.BATHPANTRYREF.SD/WLINE OF ROOF OVERHANGLINE OF ROOF OVERHANGENTRY PORCH 23'7'-3"37'-8"44'-2"7'14'-4"81'-10"21'-4"37'-2"17'-3"5'-4"17'-6"4'-7" 81'-10"WORKSHOP11'-6"UPP. CAB.UPP. CAB.LEGEND :PROPOSED 2X4 STUD WALLSPROPOSED 2X6 STUD WALLS 4 :12 4 :12 RI DG E1'-3"2'-2"3"2'-2"RIDGEVALLEYV A L L E Y 1'-3"1'-3"2'-2"2'-2"2'-2"2'-2"PITCH BREAK 2 :12 4 :124 :12RI DG E4 :124 :12RIDGE @ADU 154.00 RIDGE @ GARAGE & WORKSHOP 153.75 Page 29 of 251 1248'-6"FIN. GRD.SN8'-6"PL. @ FAMILYROOMNO. 3 OUTRIDER RD. , ROLLING HILLS , CA 90274 FOR CAMERON HOYLER & DARA ADAMS EAST ELEVATIONNS8'-6" FIN. FLR.PL. @ BEDROOM±124FIN. GRD.PL.@ POTT. SHED8'-6" FIN. FLR.SNPITCH BREAK PERROOF PLANBOARD OVER BOARDVERT SIDING (TYP)SIDING W.P BASE PERDET (TYP)8'-6"NSN8'-6"BOARD OVER BOARDVERT SIDING (TYP)SIDING W.P BASE PERDET (TYP)STONE VENEER -ROUGHLY COURSEDLAID IN STRATA8'-0" FIN. FLR.PL. @ CLOSETFIN. GRD.124122SNCLASS "A" SHINGLEROOF TO MATCHEXIST'G RESIDENCE (TYP.)7'-10"WDW.HD'R FIN. FLR.PL. @ GARAGE8'-6" 8'-6"P ±PL. @ BEDROOM8'-10"PL. @ CLOSET FIN. FLR. FIN. FLR.PL @ LIVINGPROPOSED GARAGE & ADUELEV 13'-0"RIDGE @ ADU 154.00FIN FLR @ ADU 141.00PLRIDGE @ WORKSHOP 153.75RIDGE @ GARAGE & WORKSHOP153.75PL. @ GARAGECLASS "A" SHINGLEROOF TO MATCHEXIST'G RESIDENCE (TYP.)12'-9" 12'-9"RIDGE @ ADU 154.0013'-0"FIN FLR @ ADU 141.00CLASS "A" SHINGLEROOF TO MATCHEXIST'G RESIDENCE (TYP.)12'-9"RIDGE @ GARAGE & WORKSHOP153.75RIDGE @ ADU 154.0013'-0"FIN FLR @ ADU 141.0013'-0"RIDGE @ ADU 154.0012'-9"RIDGE @ GARAGE & WORKSHOP153.75Page 30 of 251 1 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 24-149: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP, NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED MIXED-USE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP) GREATER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, AND A VARIANCE FOR SITE DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN 40 PERCENT AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR LOCATION AT 3 OUTRIDER ROAD (LOT 29-A-EF) (HOYLER & ADAMS) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On July 31, 2025, a complete application was duly filed by Criss Gunderson Architect (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owners, Cameron Hoyler and Dara Adams, with respect to real property located at 3 Outrider, Rolling Hills (Lot 29-A-EF) requesting: Site Plan Review for construction of a new garage with workshop (mixed-use), non-exempt grading, and other improvements; Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessory structure greater than 200 square feet (garage with workshop (mixed-use)); and a Variance for site disturbance of more than 40 percent. Section 2. The lot is rectangular shaped and narrows towards the rear of the property. The net lot area is 0.89 acres (38,750 square feet), which excludes roadway easements and ten feet along property lines. Outrider Road has a 30-foot-wide roadway easement. The property is developed presently with a 3,906 square-foot single-level residence built in 1953. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a field trip meeting and regular meeting on August 19, 2025. Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were mailed the public hearings notice on August 9, 2025 and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on August 9, 2025. The Applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first-class mail, and the Applicant was in attendance at the morning field trip and the evening hearing. Section 5. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the proposed Project includes a new residence, new tennis cabana, retaining walls, driveway, stable/corral set-aside areas, and related improvements. Accordingly, the Project qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303. There is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Much of the site has already been graded and developed. Section 6. Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review is required for the construction of any new building or structure pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.46.020(A). The Page 31 of 251 2 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) Project is for construction, non-exempt grading, and other improvements. With respect to the Site Plan Review for the development, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The Project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low-profile, low-density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The development is located on the existing building pad, which will reduce the visual impact from neighboring properties. The Project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 38,750 square feet (.089 acres) per RHMC Section 17.16.060(A). The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 6,434 square feet or 16.60% (20% max. permitted) excluding exempt structures; and the total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be 13,734 square feet or 34.99% (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area is 28,245 square feet or 72.89% (40% max permitted, provided that no more than fifty percent of the slopes resulting from the grading are greater (steeper) than 3:1, or three units horizontal (run) to one unit vertical (rise). B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot. The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and the Project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; the Project will be on an existing building pad, which enables Project elements to be the least intrusive to surrounding properties. Further, the Project will be a sufficient distance from nearby residences so views and privacy of surrounding neighbors will not be impacted. The lot has an existing building pad, which is disturbed with the remaining area either landscaped or left in a natural state. The new garage structure will be sited generally within the rear of the yard in a prior set-aside area that has been disturbed. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The development plan takes into consideration the visibility of the Project primarily from Outrider Road and is located in the rear of the lot. The front of the property has already been developed and landscaped. D. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). Page 32 of 251 3 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) The Project will be located on an existing building pad. Additionally, there will be no significant changes to the overall drainage features on the lot. The Project minimizes the need for import/export of soil by balancing cut and fill as much as possible, reducing major alterations to the natural landform. The property will also be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape plan. E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area. The cut and fill quantities are relatively balanced, reducing the need for excessive soil import/export, which indicates that the design works with the land rather than requiring significant reconfiguration. F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course. The grading plan ensures that existing drainage channels remain intact, with modifications only occurring where necessary to direct flow into pre-established drainage courses. G. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. Surrounding native vegetation and mature trees will not be affected or will be replaced. New vegetation will be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan. The development will be considerate of the environment and will enhance the rural character of the community. As such, the rural character of the community is maintained, and privacy is maintained with neighbors. H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. There are no changes to the existing circulation patterns for pedestrians or vehicles. The driveway and motor court will be redesigned to allow emergency vehicle access, better vehicular circulation, and more off-street parking. I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project is exempt from the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family residences and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project includes a new cabana and additional floor area to an existing Page 33 of 251 4 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) house. Accordingly, and as further described herein, the Project qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303. Further, no exceptions to the exemption apply; there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Much of the site has already been graded and developed. Section 7. Conditional Use Permit Findings. RHMC Section 17.16.040(A)(3) and 17.16.210(A)(6), respectively, require a Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessory structure greater than 200 square feet and for mixed-use structures. The Applicant is proposing a new 825-square-foot detached garage with workshop and potting area. Given the foregoing, in accordance with RHMC Section 17.42.050, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and meets all the applicable code development standards for such use. The Project is compatible with existing land uses, as other properties in the same zone have such accessory uses. The Project is consistent with the Circulation Element Goal 1, Policy 1.3, which aims to accommodate various forms of transportation in Rolling Hills, including vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and equestrians. The addition of a garage will allow for multiple vehicle accommodations on-site. B. That the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the Project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed uses are located on a developed property with sufficient proximity to neighboring buildings and structures. C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the uses and buildings proposed. The net lot area is 38,750 square feet and is adequate to support the proposed use. The property is developed and adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, a garage with a workshop. D. That the proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development standards of the RAS-1 Zone. The proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development standards in the RAS-1 Zone, with the exception of the Variance requested herein. E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for Page 34 of 251 5 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) hazardous waste facilities. Granting the proposed conditional use for the Project will be consistent with the applicable portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The Project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. The proposed Project would not constitute a hazardous waste facility. F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. The proposed Project allows the Applicant to enjoy the same rights as other residents in the City. The proposed uses are consistent with the residential character and spirit of the City and Title 17 of the RHMC. Section 8. Variance Findings. RHMC Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for granting Variances. The Applicant is seeking relief from RHMC Section 17.16.070(B) with regard to the amount of grading disturbance area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows per RHMC Section 17.38.050: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. The subject property is rectangular in shape, but narrows towards the rear, which makes development difficult. The resulting narrowing has, in essence, limited the developable area and at the same time, increased the disturbed area. The Variance is warranted due to the unique and limited size of the property, that does not apply generally to the other properties in the vicinity. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. Granting the requested Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights on the property. The existing building pads have been hindered by the shape of the property, thus creating limited developable area. The property is already 53.07% disturbed, and the additional disturbance by 19.82% is warranted to allow a garage with a workshop and additional parking area. Other properties in the vicinity enjoy these types of improvements. C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting the Variance to exceed the maximum allowable 40% disturbance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity because the increased disturbed areas have been planned to maximize usable space while minimizing intrusion. Further, the Project will improve the appearance of the property by placing buildings, including a garage with a workshop, away from public view. Landscaping will be provided to Page 35 of 251 6 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) screen structures on the subject lot. D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed. In granting the Variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed. The City’s Zoning Code ensures that the growth and development of the City is orderly, attractive, and enhances the rural character of the community. The proposed single-story garage will add value to the property and add an attractive ranch-style design to the property. This is visually harmonious with the rural aesthetic of the community and is at scale with adjacent residential development. E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant. The Variance does not provide any special privileges to the Applicant; the proposed Project is a new development that does not impact the footprint of the existing home or existing garage. Rather, the Variance will grant the Applicant the ability to provide more off- street parking for the property, in a garage, that surrounding properties currently enjoy. The Project, together with the Variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Granting the Variance for the Project will be consistent with the applicable portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The Project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. The proposed Project would not constitute a hazardous waste facility. G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Approvals granting the Variance to exceed the maximum allowable 40% disturbance will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills, which encourages accessory uses to residential uses. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 24-149 subject to the following conditions of approval: A. Approval for the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in RHMC Section 17.38.070 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. Page 36 of 251 7 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement(s) granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation(s). The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant’s request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless, otherwise, a variance to such requirement has been approved. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file at City Hall and approved by the Planning Commission on August 19, 2025, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable, complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto a separate sheet and included in the building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any proposed modifications and/or changes to the approved Project, including those resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed with staff so that staff can determine whether the modification is minor or major in nature. Minor modifications are subject to approval by the City Manager or his or her designee. Major modifications are subject to approval by the Planning Commission after a public hearing. Applicant shall not implement modifications or changes to the approved Project without the appropriate approval from the City Manager or designee or the Planning Commission, as required. D. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department Page 37 of 251 8 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) for issuance of building and grading permits, the plans for the Project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. E. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this Project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this Project and all of the conditions set forth herein and the City’s Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this Project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the Project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. F. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 6,434 square feet or 16.60% of the net lot area (20% maximum). The flatwork coverage is 7,300 square feet or 18.88%. The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 13,734 square feet or 34.99% (35% maximum). G. The lot is already developed and the total disturbed area will be 28,245 square feet or 72.89% (maximum 40% permitted, provided that no more than fifty percent of the slopes resulting from the grading are greater [steeper] than 3:1, or three units horizontal [run] to one unit vertical [rise]). Grading for this Project shall not exceed 423 cubic yards of cut and 423 cubic yards of fill for a total of 846 cubic yards being graded. H. The total proposed building pad net lot coverage for the residential main pad is 5,159 square feet or 36.75% (30% maximum guideline). I. Driveway access shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements, and the driveway shall be roughened, and the first 20 feet of the driveway shall not exceed 7% in slope. J. Access to the stable and the corral shall be decomposed granite or 100% pervious roughened material; it shall not be wider than 12 feet. K. A minimum of a five-foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures or as otherwise required by the Fire Department. L. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Low Impact Development requirements for storm water management on site (RHMC Chapter 8.32). M. Hydrology, soils, geology, and other reports, as required by the Building and Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building Official, shall be prepared. N. Prior to issuance of a final construction approval of the Project, all graded slopes shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the landscape plan shall meet the requirements of the City, shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements, and shall be approved by the City’s landscape consultant. Page 38 of 251 9 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) O. Any new landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (RHMC Chapter 13.18). If applicable, any new landscaping may be subject to review and approval by the City’s landscape consultant. Additionally, any new landscaping shall be maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the nearest structure. Any new landscaping shall also be planted in an offset manner, so as to prevent it from growing into a solid hedge. Any new landscaping shall utilize, to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water-wise, and are consistent with the rural character of the community. Plants listed as high hazardous plants under RHMC Section 8.30.015 are prohibited. P. Pursuant to RHMC Chapter 8.30, the property shall at all times be maintained free of dead trees and vegetation. Q. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction for this Project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. R. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements to advance equestrian use and emergency preparedness for evacuation within the City. Where the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) has demonstrated authority over the easement, the City’s Planning Director may grant relief from this condition upon satisfactory proof of permission from RHCA and a legitimate showing that there is no need for the condition to advance equestrian uses and emergency preparedness. S. A minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain the City’s Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to the start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. T. Prior to demolition of the existing structures, an investigation shall be conducted for the presence of hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos- containing materials (ACMs). If hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury, or ACMs are identified, remediation shall be undertaken in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. U. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/Applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no-smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. V. Development shall drain in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plan. Drainage dissipaters shall be constructed outside of any easements. The drainage system shall be approved by the Department of Building and Safety. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors’ view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. Page 39 of 251 10 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) W. Prior to construction, an on-site inspection and site walk-through, including through all existing structures as needed, shall be scheduled with City Staff and the Applicant. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. Y. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the Project site, on the new driveway, and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the unimproved roadway easements along adjacent streets, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways, visibility at intersections or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall carpool into the City. To the extent feasible, a minimum of 4’ wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and be clear of vehicles, construction materials, and equipment at all times. Z. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and relate traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. AA. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. BB. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2022 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. CC. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities and septic tanks. DD. The Applicant shall pay all of the applicable Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees and Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District fees, if any. EE. Prior to final inspection of the Project, “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed Project is in compliance with the Planning Commission approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the Project during construction shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan. FF. The Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals, or the approvals shall not be Page 40 of 251 11 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) effective. GG. All conditions of this Resolution, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. HH. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. II. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Rolling Hills (“City”), its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the Applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this Project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the claim, action, or proceeding. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the Applicant is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition. JJ. The future stable and corral shall comply with all requirements in RHMC Sections 17.18.060 and 17.18.090, unless otherwise approved herein. KK. New landscaping in the RHCA easement is prohibited unless previously approved by RHCA. Landscaping not approved by RHCA in the easement shall be removed from the final landscape plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON 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. Page 41 of 251 12 Resolution No. 2025-07 (ZC 24-149) 3 Outrider Road (Hoyler and Adams) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-07 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 24-149: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP, NON- EXEMPT GRADING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED MIXED-USE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP) GREATER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, AND A VARIANCE FOR SITE DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN 40 PERCENT AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR LOCATION AT 3 OUTRIDER ROAD (LOT 29-A-EF) (HOYLER & ADAMS) was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 19, 2025, 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 Page 42 of 251 CL_PBN_250807_PH_PC_1HackamoreRd_3OutriderRd_ - Page 1 of 1 2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (310) 543-6635 pfernandez@scng.com City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Account Number:5007827 Ad Order Number:0011750163 Customer's Reference/PO Number: Publication:Daily Breeze Publication Dates:08/09/2025 Total Amount:$764.31 Payment Amount:$0.00 Amount Due:$764.31 Notice ID:uThxodcFy2UMZ9SSvKTv Invoice Text:NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND FIELD TRIP PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will conduct public hearing field trip visits starting at 7:30 AM on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, at the following properties for the purpose of receiving public input on the projects described below: 1st field trip 7:30 AM 1 HACKAMORE ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 30-EF) ZONING CASE NO. 25-033: SITE PLAN REVIEWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY STABLE, NON-EXEMPT GRADING, EXPANSION OF BUILDING PAD, WALLS TO EXCEED 3 FEET HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED MAXIMUM 5 FEET HEIGHT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STABLE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM 200 SQUARE FEET; AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED 40 PERCENT DISTURBANCE AND FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (MAHLER & NUCCIO) 2nd FIELD TRIP AT 7:50 AM 3 OUTRIDER ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 81-EF) ZONING CASE NO. 24-149: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP, NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED MIXED-USE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP) GREATER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, AND A VARIANCE FOR SITE DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN 40 PERCENT, AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (HOYLER & ADAMS) The purpose of these field Page 43 of 251 CL_PBN_250807_PH_PC_1HackamoreRd_3OutriderRd_ - Page 1 of 1 Daily Breeze 2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (310) 543-6635 0011750163 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Los Angeles I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of Daily Breeze, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Torrance*, County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of June 15, 1945, Decree No. Pomo C-606. The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 08/09/2025 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Hermosa Beach, California On this 9th day of August, 2025. ______________________________ Signature *Daily Breeze circulation includes the following cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa Monica, Torrance and Wilmington Page 44 of 251 Page 45 of 251 Item: 12.A. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Samantha Crew, Management Analyst Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Receive and file an update on the Emergency Outdoor Siren Notification System project; Authorize the City Manager to seek easement licensing from the Rolling Hills Community Association on the two proposed locations at Upper Blackwater and Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) and Chesterfield cul-de-sac; and provide direction on a third (or fourth) pole location. Background: Staff have been working closely with HQE Systems and the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) to identify additional locations for the Emergency Outdoor Siren Notification System. Initiated in 2019, this capital improvement project has involved extensive technical evaluations, community input, and site feasibility studies. This staff report summarizes information and requests from the City Council’s August 11, 2025, meeting. A detailed project timeline is included as Attachment A for reference. On August 11, 2025, the City Council directed staff to: 1. Demonstrate siren pole height to residents and the City Council; 2. Identify an alternative site to the Ringbit cul-de-sac that would provide coverage for the Flying Triangle and Southfield areas; 3. Consult HQE and RHCA on the viability of a pole in the Flying Triangle, specifically sound propagation and truck/access logistics; 4. Assess feasibility of a higher-elevation site on Southfield; 5. Obtain a firm installation date for the SAFE Network indoor receivers; 6. Provide costs to camouflage poles and determine whether trees could be planted/maintained at appropriate heights to soften visual impacts. Staff will also seek City Council direction on securing easement licenses with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) for siren pole placement at Upper Blackwater and Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) and the Chesterfield cul-de-sac. In addition, staff requests direction regarding a potential third (or fourth) pole location and visual mitigation strategies, such as camouflage or landscaping, based on vendor proposals. Page 46 of 251 Discussion: The City of Rolling Hills is advancing efforts to expand its Emergency Outdoor Siren System to enhance public safety and improve community-wide emergency notification capabilities. In coordination with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) and the City’s siren system vendor, HQE, staff has identified proposed installation sites and conducted on-site demonstrations to illustrate the visual and operational impact of a fully installed siren pole. Between September 10 and September 16, 2025, staff and RHCA representatives hosted field mock-ups at two primary locations, Upper Blackwater & Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) and the Chesterfield cul-de-sac, providing Council Members, residents, and contractors an opportunity to assess the proposed 50-foot pole height in context with surrounding properties and terrain. Feedback gathered during these demonstrations highlighted community concerns, particularly regarding traffic safety at the Garden Triangle and view impacts at both Upper Blackwater and Chesterfield. In parallel, HQE provided sound propagation analyses, demonstrating expected coverage and performance across Rolling Hills’ challenging topography. These studies underscore the importance of strategic placement to ensure effective emergency communication while minimizing community impacts. Council guidance on licensing easements and selecting additional siren locations is now needed to advance project coordination with HQE, initiate utility location reviews through Dig-Alert, and prepare for RHCA Board consideration. The following section summarizes community input, site evaluations, and technical analyses that provide the basis for staff’s request for City Council direction. Staff is seeking authorization to secure easement licenses with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) for siren pole placement at the Garden Triangle and Chesterfield cul-de-sac, selection of one of three options for an additional siren location, and guidance on preferred visual mitigation strategies. 1. Authorize staff to proceed with securing easement licenses with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) for siren pole placement. City staff and RHCA conducted a field demonstration to illustrate the approximate height of a fully installed siren pole. Using a measuring device, the proposed 50-foot height was marked so that both the City Council and nearby residents could visualize the scale of the structure in relation to surrounding homes, landscaping, and natural features. During these one-hour demonstrations, staff gathered input from homeowners who participated. While it is not possible to capture every comment or nuance of those conversations, residents were encouraged to submit their support, concerns, or other feedback in writing (Attachment B) to ensure their viewpoints are accurately represented. The summary below reflects the primary observations and comments received during the demonstrations. A. Upper Blackwater & Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) Wednesday, September 10, 2025 | 4:00–5:00 p.m. Monday, September 15, 2025 | 9:00–10:00 a.m. Tuesday, September 16, 2025 | 2:00-3:00 p.m. September 10 Site Visit Feedback At the Garden Triangle demonstration, one homeowner, one contractor, and one Council Member joined staff, and while neighbors observed as they drove by during the one-hour pole display. The homeowner who attended expressed support for public safety initiatives but voiced strong opposition to placing a siren pole at the Garden Triangle. Multiple concerns were raised, with the primary issue being that the triangle itself poses a traffic hazard. The homeowner asserted that the addition of a pole at this location could heighten those risks and noted that placing public safety Page 47 of 251 infrastructure where it might create additional safety concerns does not seem logical. That same homeowner recalled a serious accident that occurred several years ago at the triangle, when a vehicle overturned and caught fire, which heightened her concern about the safety impacts for nearby residents. She further shared that these concerns had previously been brought to the City’s Traffic Commission (Attachment C), where she explained her view that the Garden Triangle should be removed due to the risks associated with vehicles speeding around that low-visibility bend. Staff found that on July 22, 2021, during public comment, a resident of Upper Blackwater told the Traffic Commission the corner is dangerous, citing multiple accidents over the years due to a visibility-blocking wall in the easement. RHCA’s Maintenance Supervisor concurred about blind spots. The Commission directed staff to agendize the item for a future meeting. On September 23, 2021, staff brought back the item with a Willdan Engineering traffic safety review. The recommendations included short-term measures such as working with the property owner to remove a mature tree and wall on a nearby property along Upper Blackwater Canyon Road, adjusting roadway striping, and reconfiguring lanes around the median. A long-term option to remove the median island and realign the intersection to 90 degrees was also suggested to improve sight distance. In addition, an opposing property owner raised concerns regarding view impacts from the proposed siren pole, as well as potential loud sound transmission that could negatively affect their child. The homeowner emphasized that the proposed siren pole would exacerbate existing hazards at this location, describing the project as deeply burdensome to her property and highlighting the documented history of community concern regarding this intersection. She also indicated that she may seek legal counsel if the project moves forward at this site. September 15, 2025, Site Visit Feedback At the Garden Triangle demonstration, one Council Member joined staff, and several neighbors observed as they drove by during the one-hour pole display. No comments or feedback were received during this mock-up. September 16, 2025, Site Visit Feedback At the Garden Triangle demonstration, one homeowner and two Council Members joined staff, and some neighbors observed as they drove by during the one-hour pole display. The homeowner in attendance had previously communicated their support for the project during a phone call with City staff. They reiterated their enthusiasm for the siren installation and offered no negative feedback, either during the call or on site. The homeowner emphasized that it is important for all residents to be able to hear the siren and expressed that they are pleased and reassured knowing they will be adequately alerted. B. Chesterfield Cul-de-sac Wednesday, September 10, 2025 | 5:00–6:00 p.m. Monday, September 15, 2025 | 10:30–11:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 16, 2025 | 3:30 p.m.- 4:30 p.m. September 10, 2025, Site Visit Feedback At the Chesterfield cul-de-sac demonstration, several homeowners and two City Council Members attended. Staff displayed the proposed 50-foot siren pole at both of the potential installation locations within the cul-de-sac, position 1 and position 2 (Attachment D), so attendees could observe the height from both perspectives. Following a brief question-and-answer period, participants were invited to a nearby residence to view the potential visual impacts from the property. The homeowner expressed strong opposition to the Page 48 of 251 siren installation, stating that the pole would significantly impact their views. In addition, staff, residents, and Council Members visited two other nearby properties that would be affected by the visibility of the proposed poles. One homeowner, who has previously voiced objections, reiterated their opposition and previously indicated they are considering potential litigation against the City. That homeowner has also sent a package to the City Council, including documentation of their concerns.The other property owner, while supportive of public safety initiatives in general, expressed concern about the pole being fully visible from their property if located at Position 2 and noted that this placement could create challenges for a nearby neighbor when entering or exiting their gate. It is important to note that at a previous site visit, the property owner at the potential pole location supported the project and recognized its public safety importance. However, they requested that the pole be placed far enough from their gate to allow for regular access to their property. September 15, 2025, Site Visit Feedback At the Chesterfield cul-de-sac mock-up, several homeowners and one City Council Member attended. Residents were able to take photographs from their home vantage points, and the one-hour time allotment provided an opportunity for discussion with City staff and the attending Council Member. Staff noted that one homeowner was in full support of the proposed siren location, stating that while the installation would affect their view, they felt the public safety benefits outweighed the impact. Two other homeowners who had also attended the September 10 demonstration reiterated their earlier perspectives: one remained in full opposition of the installation, and the other, while preferring an alternate location, acknowledged the importance of the siren as a public safety measure. Another homeowner expressed strong opposition, citing view concerns and urging the City to explore alternative sites, emphasizing that view preservation should remain a priority. Staff also noted that some homeowners were out of town but had previously communicated their opposition to the proposed location. September 16, 2025, Site Visit Feedback At the Chesterfield cul-de-sac mock-up, a couple of homeowners and one City Council Member attended. Staff accompanied one homeowner and a Council Member to nearby residences to observe potential viewpoints. The homeowners asked questions and expressed their objections to the proposed siren site. On September 18, staff spoke to a resident whose home is at the corner of Chuckwagon and Chesterfield, stating that the siren pole would impact their view from the kitchen table when facing down toward Chesterfield. Sound Sensitivity To be mindful of residents who may have heightened sensitivities to sound, the City will provide ample advance notice prior to conducting any audible testing. In addition, City staff will work directly with any identified households that may be impacted to understand their specific needs and take steps to minimize potential discomfort. Sound Propagation The effectiveness of outdoor warning sirens depends on several environmental and operational conditions. Weather patterns such as humidity, altitude, wind, and rain can affect how sound carries. Terrain features, including hills, mountains, and tall buildings, as well as existing environmental and mechanical noise (traffic, aircraft, landscaping activity, machinery, wildlife), can further impact how far and how clearly siren tones and voice messages are heard. Additionally, building materials and the reflective or absorptive properties of the materials influence sound reach and intelligibility. Because of these combined factors, consistent sound levels cannot be guaranteed across all properties, and Page 49 of 251 indoor audibility cannot be assured. These variations underscore the importance of designing a layered emergency communication system that does not rely on a single notification method. At the speaker source, maximum output reaches approximately 91-95 dB. At 1,000 meters, the sound is projected at 70 dB, meeting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standard for intelligible voice and tone alerts. SiRcom LS-120 Outdoor Acoustic Speakers, were selected for their ability to deliver clear, intelligible voice and tone alerts across Rolling Hills’ varied terrain. The equipment is specifically designed for outdoor early-warning and mass-notification purposes. Sound Coverage Analysis - SiRcom LS 30 Model vs SiRcom LS 120 Model HQE has provided sound propagation maps illustrating two levels of siren coverage. The SiRcom LS 30 model, equipped with four 30-watt speakers, is designed for localized coverage. At one-quarter the power of the SiRcom LS 120 model, it requires additional amplifiers and supporting equipment to achieve comparable sound levels, resulting in higher overall costs than the LS120 system. Both models are omnidirectional sirens capable of projecting clear voice and tone signals. Initially, HQE estimated the cost of each SiRcom LS 30 siren pole at $21,323 (Attachment F). HQE now recommends the SiRcom LS 120 model to ensure broader coverage, with an updated cost of $48,335.96 per pole (Attachment E). HQE has noted that the higher cost reflects recent increases in material prices and that the SiRcom LS 120 model offers the most effective coverage for these areas. This evening, staff, along with HQE leadership, will present sound propagation maps to illustrate how the siren sound carries across Rolling Hills’ unique terrain. These maps will also highlight why HQE recommends focusing on the primary proposed sites rather than secondary alternatives. Overall, the maps are intended to demonstrate projected sound coverage and show how environmental conditions and topography influence audibility throughout the community. Model Cost per Pole Coverage Notes Notes on Allocation / Recommendation SiRcom LS 30 $21,323 Immediate area coverage Initial estimate SiRcom LS 120 $48,335.96 Wider coverage for maximum audibility Recommended by HQE 2. Provide direction on an additional siren location(s) Staff is requesting City Council direction on the selection of a third, and potentially a fourth, siren location to enhance the City’s emergency notification system. Three installation options have been identified, each with associated costs and site considerations. Based on Council’s discussion, if staff is authorized to proceed, staff will return at a future meeting with the findings of a feasibility study for the recommended pole location(s). It should be noted that this work has already been completed for the Ringbit cul-de-sac, which HQE has confirmed as a viable site. As part of this process, staff can also arrange a siren pole height mock-up to allow residents and Council Members to view the proposed height in context. Three options are available for consideration: Location Option Number of Poles Option 1: Ringbit 1 Option 2: Southfield & Ringbit Intersection 1 Page 50 of 251 Option 3: Flying Triangle + Southfield & Flying Mane 2 City staff confirmed with RHCA that placing a siren pole in the Flying Triangle is feasible. HQE also confirmed that if the City Council approves the Upper Blackwater & Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) and Chesterfield cul-de-sac locations, it would not interfere with the process of identifying a potential third or fourth siren pole. Council direction on a preferred option will allow staff to coordinate with HQE and DigAlert to confirm site viability. Once verified, staff will present the project to the RHCA Board of Directors for consideration and to advance the next phase. Following authorization of the easement licenses, staff will return to the City Council with a proposed HQE contract amendment to include the additional work. 3. Provide guidance on preferred strategies for visual mitigation (camouflage, landscaping), selecting from vendor proposals. Camouflage HQE Systems has submitted a proposal (Attachment E) offering three options for camouflaging or installing emergency siren poles within the City of Rolling Hills. The proposal outlines three main options with cost breakdowns, timelines, and support services. The vendor has indicated that camouflaging a siren pole would result in less than a 1% impact on sound conveyance, meaning the effect on system performance is negligible. Option 1: Involves camouflaging three existing poles by adding artificial tree branches. The total project cost after discounts is $108,646.50, with installation expected to take six workdays. Option 2: Proposes installing three new 50-foot poles with camouflage. This option includes both siren equipment and artificial branches at a final cost of $253,654.38. Installation is estimated at twelve workdays. Option 3: Offers the installation of a single new 50-foot camouflaged pole. This option is priced at $84,551.46 and requires about four workdays for installation. It should be noted that the utility boxes, speakers, and the brackets on the solar panels can be painted to better blend into their surroundings. In keeping with the wooden material of the pole, neutral tones such as brown or green are recommended, as these colors minimize visual contrast and allow the equipment to recede into the landscape. The estimated cost to paint the components on the pole is approximately $2,500 per pole. This cost reflects the need for HQE to rent specialized equipment, specifically a bucket truck, in order to safely reach the full height of the pole. In addition, the process requires the application of two full coats of paint, ensuring both durability and adequate protection against weathering and environmental exposure. While the use of artificial branches to camouflage the poles has been explored, staff are not recommending this option due to both the high cost and the artificial aesthetic it creates. Artificial foliage often appears out of place, particularly in areas with natural vegetation, and can detract from the overall visual character of the community. Painting the components offers a more subtle, cost- effective, and context-sensitive approach to reducing visual impacts. In addition, landscaping around the base of each siren pole is recommended as a complementary Page 51 of 251 measure to further soften views. Should the Council wish to pursue this option, staff can return at a later date with cost estimates for consideration. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SAFE Network The SAFE Network is a stand-alone, redundant emergency communication system designed to operate independently of cellular, internet, and traditional power infrastructure. This feature is particularly valuable in Rolling Hills, where power outages and connectivity disruptions may occur during emergencies. In addition to outdoor siren poles, the system offers indoor alerting units that provide both audible and visual notifications, ensuring residents inside their homes can receive critical warnings even when phone service is down or devices are silenced. Indoor units are equipped with battery backup capable of operating for several days without external power and can be supported by alternative energy sources such as solar. The units also incorporate a display screen for clear text messaging, with the ability to broadcast alerts in multiple languages, enhancing accessibility for residents with diverse communication needs. By supplementing outdoor sirens with indoor receivers, the SAFE Network addresses one of the primary limitations of traditional siren systems: the lack of guaranteed indoor audibility due to environmental conditions, mechanical variables, or building construction materials. This layered approach provides a more reliable and comprehensive notification system for the community during emergencies. Timeline for installation of SAFE Network HQE Systems is currently in the process of installing the SAFE Network in the Town of Paradise, California. Once that project is completed, HQE intends to begin work in the City of Rolling Hills. Based on current scheduling, installation of the SAFE Network within Rolling Hills is anticipated to begin in late fall 2025. The system is being offered by the vendor, HQE, through a grant at no cost to the City. Individual homeowners who wish to purchase an in-home receiver unit will be able to do so for approximately $100 per unit. The City anticipates that the SAFE Network infrastructure and the ordering system for residents will be fully operational by the end of 2025. The SAFE Network system is designed exclusively for indoor use and does not account for outdoor coverage. Therefore, to ensure equitable and reliable outdoor siren coverage throughout the City, additional siren poles are needed. HQE expressed confidence that the installation of three SAFE Network gateways on the existing siren poles would provide coverage to the entire community. If any coverage gaps were to occur, which is not anticipated, repeaters, small devices approximately the size of an iPad, could be installed on other structures, such as stop signs or nearby buildings, to ensure full system performance. These devices operate using radio frequency (RF) signals, which are electromagnetic waves that carry digital data between units. Unlike audible siren sounds that can be influenced by terrain, weather, or building materials, RF signals travel at much higher frequencies, allowing them to cover greater distances and maintain reliable communication across the community. This distinction ensures that even if the siren sound is less audible in certain locations, the SAFE Network’s communication system remains consistent and dependable. Conclusion The Emergency Outdoor Siren Notification System is a critical component of the City’s broader public safety and emergency preparedness strategy. Ensuring equitable sound coverage across the community is essential to providing timely alerts and maximizing resident safety during emergencies. Page 52 of 251 Staff will return to the City Council at an upcoming meeting with additional information regarding contractual obligations, funding sources, and detailed financial considerations. These elements will assist in finalizing the implementation approach. City Council feedback this evening on the desired site locations will allow staff to coordinate with the RHCA and advance the project into its next phase. Fiscal Impact: The following table summarizes the City’s expenditures from 2019 to the present, as well as projected costs associated with the installation of additional siren poles. Description Date Budget Allocation Expensed Remaining Balance PSA Turnkey Emergency Communication System June 26, 2023 $261,000.00 Milestones include 50% upon parts on order. 40% upon installation. Final 10% upon full test and acceptance by the City $130,500.00 Invoice 8/16/23 $117,450.00 Invoice 10/08/24 $13,050.00 1st Amendment to June 26, 2023 PSA – Time extension to February 28, 2025 December 11, 2024 $0 $130,500.00 Invoice 8/16/23 $117,450.00 Invoice 10/08/24 $13,050.00 2nd Amendment to June 26, 2023 PSA – Time extension to April 30, 2025 February 24, 2025 $130,500.00 Invoice 8/16/23 $117,450.00 Invoice 10/08/24 $13,050 $13,050.00 3rd Amendment to June 26, 2023 PSA – Time extension to October 31, 2025 Effective April 30, 2025 $130,500.00 Invoice 8/16/23 $117,450.00 Invoice 10/08/24 $13,050 $13,050.00 Recommendation: This evening, staff is seeking City Council direction on the following: 1. Authorize the City Manager to seek easement licensing from the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) for siren pole placement at: a. Upper Blackwater & Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) b. Chesterfield cul-de-sac 2. Provide direction on an additional siren location, selecting from: a. Ringbit (single pole) b. Southfield and Ringbit intersection (single pole) c. Flying Triangle & Southfield/Flying Mane (two poles) 3. Provide guidance on preferred strategies for visual mitigation, including camouflage or landscaping, based on vendor proposals. Attachments: 1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_250922_CC_EmergencySirenProgramHistoryAndDevelopment (3) Page 53 of 251 2. Attachment B - CL_AGN_250922_CC_Public Correspondance 3. Attachment C - CL_AGN_250922_CC_09.23.21TrafficCommissionAgenda_Final 4. Attachment D - CL_AGN_250922_CC_ChesterfieldPosition1&2 5. Attachment E - CL_AGN_250922_CC_HQECamouflagingProposalRH 6. Attachment F - 20250425_HQE System Expansion Page 54 of 251 1 – V-09/25 Emergency Siren Program: History and Development Fiscal Years 19/20 and 20/21 The City Council allocated funding for the Block Captain Program to evaluate communication platforms that could function during a complete power outage in the community. With these funds, two -way radios were initially purchased; however, when handheld radios proved ineffective, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify alternative communication systems. March 25, 2021 Through the RFP process, the City received one proposal from HQE Systems, Inc. (HQE). April 26, 2021 Staff recommended that the City Council engage HQE to assist with the Block Captain Communications Project and prepare a feasibility study. However, the Council chose to delay consideration of the item and directed Councilmember Jeff Pieper to work with staff to better understand the progression of the Communications Project, from the initial purchase of handheld radios to the development of a siren system, as well as to clarify the scope of the proposed feasibility study. August 23, 2021 The City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with HQE Systems, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study for implementing a Mass Notiflcation System in Rolling Hills. January 10, 2022 The flnal Feasibility Study was presented to the City Council. As part of the study, HQE conducted a detailed site survey to identify potential constraints that could affect the system’s operational and technical performance. In addition, HQE performed a sound propagation analysis using the company’s proprietary outdoor siren planning software to model optimal signal distribution. The coverage models accounted for Rolling Hills’ varied topography, as well as environmental factors such as foliage and building density. HQE recommended two installation options for the outdoor siren system: • Solution A – Low-visibility installation: Nine (9) 30-foot poles distributed throughout the City at an estimated cost of $310,602. • Solution B – Low-cost installation: Three (3) 50-foot poles with intelligible horns mounted in a 360-degree transmission position at an estimated cost of $144,573. Page 55 of 251 2 – V-09/25 Following the presentation, the City Council requested additional information regarding the estimated annual maintenance cost of the proposed system, as well as street-level coverage maps for both Solution A and Solution B. February 28, 2022 The following maintenance package, provided by HQE, was presented to the City Council: • Full-Service Package - $12K (increased at 3% infiation rate per year) • Customer support 24/7 Service call support 24/7 (remote and onsite) • One annual preventative maintenance inspection/service • All parts and labor for corrective maintenance (exceptions to improper use, vandalism, Acts of God, etc.) April 25, 2022 The City Council unanimously approved an amendment to the PSA with HQE, authorizing an additional not-to-exceed allocation of $3,500 to evaluate potential additional siren pole locations. July 20, 2022 HQE submitted a revised Feasibility Study that presented two additional options for consideration: • Solution C - Installation at the three gate locations (Main, Crest, and Eastfleld Gates) along with the FAA Radar Station, at an estimated cost of $423,683. Due to the signiflcant time and resources required to obtain federal approval for use of the Radar Station site, staff did not recommend this option. • Solution D - Installation limited to the three gate locations, at an estimated cost of $334,748. The higher cost was attributed to the need for specialized equipment, including directional speakers in place of omni-directional horns, as well as additional expenses for design, construction, and labor. January 23, 2023 The City Council selected four potential siren pole locations as follows: • City Hall Fire Station 106 (12 Crest Road West) • Cal Water Facility (3960 Crest Road) • Easement at Crest Road East gate Page 56 of 251 3 – V-09/25 March 27, 2023 The City Council approved HQE’s proposal in the amount of $4,195 to conduct a second sound propagation analysis at three of the previously identifled locations. May 15, 2023 Representatives from HQE met with City staff and members of the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) to conduct site visits at the three proposed locations. Prior to these visits, Cal Water informed staff that its facility would no longer be available as an option. Consequently, the RHCA easement at the Crest Road East Gate was identifled as an alternative site. June 12, 2023 The City Council received HQE’s updated sound propagation report, which conflrmed that the installation of three siren poles would provide 70-decibel coverage throughout the City. Based on these flndings, the Council approved moving forward with the installation of the siren tone and intelligible voice system utilizing three (3) 50-foot poles, as outlined in Exhibit A of the Professional Services Agreement. HQE also conflrmed that the selected turnkey installation option was estimated at a discounted cost of $261,000, with an optional annual maintenance package of $13,981. June 26, 2023 The City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with HQE for the installation of an emergency outdoor siren system in an amount not to exceed $261,000, with the system designed to deliver 70 decibels (dB) at each residence in the City. On July 6, 2023, HQE executed the contract, submitting minor correction requests and inquiring whether the City intended to pursue the maintenance option. Following review, the City Attorney revised the document, and a flnal City-executed contract was provided to HQE on July 25, 2024. The Professional Service Agreement, executed on June 26, 2023, was in effect through December 31, 2024. August 16, 2023 The City submitted payment for 50% ($130,500.00) of the project cost to allow HQE time to procure equipment as necessary. August 22, 2023 A kick-off meeting was conducted onsite at all proposed locations. Page 57 of 251 4 – V-09/25 September 1, 2023 HQE submitted initial plans to City Planning staff / RHCA staff. October 23, 2023 The development plans were presented at the City Council meeting. The item was tabled to a future meeting based on Council feedback. November 13, 2023 An update on pole siting locations was presented to the City Council, based on feedback from the October 23, 2023 Council meeting. The Council expressed support for re-siting poles to the Fire Station and City Hall. December 14, 2023 The City Council unanimously voted to approve development plans for three siren locations. February 2, 2024 The legal counsel for the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) advised that the RHCA Board would need to issue a license agreement for the two locations in the RHCA’s easements. March 4, 2024 HQE received clearance from Southern California Edison to begin installation at Crest Road East. March 7, 2024 The RHCA Board stated a revocable license for the installation on RHCA easements was approved with the condition that "if technically feasible a communications antenna could be put on the antenna in the future." April 3, 2024 HQE submitted a permit application with Los Angeles County Building and Safety (LACBS). April 29, 2024 City staff received a notiflcation from LACBS acknowledging the submittal of the project, that it was screened and accepted for submission into their queue. June 27, 2024 Page 58 of 251 5 – V-09/25 City staff requested that HQE provide contacts for other cities where sirens had been installed for the purpose of compiling a list of best practice policies and procedures that could be presented/discussed by the subcommittee for a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). July 11, 2024 City staff participated in a demo training for the SiRcom SMART Alert Software. July 29, 2024 City staff received a notiflcation from LACBS acknowledging plans had been reviewed and contain corrections. July 31, 2024 HQE connected City staff with the Recovery and Economic Development Project Manager for the Town of Paradise. August 15, 2024 LACBS returned plans with additional corrections impacting the timeline. August 16, 2024 HQE visited the City for Dig Alert preparation. August 19, 2024 City staff connected HQE with the RHCA to address their requests for trimming/removals to gain permission and/or information on their preferred vendor. October 15, 2024 HQE provided a draft of the Alert and Warning SOP. October 16, 2024 HQE performed their flrst test after installation. This test was not at full volume but rather at 10% capacity. November 6, 2024 A second siren test was performed. After this test they determined that the 500 to 800Hz range was best suited for the Rolling Hills topography. November 18, 2024 After review and additions, Staff send a draft of the SOP to the Siren Ad Hoc Committee for Page 59 of 251 6 – V-09/25 review. December 3, 2024 HQE performed the third siren test. They performed impedance testing on each speaker to ensure that the 500-800 Hz frequency would sound at the maximum volume without overloading the ampliflers. The voltage and impedance balance were not to HQE’s satisfaction, and the test was canceled. No sirens were sounded. December 11, 2024 A First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement was executed, extending the term through February 28, 2025. January 12, 2025 HQE awarded Rolling Hills a Community SAFE Grant, providing the SAFE Network System at no cost to the City. The grant, valued at over $65,000 in public safety enhancements, includes at-cost pricing for up to 1,200 Indoor SAFE Units for residents. Following the December 3 siren test, HQE reconfigured the system to correct a wattage issue and installed an additional speaker at the Fire Station for improved sound balance. January 13, 2025 HQE presented the first draft of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to staff. The draft was reviewed by staff, Chief Kane from the LA County Fire Department, Captain Guerrero from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, and our Area G Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Brandy Villanueva and a revised version was also reviewed by the Siren Ad Hoc Committee. January 27, 2025 Council directed staff to continue working with HQE on meeting contractual obligations for the outdoor siren installation / sound coverage and, once completed, future implementation of the SAFE Network as an augmented service. February 24, 2025 A Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement was executed, extending the term through April 30, 2025. March 4, 2025 HQE successfully completed the siren test, collecting data during the three-hour test period and gathering resident feedback through a post-test survey. The test revealed coverage gaps in several areas. Page 60 of 251 7 – V-09/25 March 24, 2025 Council determined that residents may purchase SAFE units directly from HQE, if desired. The Standard Operating Procedure document was adopted as a living document. April 4, 2025 HQE conducted sound testing with mobile units, examining two speaker types, the L30 and L120, with the goal of determining which model was best suited for each location. Using sound meters, they measured output levels and, based on the results, developed new propagation maps. These maps identifled both the existing pole sites and potential new locations, leading to the determination that 5 to 7 additional poles would be needed to maximize siren coverage. Most of the proposed installations would utilize 30-foot poles, with the possibility of one 60-foot pole. April 8, 2025 City staff received training on the SiSA siren system. April 23, 2025 HQE hosted a community webinar addressing frequently asked questions and explained how the SAFE network functions. April 30, 2025 A Third Amendment to Professional Services Agreement was executed extending the term through October 31, 2025. May 12, 2025 HQE selected the following sites based on modeling, community feedback, and RHCA input. 1. At the end of Ringbit Road W in the cul-de-sac 2. Chesterfleld Road and Chuckwagon Rd 3. Pinetree Lane and Portuguese Bend Rd HQE proposed a funding shift in which the City would cover the cost of equipment and materials for the three proposed sirens, while HQE would provide labor and other direct costs. The total flscal impact to the City is $63,969.23, which includes LS30 sirens, an amplifler, control system, solar and battery backup, and communications components. The City had previously understood there would be no additional costs associated with the system expansion. Page 61 of 251 8 – V-09/25 August 11, 2025 The City Council directed staff to add story pole fiags at the Upper Blackwater Canyon & Portuguese Bend Road (Garden Triangle) and at the Chesterfleld cul-de-sac site; identify another potential location on Southfleld or in general area; ask about the possibility of adding a pole in the Flying Triangle area; ask if trees can be planted adjacent to poles; flnd out the costs to use "camoufiaged poles"; and get potential dates on the SAFE Network installation. Page 62 of 251 1 HOMEOWNER CHERYL MARCZ’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR SIRENS WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE STUDIES TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, AND ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTS: Homeowner Cheryl Marcz respectfully submits notice of her Supplemental Opposition to the City of Rolling Hills’ proposal to install additional outdoor warning sirens without further study of alternative indoor alerting methods; including a specific opposition to the placement of an outdoor warning siren at the Chesterfield Rd Cul-de-sac (coordinates 33.760673’N – 118.337931’W). This Supplemental Opposition is based upon and supported by this Notice and attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the previous Notice of Opposition, together with its Memorandum of Points and Authorities and corresponding Exhibits submitted August 25, 2025, which are all hereby incorporated by reference, the complete agendas and minutes and records on file with City Council, and on such other evidence or argument as may be presented at or before the City Council meeting scheduled for September 22, 2025 at 7:00pm. DATED: September 18, 2025 By: Cheryl Marcz Homeowner, 8 Chesterfield Road Docusign Envelope ID: 6F7EC08E-AF20-455B-846F-1B9F5E42D52B Page 63 of 251 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES This Opposition supplements the Opposition submitted August 25, 2025. The facts and information contained in August 25th Opposition will not be restated here for the sake of brevity, though they still apply. The purpose of this Supplemental Opposition is to provide additional facts, information, and arguments that have arisen since the August 25, 2025 City Hall meeting. Subsequent to the August 25th City Hall meeting, City Staff conducted three neighborhood meetings at the Chesterfield Cul-de-sac to demonstrate via mock-up pole the impact that the proposed 50-foot poles would have on the neighborhood’s views and character. Of note, the mock-up pole was an inches-wide pole that did not accurately reflect the true diameter of the proposed pole, nor did it accurately reflect the width of the actual sirens and protruding solar panels. To demonstrate the width of these items, City Staff brought a stick with markings on it and showed residents what the width of the proposed pole would be at various sections. While this demonstration required residents to visualize something that was not right in front of them, the impact of even the inches-wide pole was abundantly apparent to all present – the 50-foot pole towered over the existing trees and existing telephone poles, and very clearly impacted views from nearly each residents’ property. For the sake of allowing a better visualization of what the proposed pole might actually look like, we have taken a photo of an existing siren pole that had been installed by HQE Systems and superimposed it over images of the mock-up pole. These illustrations are on the following page and demonstrate the enormous footprint these poles would inflict on the neighborhood should they be installed at the cul-de-sac. As seen in the illustrations on the following page, the installation of this pole would destroy the character of the area and the views that the City and Community Association have been entrusted to preserve. /// /// Docusign Envelope ID: 6F7EC08E-AF20-455B-846F-1B9F5E42D52B Page 64 of 251 3 Docusign Envelope ID: 6F7EC08E-AF20-455B-846F-1B9F5E42D52B Page 65 of 251 4 The above illustrations show how imposing the proposed 50-foot poles will be; but it is likely that the impact could be even greater. If history is any indication of the future (it usually is), City Staff indicated that the existing siren at City Hall was originally supposed to be 50 feet, but was later changed to 57 feet. When questioned why that was, no answers were given; and when questioned whether the City was confident that the increase in height would not happen again, the City indicated that it was confident (but could not explain why). Residents are not confident in the City’s non-answers as to these issues, not just because HQE now has a history of proposing one thing and doing another – but more relevantly, because HQE also has a history of failing to deliver on its more substantive promise of achieving emergency sound coverage throughout the City, which was not achieved (thus the proposal to install additional 50-foot poles throughout the City). Moreover, as discussed in the August 25th Opposition, the emphasis on additional outdoor sound propagation is misplaced, understudied, and should not be prioritized ahead of using existing pole infrastructure to install wireless communications for the indoor SAFE Network. The installation of the SAFE network can and should occur before any consideration is given to installing additional methods of sound-propagation throughout the City. To delay installation of the SAFE network for the sake of installing additional poles is negligent and could cost residents lives in the event of a catastrophe. After the SAFE network is installed with existing infrastructure, then it might make sense for continued consideration to be given to the idea of outdoor sound coverage. But even still, additional information must be presented to residents, the City, and the Community Association to fully evaluate whether the benefits outweigh the detriments. At a minimum, (1) the Person Most Knowledgeable at HQE Systems should be compelled to attend a City Hall meeting to present on what is really important for emergency communications and what can and cannot be done to improve emergency communications in the City; and (2) a clearly delineated map (showing street names) must be produced that clearly indicates current sound coverage levels from existing siren infrastructure. Docusign Envelope ID: 6F7EC08E-AF20-455B-846F-1B9F5E42D52B Page 66 of 251 5 Residents have sought this information from City Staff and have not received it. Residents have also reached out to HQE directly. Below is the text of an email sent to David Ditto at HQE Services, that has not been replied to: David, I have left a couple voicemails for you at 843-872-7020 but have not received a call back. We are attempting to contact you for clarification around some questions we have about the HQE proposal to install additional siren poles in Rolling Hills, California. Please call me back when you are available; or if there is a better contact person, please direct me to that person. Ideally, we would like to set an appointment with the person most knowledgeable (PMK) at HQE to visit the proposed sites with us to help us better understand the challenges that are present with the current topography and landscaping at various proposed sites. We are seeking further information from the PMK about the feasibility studies conducted to date; and, in particular, what changes may need to be made to increase the effectiveness of signal and sound propagation from a proposed siren pole at the corner of Chuckwagon Rd. and Bowie Rd. For example, would removing some of the existing greenery/plants/landscaping at the site improve the effectiveness of this location? We would also like to better understand whether there is a measurable difference in effectiveness between the various proposed sites, how it was measured, and what those measurements are. We surely would appreciate any clarification HQE can provide so that we can help the City, its residents, and the Community Association make an informed decision how best to proceed. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to your reply. /// /// /// Docusign Envelope ID: 6F7EC08E-AF20-455B-846F-1B9F5E42D52B Page 67 of 251 6 Absent this due diligence, the City is negligently proceeding with misplaced ideas, and with a Company that has already let the City down, and is on its way to destroying the character of the area and the views that the City and Community Association have been entrusted to preserve. The City should cease any plans to install additional outdoor sirens until a less intrusive and more effective indoor emergency system such as the SAFE Network has been installed and tested, and until more thorough due diligence can be conducted as to the matters at hand. DATED: September 18, 2025 By: Cheryl Marcz Homeowner, 8 Chesterfield Road Docusign Envelope ID: 6F7EC08E-AF20-455B-846F-1B9F5E42D52B Page 68 of 251 Page 69 of 251 Page 70 of 251 Page 71 of 251 Page 72 of 251 Page 73 of 251 Page 74 of 251 Page 75 of 251 Page 76 of 251 Page 77 of 251 Page 78 of 251 Page 79 of 251 Page 80 of 251 Page 81 of 251 Page 82 of 251 Page 83 of 251 Page 84 of 251 Page 85 of 251 Page 86 of 251 Page 87 of 251 Page 88 of 251 Page 89 of 251 Page 90 of 251 Page 91 of 251 Page 92 of 251 Page 93 of 251 Page 94 of 251 Page 95 of 251 Page 96 of 251 Page 97 of 251 Page 98 of 251 Page 99 of 251 Page 100 of 251 Page 101 of 251 Law Offices of Robert E. Reichman 2658 Griffith Park Blvd., No. 270  Los Angeles, California 90039 Phone (323) 683-5593  Fax (800) 878-6043 September 9, 2025 VIA EMAIL ONLY City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Objection to Siren Tower / 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon, Rolling Hills Estates File No.: Sept2025-113 Dear Mayor Pieper & Members of the City Council: On behalf of my client, Danica Iannitti, a long-time resident of Rolling Hills, I write to respectfully object to the current proposed placement of an emergency siren tower at the triangle in front of 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon -- directly adjacent to Ms. Iannitti’s residence at 1 Pine Tree Lane. While my client supports the City’s goal of enhancing emergency preparedness, placing the device at her property line creates an unreasonable and unnecessary health and safety issue for my client and her family. Particularly, Ms. Iannitti’s twelve-year-old son recently and unexpectedly lost his father. In addition to the mental and emotional toll that took, the child currently suffers from Acute Acoustic Trauma and is therefore highly sensitive to noise and vibration. The loud, startling noise that will emanate from a siren tower placed so close to the residence will cause severe and lasting physical and emotional harm to this already vulnerable child if the proposed location so close to the residence moves forward without change. Further, the immediate roadway adjacent to Ms. Iannitti’s house has been a known safety hazard in its current state and condition. Not long ago, a vehicle flipped on the road, caught fire, and came to rest on my client’s property, due in part to dangerous roadway and visibility conditions. Adding a siren tower will only serve to further impair and impede problematic visibility in an already dangerous driving and pedestrian location. As California law dictates in California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, an administrative decision by a governmental body may be challenged in court since the section authorizes judicial review of administrative decisions where there has been a prejudicial abuse of discretion. A decision is deemed an abuse of discretion if it is arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support. Here, selecting my client’s property frontage—when equally effective, nearby, non- residential sites are available at negligible additional cost (if any)—falls squarely within that definition. Courts have recognized that land-use actions that unfairly single out an individual property, without rational relation to public welfare, cannot withstand review. We therefore urge the Council to direct staff to relocate the siren to an alternative nearby site that avoids these serious health, safety, and welfare concerns. This minor adjustment imposes no Page 102 of 251 City Council City of Rolling Hills September 9, 2025 Page 2 material cost or delay yet would resolve the issue. If the City declines, my client will be compelled to pursue a writ of mandate and related remedies. Please be aware that under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, courts may award attorneys’ fees where litigation enforces important public rights. We trust the Council will resolve this matter cooperatively and avoid unnecessary litigation. Respectfully, ROBERT E. REICHMAN cc: File Page 103 of 251 Page 104 of 251 Page 105 of 251 Page 106 of 251 1 To: Rolling Hills City Council From: Block Captains and Residents Re: Siren Project – Additfonal Poles Date: August 25, 2025 cc: RHCA Board of Directors Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, The devastatfng and deadly January 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires accentuated a fatal flaw in our emergency outdoor warning system. As reported by HQE to the City Council on January 27, 2025, the Outdoor Warning Siren System cannot be heard throughout all the city of Rolling Hills. Approximately 212 homes or 30% of Rolling Hills potentially cannot hear the outdoor sirens (See Appendix 1) including but not limited to Poppy Trail, Portuguese Bend South, Pinto, Southfield, Packsaddle, Chesterfield, Chuckwagon, Appaloosa, Pine Tree, Buggy Whip, Hummingbird Lane, and other streets. The loss of 31 lives, especially 19 in the Eaton Fire, underscores the tragic consequences when emergency notfficatfons fail. In an area prone to wildfire risk like Rolling Hills, effectfve emergency communicatfon is paramount to saving lives, especially during the loss of power, cellular service, and internet connectfvity that often accompanies major disasters, rendering other alert methods like Alert SouthBay potentfally ineffectfve. During the July 2025 Texas floods, sirens in the town of Comfort provided a crucial alert, enabling residents to evacuate safely and avoid fatalitfes. This stands in stark contrast to other areas where the death toll soared to over a 100 adults and children, with experts saying better early warning systems could have reduced casualtfes, highlightfng the urgent need for a robust system here in Rolling Hills. While we value the aesthetfc charm of our community, prioritfzing view preservatfon over essentfal life- saving emergency alerts is a dangerous gamble that could cost our residents their lives. We urgently call upon City Council leadership and staff to take the following concrete steps, demonstrating a clear commitment to the safety and well-being of all residents: 1. Direct staff to work with the vendor to IMMEDIATELY identify and present additional locations for siren poles ensuring 100% audible coverage for every resident in our community. 2. Schedule and conduct a comprehensive public hearing focused on the proposed siren locatfons. This is crucial to address concerns from all residents, not just those directly impacted by pole proximity. 3. Prioritize the public safety of all residents above all else. This means allocatfng necessary resources, including financial, to expedite the Outdoor Warning Siren System expansion. 4. Commit to completing the installation of all additional poles and sirens, along with a full system test, by the end of this calendar year, 2025. One year is more than enough tfme to assess, plan, and execute this crucial phase of the project. This deadline creates a necessary sense of urgency to ensure the community is protected as quickly as possible. The time for action is now. Delays in expanding and testfng the Outdoor Warning Siren System put lives at risk. Page 107 of 251 2 Respectiully submitted, Block Captains and Support Team Marita Geragthy, Block Captain Lead, Southfield Drive Debra Shrader, Block Captain Lead, Saddleback Road Marian Visco, Block Captain Lead, Cinchring Road Arun Bhumitra, Buggy Whip Drive Ralph Black, M.D., Saddleback Road Jeffrey Bogosian M.D., Ringbit Road East Pam Crane, Caballeros Road Judith Haenel, Eastiield Drive Shahla Hemmat, Eastiield Drive Maureen Hill, Cinchring Road Nancy Hoffman, Packsaddle Road West Arlene and Gene Honbo, Portuguese Bend Road Kathleen Hughes, Caballeros Road John Lacey, Poppy Trail Kay and Paul Lupo, Georgeff Road Melissa McNabb, Quail Ridge Road South Tony Mian, Palos Verdes Drive North Diane and Ron Montalto, Quail Ridge Road South Michele Mottolo, Flying Mane Road Maureen and John Nunn, Crest Road West Kathy Patman, Chuckwagon Road Clint Patterson, Georgeff Road Charlie Raine, Pinto Road Dr Carmen Estrada Schaye, Portuguese Bend Rd Michael and Sandy Sherman, Crest Road East Giancarlo Starinieri, Palos Verdes Drive North Nicole Tangen, Johns Canyon Road Doris Tse, Georgeff Road Leslie Stetson, Saddleback Road Ed Swart, Meadowlark Lane Rae Walker, Wagon Lane Residents Laurie and Tom Brodie, M.D., Hummingbird Lane Kathleen Conzen, Wrangler Road Donald Crocker, Cinchring Road Carol and Shawn deMiranda, El Concho Lane Kevin and Brittany Gardner, Eastiield Drive Richard and Sally Leibfried, Chuckwagon Road Carol Marrone, Southfield Drive Page 108 of 251 3 Residents (continued) Debby Mcdonald, Caballeros Road Sharon and Mark Minkes, Elizabeth Minkes Bell, Chuckwagon Road Anne-Merelie Murrell, Packsaddle Road East Kim Rosenfield, Chuckwagon Road Murray Smith, Upper Blackwater Canyon Road Jim Scharffenberger, M.D., Appaloosa Lane Miriam and Ron Sommer, M.D., Poppy Trail Lisa and Gerry Van Nortwick, Chuckwagon Road Appendix 1 – Streets Where Sirens Cannot Be Heard Block Addresses # of Homes 6a 51-63 PORTUGUESE BEND RD, RANCHERO, WRANGLER (14) 14 6b 65-end PORTUGUESE BEND RD., PINTO, RUNNING BRAND (15) 15 7a 31 and 33 PORTUGUESE BEND RD., UPPER BLACKWATER CYN., APPALOOSA, SAGEBRUSH LANES (16) 16 8a 21-29 PORTUGUESE BEND RD., PHEASANT LANE (10) 10 8b PINE TREE LANE (11) 11 17a 7-10 SOUTHFIELD; RINGBIT EAST & WEST (16) 16 17b 12, 14, 16, 18 SOUTHFIELD + PACKSADDLE WEST (11) 11 17c 11,13,17,19 SOUTHFIELD + PACKSADDLE EAST (11) 11 21a BOWIE + 1-6 CHUCKWAGON (23) 23 21b 7-30 CHUCKWAGON (excl 29) (18) 18 21c 29-44 CHUCKWAGON (excl 30) + CHESTERFIELD (19) 19 3a 1-12 BUGGY WHIP (11) 11 3b 13-end BUGGY WHIP (12) 12 23b HUMMINGBIRD LANE + 0-9, 11, 13 EASTFIELD (15) 15 14a POPPY TRAIL (10) 10 TOTAL HOMES 212 Page 109 of 251 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.A.JULY 22, 2021 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 4.PRESENTATION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 AGENDA Regular Traffic Commission Meeting TRAFFIC COMMISSION Thursday, September 23, 2021 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 8:30 AM This meeting is held pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 17, 2020. The meeting agenda is available on the City’s website. A live video of the Traffic Commission meeting will be available on the City’s website. Both the agenda and the live video can be found here: https://www.rollinghills.org/government/agenda/index.php Members of the public may observe and orally participate in the meeting via Zoom and or submit written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published. Zoom access: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82332801730? pwd=UlRYRW5ZRXVPZktMYXZ5cDRld1hrQT09 Or dial (669) 900-9128 meeting ID: 823 3280 1730 Passcode: 514342 Recordings to all the Traffic Commission meetings can be found here: https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/government/agenda/index.php 07.22.21 TC Min_F.pdf 1 Page 110 of 251 4.A.LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT LOMITA STATION, TRAFFIC STATISTICS FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR JULY AND AUGUST 2021. (VERBAL REPORT) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS 6.A.RESIDENT'S REQUEST TO REVIEW AND MITIGATE SAFETY CONCERNS AT THE CORNER OF UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD AND PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. REC OMM ENDATIO N : Review recommendations from the Traffic Engineer and provide direction to staff. 7.OPEN AGENDA - COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 8.MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION 9.MATTERS FROM STAFF 9.A.CONSIDER RESCHEDULING OR CANCELLING THE NOVEMBER 25, 2021 TRAFFIC COMMISSION IN OBSERVANCE OF THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY. RECOMMENDATION: Consider rescheduling or cancelling the November 25, 2021 meeting. 10.ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:30am in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274. Memo - 9-17-21.pdf Notice: Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. 2 Page 111 of 251 Agenda Item No.: 3.A Mtg. Date: 09/23/2021 TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:JULY 22, 2021 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DATE:September 23, 2021 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: 07.22.21 TC Min_F.pdf 3 Page 112 of 251 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Traffic Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chair Wilson at 8:31 a.m. on Thursday, July 22, 2021 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bobit, Margeta, Vice Chair Virtue, and Chair Wilson. Commissioners Absent: Raine Others Present: Elaine Jeng, City Manager Meredith Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director Janely Sandoval, City Clerk/Executive Assistant Ashford Ball, Senior Management Analyst Stephanie Grant, Code Enforcement Officer/AssistantPlanner Vanessa Munoz, Traffic Engineer Arty Beckler Jr., Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Maintenance Supervisor Tami Bouse, Deputy LA County Sheriff’s Department Kristen Raig, RHCA Manager 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3A. MARCH 25, 2021 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION. Chair Wilson presented item. MOTION: Commissioner Bobit motioned to approve, and Commissioner Margeta seconded the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Virtue, Bobit, and Margeta NOES: COMMISSIONER: None. 4 Page 113 of 251 ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Raine. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. 4. PRESENTATION 4A. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT LOMITA STATION, TRAFFIC STATISTICS FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (ORAL REPORT). Deputy Tami Bouse presented the item. Discussion ensued. MOTION: Commissioner Bobit motioned to receive and file, and Commissioner Margeta seconded the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Virtue, Bobit, and Margeta. NOES: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Raine. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. 5. OLD BUSINESS None. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE FY 2021-2022 SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT WITH THE LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $27,650. Planning and Community Services Director Elguira presented the item. Deputy Tami Bouse provided additional information regarding the item. Discussion ensued. MOTION: Commissioner Bobit motioned to approve and Commissioner Margeta seconded the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Vice Chair Virtue, Bobit, and Margeta. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Chair Wilson. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Raine. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. 5 Page 114 of 251 6B CONSIDER THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION’S REQUEST TO ALLOW COMMUNICATION COMPANY TO PLACE COMMUNICATION DEVISES ON TRAFFIC SIGNS TO ENHANCE CELLULAR SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. Senior Management Analyst Ball presented the item. Discussion ensued. RHCA Manager Raig provided additional information regarding the item. Planning and Services Director Elguira provided additional information regarding code compliance in regards to the item. Discussion continued. MOTION: Commissioner Bobit motioned to approve the request to place node throughout the city and Vice Chair Virtue seconded the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Virtue, and Bobit. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Margeta. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Raine. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. 7. OPEN AGENDA – COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Resident Sue Breiholz, 6 Upper Blackwater, commented regarding a dangerous corner between Upper Blackwater and Portuguese Bend Road. She mentioned that there have been multiple accidents over the course of the years due to a wall located at the edge of the property, in the easement. The wall blocks driver’s views. She recommended the commission review the area, remove the wall, soften the land, and expand the street curve to improve drivers’ visibility when turning. The resident also provided the commission with pictures of the location. RHCA Maintenance Supervisor Beckler supported Mrs. Beiholz’s comments on the blind spots caused by the wall. MOTION: Commissioner Bobit motioned to put this item on the next meeting and provided direction to staff, and Vice Chair Virtue seconded the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Virtue, and Bobit. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Margeta. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Raine. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. 6 Page 115 of 251 8. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION None. 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF 9A CREST ROAD STORM DRAIN SAFETY CONCERNS. Code Enforcement Officer/Assistant Planner Grant presented the item. City Manager Jeng and Traffic Engineer Munoz provided additional information regarding the item. Discussion ensued. MOTION: Commissioner Bobit motioned to receive and file, and Commissioner Margeta seconded the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Virtue, Bobit, and Margeta. NOES: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Raine. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Traffic Commission, Chair Wilson adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m. The next meeting of the Traffic Commission is scheduled for September 23, 2021 at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Rd., Rolling Hills, CA. Respectfully submitted, Janely Sandoval City Clerk Patrick Wilson Chair 7 Page 116 of 251 Agenda Item No.: 4.A Mtg. Date: 09/23/2021 TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT LOMITA STATION, TRAFFIC STATISTICS FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR JULY AND AUGUST 2021. (VERBAL REPORT) DATE:September 23, 2021 BACKGROUND: In the month of July 2021, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department reported that 24 hours were used for traffic enforcement. In the month of August 2021, a total of 12 hours were used for traffic enforcement. DISCUSSION: There were no citations issued in July and August 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. ATTACHMENTS: 8 Page 117 of 251 Agenda Item No.: 6.A Mtg. Date: 09/23/2021 TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RESIDENT'S REQUEST TO REVIEW AND MITIGATE SAFETY CONCERNS AT THE CORNER OF UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD AND PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. DATE:September 23, 2021 BACKGROUND: At the July 22, 2021 Traffic Commission meeting, resident Sue Breiholz noted a safety concern at the corner of Upper Blackwater Canyon Road and Portuguese Bend Road. Mrs. Breiholz discussed that there is a wall in the easement that impairs drivers' visibility at the said corner. The Traffic Commission directed staff to place this item on the September 23, 2021 Traffic Commission agenda for discussion. DISCUSSION: Willdan Engineering Traffic Engineer Vanessa Munoz investigated the safety concerns expressed by resident Mrs. Breiholz and prepared a report. To improve the visibility for drivers at this location, Willdan Engineering recommended short-term and long-term improvements. Recommended short-term improvements Work with the property owner to remove the mature tree and the wall at 20 Blackwater Canyon Road Narrow the approach of the southbound right turn from Portuguese Bend Road to Upper Blackwater Canyon Road by modifying the striping Reconfigure the intersection to have one inbound lane north of the median island and one outbound lane south of the median island Willdan Engineering advised to take step up approach by first implementing the recommended the short-term improvements, evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended short-term improvements and then implement the long-term improvements. Recommended long-term improvements Remove the median island; realign the intersection to have Portuguese Bend Road be at a 90 degrees angle with Upper Blackwater Canyon Road; and arrow the road along Upper Blackwater 9 Page 118 of 251 Canyon Road FISCAL IMPACT: The service fee for Willdan Engineering to investigate and provide recommendations to mitigate the safety concerns at the intersection of Portuguese Bend Road and Upper Blackwater Canyon is included in operating cost for FY2021-2022. RECOMMENDATION: Review recommendations from the Traffic Engineer and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: Memo - 9-17-21.pdf 10 Page 119 of 251 September 17, 2021 Ms. Elaine Jeng City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Portuguese Bend Road and Upper Blackwater Canyon Road Traffic Safety Review Dear Ms. Jeng: The City of Rolling Hills has received comments from concerned residents regarding speeding and visibility concerns at the intersection of Portuguese Bend Road at Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. At the intersection there is a median island that divides Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. On both sides of the median there is an inbound lane and outbound lane to and from Portuguese Bend Road. The outbound lanes are stop controlled at Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. The speed limit of Portuguese Bend Road is 35 miles per hour and Upper Blackwater Canyon Road has a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Both roadways have one lane of travel in each direction. Portuguese Bend Road at the intersection with Upper Blackwater Canyon Road has a 90-degree angle curve. The driveway for 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road is located on the northwest corner. The driveway is not easily visible from Portuguese Bend Road. Motorists that travel southbound on Portuguese Bend Road and make a right onto Upper Blackwater Canyon Road have trouble seeing this driveway. During the field review of existing conditions, the resident for 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road confirmed previous removal of trees, clearing of brush, and foliage in an effort to improve the driveway visibility. From the conversation with the resident, we were told the line of sight did improve, but from my observation the line of sight is not totally clear as mature trees N c Portuguese Bend Road 11 Page 120 of 251 City of Rolling Hills September 17, 2021 Page 2 and the wall are still in the line of sight. Contributing to the difficulty is that the roadway of Portuguese Bend Road is at higher elevation than the driveway at 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. The resident from 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road also shared that there have been many near-miss collisions at the driveway. Additionally, motorists northbound on Portuguese Bend Road making a left onto Upper Blackwater Canyon Road have a limited sight distance of southbound vehicles which is due to the curve of the roadway (see Attachment A). To improve the line of sight we recommend short-term and long-term improvements. One short-term recommendation would be to remove the mature trees and the wall at 20 Blackwater Canyon Road. However, this may not be feasible as the resident may feel burdened by all the privacy being eliminated with these removals. Another short- term recommendation would be narrowing the approach of the southbound right turn from Portuguese Bend Road to Upper Blackwater Canyon Road by modifying the striping, this would slow inbound traffic and move them toward the median allowing for greater visibility (see Attachment B1). By slowing inbound traffic, a motorist exiting the driveway at 20 Blackwater Canyon Road would be allowed more reaction time. Additionally, sight distance can be improved by reconfiguring the intersection so there is only an inbound lane north of the median island and only one outbound lane south of the median island. This would allow northbound motorists turning left from Portuguese Bend Road onto Upper Blackwater Canyon Road to only enter the roadway north of the median. At this location they can be better seen by southbound traffic on Portuguese Bend Road, allowing for a greater stopping sight distance (see Attachment B2). Should the short-term configuration provide an improvement to the visibility and operation of the intersection, in the long-term, the median island could be removed and the intersection can be realigned to have Portuguese Bend be at a 90-degree angle with Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. Additionally, the road width would be narrowed (see Attachment C). Thank you for the opportunity to be of continuing service to the City of Rolling Hills. Should you have any questions regarding this evaluation, please contact me at (562) 368-4848 or vmunoz@willdan.com. Respectfully submitted, WILLDAN ENGINEERING Vanessa Muñoz, PE, TE Attachment A — Existing Sight Distance Attachment B1 — Short-term Proposed Sketch Attachment B2 — Improved Sight Distance Attachment C — Long-term Proposed Sketch 12 Page 121 of 251 Attachment A Existing Sight Distance 13 Page 122 of 251 City of Rolling HillsAttachment A - Existing Sight DistanceNorthbound Left TurnPortuguese Bend Road at Upper Blacwater Canyon RoadUPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROADPORTUGUESE BEND ROADPINE TREELANE10'10'11'8'10'10'10'10'12'12' 14Page 123 of 251 Attachment B1 Short-term Proposed Sketch 15 Page 124 of 251 City of Rolling HillsAttachment B1 - Short-term Proposed SketchPortuguese Bend Road at Upper Blacwater Canyon RoadUPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROADPORTUGUESE BEND ROADPINE TREELANE12'12'10'10'10'10'1 0 ' 10 'Proposed Single inbound lane& single outbound laneProposed striping edge lines moved inward fromthe edge of pavement to narrow lane widthProposed stripingapproaching median11'10'Proposed Stop Barand Stop Legend16Page 125 of 251 Attachment B2 Improved Sight Distance 17 Page 126 of 251 City of Rolling HillsAttachment B2 - Improved Sight DistanceNorthbound Left TurnPortuguese Bend Road at Upper Blacwater Canyon RoadUPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROADPORTUGUESE BEND ROADPINE TREELANEStopping sight distance is improved for SBvehicles on Portuguese Bend Rd; there ismore time to stop to avoid a collision with aNB vehicle on Portuguese Bend Rd turningleft onto Upper Blackwater Canyon Rd18Page 127 of 251 Attachment C Long-term Proposed Sketch 19 Page 128 of 251 City of Rolling HillsAttachment C - Long-term Proposed SketchPortuguese Bend Road at Upper Blacwater Canyon RoadUPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROADPORTUGUESE BEND ROADPINE TREELANEProposed centerline stripingProposed narrowingof roadway width12'12'10'10'1 2 ' 1 2 'Proposed removalof median island20Page 129 of 251 Agenda Item No.: 9.A Mtg. Date: 09/23/2021 TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDER RESCHEDULING OR CANCELLING THE NOVEMBER 25, 2021 TRAFFIC COMMISSION IN OBSERVANCE OF THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY. DATE:September 23, 2021 BACKGROUND: The next Traffic Commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 25, 2021. In observance of the Thanksgiving holiday, City Hall will be closed on November 25, 2021. DISCUSSION: In light of the holiday, the Traffic Commission can reschedule the November meeting Monday, November 22, 2021 or cancel the meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Consider rescheduling or cancelling the November 25, 2021 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 21 Page 130 of 251 Page 131 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills MNS Tower - Ar tificial Tree Options Proposal Reference Number: 006cw00000AvioB Date Submitted: September 9th, 2025 Prepared For The City of Rolling Hills ATTN: Karina Banales POC Title: City Manager POC Phone: 310 377-1521 POC Email: KBanales@cityofrh.net 2 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling Hills, CA, 9027 Approved By HQE Systems, Inc. POC Name|Title: Qais Alkurdi | CEO POC Phone: (800) 967-3036 POC Email: Contracts@HQESystems.com 27348 Via Industria, Temecula, CA 92590 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Page 132 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ Legal Disclaimer This proposal contains proprietary and confidential information owned by HQE Systems, Inc. Unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this document, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action, including but not limited to injunctive relief, financial damages, and the recovery of attorney’s fees. The Client shall be liable for damages for any unauthorized disclosure, in addition to any actual damages incurred by HQE. If a version of this document must be shared, the Client must request a sanitized copy by contacting Solutions@HQESystems.com. By accessing, reviewing, or considering this proposal, the Client agrees to the following: This proposal is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a binding agreement. No contractual relationship exists until a formal, written agreement is signed by an authorized HQE Systems, Inc. (“HQE”) representative. HQE reserves the right to modify or withdraw this proposal at any time without notice or liability. The Client acknowledges that no statements, descriptions, pricing, or specifications in this proposal shall be relied upon as a promise or commitment by HQE. The Client expressly waives any claim of reliance on the information contained herein. This proposal contains proprietary and confidential information. Unauthorized disclosure, distribution, or reproduction is strictly prohibited. The Client may not share this proposal with any third party without HQE’s prior written consent. Any unauthorized disclosure may result in legal action, including injunctive relief, financial damages, and recovery of legal fees. If the Client does not agree to these confidentiality terms, this document must be deleted or destroyed immediately. The Client may not use HQE’s name, logo, or proposal content in any marketing, public statements, or third-party discussions without HQE’s prior written approval. Any third-party brands, logos, trademarks, or product images used in this proposal are for informational purposes only and do not imply sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation. The Client agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold HQE harmless from any claims, disputes, or legal actions arising from the unauthorized use, misrepresentation, or reliance on third-party trademarks or references. All products, software, and services are provided “as is” without warranty. HQE does not guarantee uninterrupted operation, error-free performance, or fitness for a particular purpose. The Client assumes all risks related to the selection and use of HQE’s products and services. By accessing this proposal, issuing a purchase order, or awarding a contract to HQE, the Client automatically accepts and agrees to HQE’s Service Level Agreement ("SLA"), available at www.HQESystems.com/SLA. No additional signature is required—acceptance is automatic. HQE is not responsible for ensuring the Client has read the SLA. The Client waives any claim of not receiving or reviewing the SLA. HQE shall not be liable for indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or punitive damages, including lost profits or data loss. Total liability is strictly limited to the lesser of (a) the total amount paid to HQE for the proposed services or (b) $10,000. HQE is not liable for delays or failures caused by events beyond its control, including but not limited to natural disasters, cybersecurity incidents, supply chain disruptions, or government actions. This proposal and any disputes arising from it shall be governed exclusively by the laws of California, without regard to conflict of law principles. The exclusive venue for any disputes shall be the state or federal courts of Riverside County, CA, and the Client waives any objection to jurisdiction or venue. The Client is solely responsible for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to FAR, DFARS, ITAR, GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, NIST 800-171, and any other compliance requirements it may require. HQE is not liable for any non-compliance penalties or fines imposed on the Client. The Client shall not copy, reproduce, reverse engineer, or otherwise use this proposal or its contents for any purpose other than evaluating HQE’s offerings. Any misuse of this proposal, including sharing with competitors or using HQE’s proprietary methodologies for commercial advantage, shall result in legal action. This legal notice constitutes the entire understanding between HQE and the Client regarding the terms of this proposal. No verbal agreements or modifications shall have legal effect unless confirmed in writing by HQE. HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 1 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 133 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ Cover Letter Thank you for considering HQE Systems, Inc. We are a Minority-Owned, Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) and a trusted partner for advanced Electronic Security Systems (ESS). We specialize in installations and upgrades, including Mass Notification Systems (MNS), Visual Surveillance Systems (VSS), Access Control Systems (ACS), and Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS). Our cutting-edge technology is designed to enhance the safety and security of your organization, effectively protecting people, property, and operations. Why Choose HQE Systems? ● Seamless Integration: Easily integrates with your existing infrastructure, including mass notification and fire alarm systems, for a unified and efficient security solution. ● Scalable Solutions: Flexible systems designed to grow alongside your organization, accommodating expansions or evolving security needs. ● Compliance-Driven Design: All installations and upgrades adhere to the latest regulatory standards and industry best practices, ensuring operational reliability and peace of mind. ● Enhanced User Control: Centralized, user-friendly management platforms to monitor and control all ESS components securely from desktop or mobile devices. ● Proven Reliability: Durable hardware and systems engineered for 24/7 operation, supported by real-time health diagnostics to reduce downtime and maximize system performance. Thank you for this opportunity, and we look forward to working with you. Qais Alkurdi USMC Retired/Disabled Veteran Chief Executive Officer | HQE Systems Offer Point of Contact Charles West 951-541-3793 charles.west@hqesystems.com HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 2 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 134 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ Cost Summary Option 1 - Camouflage 3 (Three) Existing Poles # Proposed Project Cost Quote Quote Breakdown 1 Total Labor $ 14,379.02 2 Total Other Direct Costs (ODC's) $ 42,450.33 3 Total Equipment/Material $ 108,646.50 4 Initial Quote Total $ 165,475.85 5 Offered Discount % 34.34% 6 Total Discount $ $ 56,829.35 7 Total After Discount $ 108,646.50 8 Total Tax % 0.00% 9 Total Tax $ $ - 10 Final Quote Total $ 108,646.50 Option 1 - Bill Of Materials # Part # Equipment Descriptions QTY Price Extended Price 1 HQE: Misc Custom Facade Branches 3 $ 36,215.50 $ 108,646.50 Total Equipment $ 108,646.50 Option 1 - Terms # Offer Details & Terms 1 ❖ Offer Summary ➢ Delivery and Installation: Includes 3 (three) sets of artificial tree branches for existing mass notification siren poles. 2 ❖ Included Support Services ➢ Training: Hands-on training for Maintenance best practices to ensure long-term system performance. 3 ❖ Schedule/Timeline ➢ Installations: Estimated 6 workdays to complete the installation and commissioning of the solution. ➢ Upgrades: Estimated 2 workdays to complete the upgrades, including testing and integration of the solution. HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 3 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 135 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4 ❖ Offer Terms & Conditions ➢ This proposal is valid for 30 days from the date issued. ➢ Initial Payment: 85% of the total contract amount is due upon contract signing. ➢ Final Payment: 15% of the total contract amount is due upon the successful delivery of the quoted services and formal acceptance by the client. ➢ Payment Terms: Payment is due within 30 days of the invoice date ("NET 30"). A late payment fee of 1.5% of the total outstanding invoice amount will be assessed monthly for any payments not received by the due date. This fee will continue to accrue on the unpaid balance until full payment is received, subject to a maximum penalty of 18% of the invoice amount. These terms ensure a clear, fair, and structured payment process while maintaining flexibility for the client’s requirements. A credit card processing fee of 3.5% may apply. Option 2 - 3 (Three) New Poles with Camouflage # Proposed Project Cost Quote Quote Breakdown 1 Total Labor $ 24,756.98 2 Total Other Direct Costs (ODC's) $ 80,418.30 3 Total Equipment/Material $ 253,654.38 4 Initial Quote Total $ 358,829.66 5 Offered Discount % 29.31% 6 Total Discount $ $ 105,175.28 7 Total After Discount $ 253,654.38 8 Total Tax % 0.00% 9 Total Tax $ $ - 10 Final Quote Total $ 253,654.38 Option 2 - Bill Of Materials # Part # Equipment Descriptions QTY Price Extended Price 1 SiRcom: LAS-4-120 SLA, Digital, 4 LAS-120 Line Arrays, PA-11D, Complete Set 3 $ 48,335.96 $ 145,007.88 2 HQE: Misc Custom Facade Branches 3 $ 36,215.50 $ 108,646.50 Total Equipment $ 253,654.38 HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 4 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 136 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ Option 2 - Terms # Offer Details & Terms 1 ❖ Offer Summary ➢ Delivery and Installation: Includes 3 (Three) 50’ Class II wood poles with camouflage branches. 2 ❖ Included Support Services ➢ Training: Comprehensive training is provided for system administrators and general users. Training sessions cover system operation, basic troubleshooting, and maintenance best practices. Includes access to training documentation, quick-reference guides, and recorded sessions if applicable. 3 ❖ Schedule/Timeline ➢ Installations: Estimated 12 workdays to complete the installation and commissioning of the solution. ➢ Upgrades: Estimated 6 workdays to complete the upgrades, including testing and integration of the solution. 4 ❖ Offer Terms & Conditions ➢ This proposal is valid for 30 days from the date issued. ➢ Initial Payment: 85% of the total contract amount is due upon contract signing. ➢ Final Payment: 15% of the total contract amount is due upon the successful delivery of the quoted services and formal acceptance by the client. ➢ Payment Terms: Payment is due within 30 days of the invoice date ("NET 30"). A late payment fee of 1.5% of the total outstanding invoice amount will be assessed monthly for any payments not received by the due date. This fee will continue to accrue on the unpaid balance until full payment is received, subject to a maximum penalty of 18% of the invoice amount. These terms ensure a clear, fair, and structured payment process while maintaining flexibility for the client’s requirements. A credit card processing fee of 3.5% may apply. Option 3 - Installation of 1 (One) New Pole with Camouflage # Proposed Project Cost Quote Quote Breakdown 1 Total Labor $ 8,354.66 2 Total Other Direct Costs (ODC's) $ 29,088.39 3 Total Equipment/Material $ 84,551.46 4 Initial Quote Total $ 121,994.51 5 Offered Discount % 30.69% 6 Total Discount $ $ 37,443.05 7 Total After Discount $ 84,551.46 8 Total Tax % 0.00% 9 Total Tax $ $ - HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 5 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 137 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ 10 Final Quote Total $ 84,551.46 Option 3 - Bill Of Materials # Part # Equipment Descriptions QTY Price Extended Price 1 SiRcom: LAS-4-120 SLA, Digital, 4 LAS-120 Line Arrays, PA-11D, Complete Set 1 $ 48,335.96 $ 48,335.96 2 HQE: Misc Custom Facade Branches 1 $ 36,215.50 $ 36,215.50 Total Equipment $ 84,551.46 Option 3 - Terms # Offer Details & Terms 1 ❖ Offer Summary ➢ Delivery and Installation: Includes 1 (One) 50’ Class II wood pole with camouflage branches 2 ❖ Included Support Services ➢ Training: Comprehensive training is provided for system administrators and general users. Training sessions cover system operation, basic troubleshooting, and maintenance best practices. Includes access to training documentation, quick-reference guides, and recorded sessions if applicable. 3 ❖ Schedule/Timeline ➢ Installations: Estimated 4 workdays to complete the installation and commissioning of the solution. ➢ Upgrades: Estimated 2 workdays to complete the upgrades, including testing and integration of the solution. 4 ❖ Offer Terms & Conditions ➢ This proposal is valid for 30 days from the date issued. ➢ Initial Payment: 85% of the total contract amount is due upon contract signing. ➢ Final Payment: 15% of the total contract amount is due upon the successful delivery of the quoted services and formal acceptance by the client. ➢ Payment Terms: Payment is due within 30 days of the invoice date ("NET 30"). A late payment fee of 1.5% of the total outstanding invoice amount will be assessed monthly for any payments not received by the due date. This fee will continue to accrue on the unpaid balance until full payment is received, subject to a maximum penalty of 18% of the invoice amount. These terms ensure a clear, fair, and structured payment process while maintaining flexibility for the client’s requirements. A credit card processing fee of 3.5% may apply. HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 6 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 138 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ HQE Systems HQE Systems, Inc. is a Minority-Owned, Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) with over a decade of experience delivering innovative, high-performance solutions for emergency alert, security, and communications systems. With a proven record of executing over 100 large-scale projects, HQE has earned its reputation as a trusted partner in the design, installation, integration, and maintenance of systems critical to safety and operational success. HQE excels in addressing complex technical requirements, offering solutions that are fully compliant with industry standards such as FEMA IPAWS, NFPA 72, ADA, and Department of Defense cybersecurity certifications. Our approach ensures not only system performance but also long-term reliability, scalability, and value. Streamline operations, lower costs, and ensure your organization is protected and prepared! Products & Services ❖ Mass Notification Systems (MNS): Clear and timely communication across any environment: ➢ Outdoor Systems: Sirens and voice-tone systems for wide-area alerts with real-time monitoring. ➢ Indoor Systems: Public address, digital signage, and networked TVs for internal messaging. ➢ Electronic Alerts: FEMA IPAWS-compliant SMS, email, voice calls, and social media integration. ❖ Electronic Security Systems (ESS): Solutions to protect people, property, and operations: ➢ CCTV Systems: High-definition video surveillance for monitoring and analysis. ➢ Access Control: Secure entry points with credentialing and monitoring. ➢ Intrusion Detection: Automated alerts for unauthorized access. ❖ Software Engineering: Custom software to optimize performance: ➢ Custom Applications: Scalable and tailored to your needs. ➢ AI-Driven Technology: Automate decision-making and improve efficiency. ➢ Seamless Integration: Smooth connectivity across platforms. ❖ Technical Services: Installation, upgrades, and long-term maintenance. ➢ Preventive Maintenance: Regular checks to address issues early. ➢ Upgrades: Transition to state-of-the-art systems with minimal disruption. ➢ Corrective Maintenance: Rapid action to restore functionality. ❖ Consulting Services: Expert guidance in IT, MNS, ESS, and safety/security strategies. HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 7 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 139 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ Why HQE is the Right Partner HQE Systems delivers innovative, reliable solutions to protect people, property, and operations. ● Proven Expertise Across Disciplines: HQE combines expertise in Mass Notification Systems (MNS), Electronic Security Systems (ESS), and advanced software development. This allows us to provide integrated, turnkey solutions tailored to meet specific client requirements, reducing complexity and ensuring seamless system performance. ● Financial Stability: HQE’s strong financial foundation and resource availability enable us to manage projects of any size without delays or disruptions. Our financial resilience ensures that your investment is secure and that we can deliver on-time and within budget. ● Commitment to Compliance: Our deep understanding of industry standards ensures that every system we design and deploy meets or exceeds regulatory requirements. Whether it’s emergency notification compliance with FEMA IPAWS or cybersecurity protections mandated by the Department of Defense, HQE has the expertise to navigate and address complex compliance landscapes. ● Scalable and Future-Ready Solutions: HQE designs systems with scalability in mind, ensuring that they can grow alongside your organization’s evolving needs. Whether upgrading legacy systems or preparing for future expansions, HQE ensures you stay ahead of industry advancements. Dedicated, Certified Team: Every HQE project is handled by a team of certified professionals with deep expertise in safety and security systems. Our staff includes: ● Certified Systems Engineers: Experts in designing and integrating compliant MNS and ESS solutions. ● PMP Certified Project Managers: Skilled leaders who ensure projects are delivered on time and within budget. ● Certified Installation Specialists: Trained low and high-voltage technicians who meet all client and regulatory standards for system deployment. Our team is committed to understanding your technical requirements and operational goals, ensuring precision and attention to detail from start to finish. HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 8 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 140 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ Exceptional Past Performance Comprehensive Training, Warranty, and Support Services Recognition for Excellence: Over the last three years, HQE has earned a 5-star performance rating from the Department of Defense for delivering projects with exceptional quality, timeliness, and customer satisfaction. Training: HQE offers customized training sessions to empower client teams with the skills to operate and maintain systems effectively. This includes: ❖ Hands-on training for system operation and troubleshooting. ❖ Emergency response protocols tailored to real-world scenarios. ❖ Maintenance best practices to ensure long-term system performance. Warranty: Our warranty services cover hardware, software, and updates to protect against defects and performance issues. We also offer extended warranty options for long-term peace of mind. Support Service: HQE Systems provides comprehensive support services to ensure your systems remain reliable, secure, and optimized for performance: ❖ 24/7 Technical Support: Our certified experts are available around the clock to resolve critical issues quickly via hotline, email, or portal, minimizing disruptions and keeping your systems operational. ❖ Remote Diagnostics: Using advanced tools, we can securely diagnose and resolve most issues remotely, reducing downtime and eliminating unnecessary on-site visits, saving time and costs. ❖ Proactive Health Monitoring: With real-time alerts, predictive maintenance insights, and detailed system health updates, HQE identifies and addresses potential issues before they impact performance. HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 9 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 141 of 251 The City of Rolling Hills _____________________________________________________________________________________ End of Proposal “Our goal at HQE is to continue to serve our veterans through our ‘Hire Veterans Policy HQE-2015-2025’. We appreciate our current and past customers who have helped us meet our goals of hiring veterans throughout the years. Your support in HQE is directly impacting the support of our incredible veterans. Thank you for your consideration and support of Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)!” Thank You from the team of HQE Systems Inc. Qais Alkurdi CEO, Disabled Veteran / Retired HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | Minority Owned-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) 10 | Page Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal Page 142 of 251 City of Rolling Hills System Expansion April 25, 2025 Prepared For City of Rolling Hills ATTN: [Client POC Name] POC Title: [Position Title] POC Phone: [Phone Number] POC Email: [Email Address] [Street Address] [City, State Zip] Prepared By HQE Systems, Inc. POC Title: Qais Alkurdi POC Phone: (800) 967-3036 POC Email: Contracts@HQESystems.com Page 143 of 251 Summary HQE Systems, Inc., a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), is pleased to present the following cost estimate for the proposed system expansion at the City of Rolling Hills. This proposal is in response to the City's request for the addition of four (3) outdoor warning sirens. This offer is valid for 90 days. To proceed, please submit any resulting purchase order or contract to: contracts@hqesystems.com Proposed Cost # Description QTY 1 LS 30 Omnidirectional Clear Voice & Tone Sirens To Include: ● SiRcom LS30 Clear Voice and Tone Sirens on 30’ Poles ● Amplifer ● Siren Control System ● Communications ● Solar with Battery Backup 3 Confidentiality Notice: This document contains proprietary pricing information. Do not share or distribute. Pricing reflects HQE’s internal at-cost rates and is provided exclusively for consideration by the City of Rolling Hills. SENSITIVE - PROPRIETARY DATA - HQE’s AT COST PRICING DO NOT RELEASE - SANITIZE BEFORE SHARING # Budget Summary At Cost Pricing 1 Total Labor (Covered by HQE) $36,051.67 2 Other Direct Costs (Covered By HQE) $28,785.28 3 LTE/SIM Service - 3 Additional Locations - 2 Year PKG (Covered By HQE) $2,794.00 4 Equipment and Materials At Cost Pricing (To Be Covered By The City of RH) $63,969.23 HQE’s Actual Cost To Perform This Work $131,600.18 To continue providing valuable support to the City, HQE Systems is offering to cover 100% of the costs for all Labor, Other Direct Costs (ODCs), and the Cellular Communications Data Package associated with the project — a total contribution valued at $67,630.95. HQE respectfully requests that the City cover only the cost of the equipment and materials, provided at cost with no markup. The total for these equipment and material costs is $63,969.23. HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. Page 144 of 251 Value Added Offer - Additional Services and Products At HQE Systems, we are deeply committed to supporting the safety, preparedness, and resilience of the City of Rolling Hills. As a gesture of our dedication to public service and community partnership, we are proud to offer, at no cost to the City, a comprehensive package of critical services and technologies. This includes a Bumper-to-Bumper No Hassle Full Maintenance Service Plan valued at $29,274.22 for one year, 25 Portable Alert Units ("SAFE Units") valued at $4,875.00, access to our cutting-edge Alert and Warning Software Package (supporting up to 100,000 alerts across SMS, voice calls, emails, social media posts, foreign language support, and visitor management) valued at $5,000, and expert Emergency Management Operations Plans Development Support valued at $15,000. We make this contribution in good faith, with no expectation of future obligation, because we believe in delivering real value and standing behind our word. It is our honor to assist the City of Rolling Hills in enhancing its emergency preparedness and public safety capabilities. # Description QTY Value 1 ● Bumper-To-Bumper No Hassle Full Maintenance Service Plan The plan includes: ● Full system diagnostics and proactive maintenance ● On-site and remote technical support ● Unlimited parts and labor for repairs ● Firmware and software updates ● Priority response times for service requests ● Equipment replacement if necessary ● Annual system health checks and performance audits 1 Year $29,274.22 2 ● Portable Alert Units (“SAFE Units”) 25 $4,875.00 Pre-Tax and S&H 3 ● Use of the Alert and Warning Software Package ○ SMS/Voice Calls ○ Emails ○ Social Posts ○ Foreign Language Support ○ Visitor Management ○ 1 Year Coverage Period 100,000 Alerts $5,000 4 ● Emergency Management Operations Plans Development Support 1 $15,000 HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. Page 145 of 251 End of Estimate “Our goal at HQE is to continue to serve our veterans through our ‘Hire Veterans Policy HQE-2015-2025’. We appreciate our current and past customers who have helped us meet our goals of hiring veterans throughout the years. Your support in HQE is directly impacting the support of our incredible veterans. Thank you for your consideration and support of Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)!.” Thank You from the team of HQE Systems Inc. Qas Alud CEO, Disabled Veteran / Retired HQE SYSTEMS, INC. | A Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. Page 146 of 251 Item: 13.A. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Approval of Traffic Commission appointment to complete the current term beginning January 2, 2024 and expiring January 1, 2028 Background: At the May 12, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council voted to declare a vacancy on the Traffic Commission and directed staff to publicly notice the opening. The appointment process for filling expiring Commission terms calls for the incumbents and the public to be informed of the openings before the expiration of the current terms. During a normal term expiration window, staff will provide approximately four weeks of public notification by: 1. Posting the notices at City Hall per the Maddy Act; 2. Sending letters to each incumbent advising them of the process to be considered for re- appointment; and 3. Advertising the openings in the City Blue Newsletter. Incumbents or interested individuals must submit Letters of Interest to the City Clerk by a set date and time. Once received, staff will schedule interviews with the candidates and the City Council Personnel Committee, ahead of the publication and posting of the last City Council agenda before the new year and the beginning of new terms. In the event a vacancy occurs before the term expiration, the vacancy is publicly noticed by posting at City Hall and advertising in the City Blue Newsletter within 20 days of the vacancy, consistent with Government Code Section 54974(a). A final appointment shall not be made by the City Council for at least 10 working days after the notice has been posted. Upon the May 12, 2025 Declaration of a Traffic Commission vacancy, staff posted notices at City Hall as well as advertised the vacancy and process for submission in multiple Blue Newsletter printings. Letter of interest submissions were due on Friday, June 20, 2025, at 12pm. Two candidates responded by the due date: Mr. Roger Hawkins and Mr. Bill Varner. Page 147 of 251 At the July 28, 2025 City Council meeting, staff verbally updated the Council that the Personnel Committee had been unable to find consensus on an appointment recommendation to the full Council. Discussion ensued, and the City Council opted to hold interviews with each candidate during a Special Meeting to be held on August 25, 2025. Staff were directed to return with potential interview questions that the City Council could choose from in preparation for the special meeting. At the August 11, 2025 City Council meeting, staff presented potential questions for consideration to be used during the interview process as part of the Traffic Safety Committee Interview process. At the August 25, 2025 Special City Council meeting, the Council interviewed Mr. Roger Hawkins (Attachment A) and Mr. Bill Varner (Attachment B). Concluding the interviews, the City Council voted to table the item for further discussion and selection until their next regular meeting. Discussion: None. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Consider, discuss and approve the appointment of one candidate to assume a seat on the Traffic Commission for the September 25, 2025 meeting. Attachments: 1. Attachment A - CO_TRC_250617_TC_LOI_Hawkins 2. Attachment B - CO_TRC_250523_TC_LOI_Bio_Varner Page 148 of 251 Page 149 of 251 From:Bill Varner To:City Clerk Subject:Traffic Commission Application Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 9:35:37 AM Attachments:LWV Bio with photo.docx EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Christian, I would like to apply for the Traffic Commission vacancy, as noted in the May 20 edition of the RH newsletter. You may recall that I applied for a vacancy last November, however the vacancy was cancelled. I’m sending essentially the same letter (below) and bio that I used in November since there have been no changes to any of the data. Will this serve as my application, or is there an actual form I need to submit? Attached is my professional bio. I also wanted to note a few of my community service activities that may be applicable to the Traffic Commission, per below. Thanks for your consideration, and please forward as appropriate. I served on the Rolling Hills Estates Traffic and Safety Committee from 2021 until we left RHE to move here last summer. I attended all meetings and was a regular contributor to the discussions and decisions. My particular interest (in addition to improving traffic flow, of course!) was to encourage good communications between all of the cities on the peninsula. If there is an issue in any one of the cities, it affects all of us. I have served on HOA Boards of Directors nearly everywhere we have lived, beginning with my first home when we lived in Virginia. I was a member of the initial Board when we transitioned the HOA from the builder to the residents. Page 150 of 251 Most recently I served on the Board of Directors of The Vantage Pointe (VP) HOA in RHE, where we lived until moving to Rolling Hills. In addition to being Board Secretary, I was Head of the Special Security Committee. I also organized the first Neighborhood Watch program. My role was to help residents understand how to protect their homes, and I was the interface to the Lomita Sheriff’s Station for the VP, as well as to RHE City Hall. Since “retiring” from full time work a few years ago, I have been on four corporate Boards of Directors, several Academic Engineering Boards, and several corporate Advisory Boards. I am currently on two corporate Boards and am a strategic advisor to a small security start-up in Torrance. It would be an honor and a pleasure to apply my experience to help my new community in any way that I can. -------- Best Regards, Bill Varner Palos Verdes Strategic Solutions LLC Bill.PVSS@gmail.com 703-475-7909 Page 151 of 251 Bill Varner (bill.pvss@gmail.com) Bill Varner is a Consultant to the Intelligence and National Security communities, providing services in the areas of leadership, strategy, engineering management, mergers and acquisitions, mission support, systems engineering, cyber security, and full-service security support. Mr. Varner is a consultant to the Carlyle Group, is a member of the ManTech Board of Directors, and is a member of the Board of Directors of Applied Research Solutions (a subsidiary of Riverside Research Corporation). He is also a member of the ManTech MCIS Advisory Board and is a Strategic Advisor to P- 11 Security. He was formerly on the Board of Directors of the Virginia Tech Applied Research Corporation (VT-ARC), Novetta (until the sale of the company), and Cornerstone Defense LLC. He is also a member (Emeritus) of the George Washington University National Engineering Advisory Council, and the Purdue University Engineering Advisory Board. He is a former member of the Board of Directors and the Board of Advisors of the Intelligence and National Security Association (INSA) and a former member of the University of Maryland Cyber Think Tank. In 2011, Mr. Varner was inducted to the George Washington University School of Engineering Hall of Fame, and in 2016, he was awarded the Outstanding Electrical and Computer Engineer Award from Purdue University. He was elected to the Wash 100 in 2013 and 2017. From 2009 through 2017, Mr. Varner was president of ManTech’s Mission, Cyber, & Intelligence Solutions (MCIS) group. In this role, he led an organization of 3,300 people supporting the Intelligence and Defense communities, including cyber security, computer network operations, forensics, insider threat, specialized systems engineering, operations and mission support, enterprise IT, and full-service security support. Mr. Varner personally led the strategy, diligence, and integration of seven acquisitions and one divestiture while working at ManTech. Before joining ManTech, Mr. Varner was vice president of Intelligence Operations for Northrop Grumman TASC, where he led more than 1,000 employees in delivering innovative technical solutions and operations support to the Defense and Intelligence Communities. Previously, Mr. Varner was vice president of TASC’s Signal and Information Processing Group, with responsibility for hardware and software development and specialized systems engineering. Before joining TASC, Mr. Varner was with ESL, Inc., where he developed adaptive-speech and signal-processing systems and advanced simulations of complex National Security systems. Mr. Varner holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from The George Washington University (Special Honors in Electrical Engineering), a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University, and a Master of Business Administration degree from Virginia Tech. Page 152 of 251 Item: 14.A. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Receive a verbal update on the Rolling Hills Tennis Courts ADA improvements and potential access during construction Background: None. Discussion: None. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Receive a verbal update Attachments: None Page 153 of 251 Item: 14.B. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Samantha Crew, Management Analyst Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Receive an update on the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Voluntary Buyout Program Background: Since late 2024, the City Council has received presentations and updates from both Rolling Hills staff and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) regarding the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs, with particular focus on the Voluntary Buyout Program. On November 25, 2024, staff presented an overview of RPV’s program as a potential model for hazard mitigation strategies in the Rolling Hills community. See Attachment B. On December 10, 2024, Cal OES provided a presentation on FEMA and Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs (Attachment C). At the June 23, 2025, City Council meeting, Robyn Fennig, Assistant Director of the Hazard Mitigation Branch at Cal OES, presented an overview of current grant funding opportunities, the status of programs that are no longer available, and preliminary information on a potential, if feasible, buyout program for the City of Rolling Hills. Her presentation also included an update on FEMA’s HMGP and the recent Presidential Declaration (DR-4856), which enables eligible agencies to apply for federal hazard mitigation funding. See attachment D (Sub attachment C). In connection with DR-4856, declared in response to the California wildfires, Ms. Fennig advised that the City may benefit from participating in the current funding cycle, especially considering the uncertainty surrounding future federal funding opportunities. In April 2025, Cal OES released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for DR-4856 (Attachment D, Sub attachment D), allowing Los Angeles County jurisdictions to apply for disaster recovery funds. To preserve eligibility, City staff submitted a non-binding draft Notice of Interest (NOI) by the May 29, 2025 deadline. This preliminary submission did not obligate the City to pursue the grant but ensured the option remained available. Following the presentation, staff sought City Council direction on whether to proceed with the DR- 4856 opportunity by finalizing and officially submitting the NOI. Page 154 of 251 At the conclusion of the June 23, 2025, City Council meeting, staff was directed to work with Cal OES to determine what information was required to perform a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) for the Voluntary Buyout Program. Council emphasized focusing on properties directly impacted by the September 2024 land movement and utility shutoff, and asked staff to determine whether the City could qualify to move forward as a sub-applicant. Because the BCA is the critical first step in establishing eligibility under FEMA’s cost-effectiveness criteria, staff were further instructed to complete this process as promptly as possible, in recognition of the program’s deadlines. This evening, staff is presenting the City Council with a letter from Cal OES providing its determination regarding the City of Rolling Hills’ potential participation in the program (Attachment A). Discussion: Since June 2025, City staff have engaged in sustained coordination with Cal OES regarding the potential applicability of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Voluntary Buyout Program to the City of Rolling Hills. As part of this process, homeowners were required to complete a detailed Property Information Request Form and sign a waiver authorizing the City to disclose property-specific information to Cal OES for the sole purpose of evaluating eligibility under the program. The request included information pertaining to acquisition logistics, long-term post-acquisition maintenance responsibilities, and hazard risk documentation. City staff were able to provide certain administrative details, while the participating homeowner was highly responsive in supplying the detailed property information necessary for Cal OES to advance the analysis. The Cal OES Hazard Mitigation team diligently utilized this material to perform the BCA in accordance with FEMA guidance, which is a central threshold requirement for determining program eligibility. City staff worked closely with one homeowner (see correspondence - Attachment E) who submitted an Information Request Form and executed the required waiver authorizing the release of property- specific information for Cal OES review. Although two households initially expressed interest in potential participation, one resident ultimately concluded they could not dedicate the time and documentation required to pursue the program at this stage. During this same period, the City also received an inquiry from an additional property owner who controls a vacant, unimproved lot within the affected area. To ensure clarity, staff sought confirmation from Cal OES regarding the eligibility of such parcels. Cal OES advised that FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs, including the HMGP Voluntary Buyout Program, require the presence of a legally permitted structure on the parcel to qualify. While vacant, unimproved lots may be considered eligible only if acquired concurrently as an adjacent parcel under common ownership with an improved property, they cannot be purchased as stand-alone projects. Following the completion of this due diligence and consultation with Cal OES, it has been determined that the City of Rolling Hills does not qualify for the Voluntary Buyout Program for the following reasons: • The BCR calculated using FEMA-approved methodology was 0.83, which is below the required minimum of 1.0 to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. • The project cost was based on a Zillow Zestimate of $5 million (as of December 2022), plus 2% closing costs and $100,000 for demolition, site stabilization, and debris removal, leading to a high total investment. • A building replacement value of $433 per square foot was applied. While this figure is considered particularly low for the area, the State is required to use a FEMA-approved Page 155 of 251 insurance industry tool to establish the value. The tool validated $433 per square foot as the applicable rate in effect in fall 2022. • Data from the tax assessor was used to establish square footage and lot size. • A project useful life of five years was used as the default value. In order to use this value, a geologic assessment must be conducted to show the structure is at imminent risk of failure. Based on the FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis conducted with standardized and credible data inputs, the proposed acquisition-demolition project in Rolling Hills does not meet the required cost-effectiveness threshold, with a Benefit-Cost Ratio of 0.83. As a result, the project is not eligible for funding through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program. It should be noted that the increased discount rate, effective April 2025, applies to RPV, and funding for their current buyout program has not yet been disbursed. Conclusion The City of Rolling Hills has thoroughly explored hazard mitigation funding opportunities, including the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Voluntary Buyout Program and the recent DR-4856 Presidential Disaster Declaration. Staff have engaged with Cal OES, reviewed program eligibility, submitted a draft Notice of Interest (NOI) in May 2025, and presented findings to the City Council. Based on Cal OES’s determination, the Voluntary Buyout Program is not a viable option for the City at this time. City Council is being asked to receive and file the Cal OES determination letter and provide direction to staff regarding the closure of the draft NOI, concluding the City’s participation in this funding cycle. Staff will continue to monitor federal and state hazard mitigation programs and pursue alternative strategies to support resilience and planning efforts for properties affected by land movement and utility disruptions. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: 1. Receive and file the determination letter from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) regarding the City of Rolling Hills’ potential participation in the Hazard Mitigation Program (Attachment A); and 2. Direct staff to formally close out the draft Notice of Interest (NOI) submitted in May 2025, thereby concluding the City’s application process for this funding cycle. Attachments: 1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_250922_CC_RollingHillsBCAResult 2. Attachment B - CL_AGN_241125_CC_Item15B 3. Attachment C - CL_AGN_241210__CC_CalOES_StateHMP_Presentation 4. Attachment D - CL_AGN_250623_CC_Item12.A. 5. Attachment E - CL_AGN_250922_CALOES_Homeowner_CityCorrespondance Page 156 of 251 GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR NANCY WARD DIRECTOR 3650 SCHRIEVER AVENUE  MATHER, CA 95655 RECOVERY SECTION  HAZARD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE BRANC PHONE: (916) 328-7450  EMAIL: HMA@CALOES.CA.GOV www.CalOES.ca.gov September 17, 2025 Karina Banales, City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA, 90274 Subject: Preliminary Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Screen Dear City Manager Banales: Thank you for expressing interest in the Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs managed by Cal OES. With inputs provided by the property owner, City staff, and publicly available sources, our team completed an analysis using FEMA- credible methodology in the FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Toolkit Version 6.0 to calculate the requisite Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for a proposed pilot acquisition-demolition project within Rolling Hills. In order to be eligible to apply for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants, a BCR of 1.0 or greater must be established to show that calculated anticipated net present benefits outweigh the net present value of project costs to construct and maintain a proposed project over the useful life. The Benefit-Cost Ratio for this property using FEMA-credible data inputs is 0.83. Many of the data inputs needed to be adjusted to meet requirements for FEMA, as established by a similar project in a neighboring Los Angeles County community: • Initial Project Costs were determined by the Zestimate on Zillow.com from December 2022 ($5 million), with an additional 2% for closing costs, and estimated costs for site demolition, stabilization, and debris disposal at approximately $100,000. • Building Replacement Value: $433 per square foot was validated and accepted by FEMA. • Data from tax assessor was used to establish square footage and lot size. • Project Useful Life of five years was used as the default value. Page 157 of 251 Page 2 Based on this determination, the project is not deemed cost-effective and not eligible for funding through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs at this time. It should also be noted that this BCA screen was conducted with baseline assumption that explicitly links the screened property to imminent landslide failure. To be eligible, it must be established that the property is at imminent risk of landslide or land movement failure within five years, as determined by a licensed professional. This is a requirement in the current Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program and Policy Guide. Please let our team know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Robyn Fennig, CFM Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cc: Samantha Crew, City of Rolling Hills Page 158 of 251 Agenda Item No.: 15.B Mtg. Date: 11/25/2024 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL UPDATE ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) GRANT PROGRAMMING ADMINISTERED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (Cal OES) DATE:November 25, 2024 BACKGROUND: On October 29, 2024, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV), in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Governor ’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), introduced a $42 million Voluntary Property Buyout Program aimed at assisting property owners in the Greater Portuguese Bend landslide area. This program, funded by FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), is designed to help homeowners whose properties have been damaged or are at risk of imminent failure from ongoing land movement. This program offers homeowners fair market value for their properties based on pre-disaster appraisals based on property conditions in December 2022. Through this initiative, eligible homeowners will have the option to relocate to safer areas, while the acquired properties will be converted into permanently protected open space. These properties will be deed-restricted to prevent future redevelopment, enhance community resilience, and reduce future risks in vulnerable areas. This evening, staff will present an overview of RPV’s program as a potential model for hazard mitigation strategies in the Rolling Hills community. Following the presentation, staff seek direction from the City Council on the following actions: 1. Authorize staff to arrange a meeting with Cal OES for a site visit to the City of Rolling Hills and attend a future City Council meeting; and 2. Direct staff to begin coordinating with Cal OES specifically to apply for available grant programs and return to the Council with updates and any required approvals. These efforts explore proactive measures for addressing natural hazards while protecting 1 Page 159 of 251 community safety and resilience. DISCUSSION: On November 11, 2024, staff provided the City Council with an update on recent discussions held with Cal OES representatives to explore the Voluntary Buyout Program, along with other potential Cal OES funding and mitigation programs. This briefing aimed to inform the Council of Staff's research efforts into state-supported hazard mitigation options that could enhance community resilience in Rolling Hills. City Council members inquired about specific program criteria and funding requirements and requested that staff conduct a more detailed assessment of the Voluntary Buyout Program’s applicability and feasibility for the City of Rolling Hills. This follow-up analysis will consider program eligibility, funding structures, and potential outcomes for affected residents and the community. PROGRAMS: This section outlines summaries of programs for which the City of Rolling Hills may be eligible. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program Cal OES administers the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (HMA Program), which focuses on reducing the risks posed by natural hazards. These programs aim to fund projects that help communities mitigate the impact of disasters, including floods, wildfires, and other natural hazard threats. By supporting hazard mitigation efforts, Cal OES plays a critical role in enhancing public safety and resilience across California. The FEMA HMA Programs are designed to support state, local, tribal, and territorial efforts to reduce the impact of future disasters by funding cost-effective, technically feasible, eligible projects that mitigate risks associated with natural hazards. These programs focus on long- term risk reduction and help communities minimize the impact of natural disasters before they happen. The key programs under HMA include: 1. Legislative Pre-Disaster Mitigation (LPDM): This program funds projects that reduce the risk of natural disasters before they occur through coordination with Congressional representatives (e.g., the House and Senate). Funding appropriated to selected communities can be used to strengthen infrastructure, improve resilience, and protect lives and property. 2. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA): This annual nationally competitive program is specifically aimed at reducing the risk of flood damage for structures backed by policies in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides funding for projects that reduce the financial and physical impacts of flooding, such as elevating buildings or improving drainage systems to reduce the losses to the NFIP. 3. Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC): This annual, nationally competitive all-hazards program was established as part of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 and focuses on funding proactive projects that improve resilience to natural hazards, such as wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. 4. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMPG): This all-hazards post-disaster funding program is one of the opportunities made available following a Presidentially declared disaster through the Stafford Act. This funding can be used statewide to implement cost- effective projects that reduce the impacts of natural hazards across California. 2 Page 160 of 251 The HMA programs help fund initiatives like elevating structures, retrofitting buildings, flood control projects, and creating early warning systems. Their ultimate goal is to reduce the loss of life, property damage, and economic impact of disasters, thereby increasing the resilience of communities to future hazards. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funding (HMGP) Funding for HMGP is triggered by a Presidentially-declared major disaster declaration. When a natural disaster, such as a wildfire, flood, earthquake, or hurricane, meets the severity and impact thresholds to qualify for federal assistance in the Public Assistance (PA) Program and/or Individual Assistance (IA) Program, the president may issue a disaster declaration, allowing FEMA to activate HMGP funding. This funding is then made available to state emergency management agencies (e.g., Cal OES) to pass funding through to state, tribal, and local governments, some private non-profit organizations, and eligible special districts to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures aimed at reducing future disaster risks. Once a major disaster is declared and HMGP is made available, Cal OES works with FEMA to identify and prioritize eligible projects. The amount of funding allocated to HMGP is based on a percentage of the total federal assistance provided for disaster response and recovery, meaning larger disasters generate more HMGP funding that is awarded to California. Projects eligible for HMGP funds include property buyouts, infrastructure improvements, wildfire mitigation efforts, and other community resilience initiatives that align with FEMA’s goal of minimizing the impact of future disasters on people and property. All sub-applications must be eligible in the FEMA HMA Program guidance, be technically- feasible, cost-effective, and pass an environmental and historic preservation (EHP) review. Cal OES and FEMA work with sub-applicants (local governments, state agencies, federally- recognized tribal nations, some private non-profits and special districts) to go through this application process. Cal OES has 12-months, with additional time extensions available, to identify interested communities, scope eligible, complete sub-applications, and submit them to the FEMA Region IX office located in Oakland, California. During this 12-month period, FEMA Region IX will provide estimated amounts of funding available in the HMGP for that disaster declaration at 30-day, 6-month, and 12-month timelines. This funding amount is determined by 20% of the total amount of PA damages and IA claims submitted to FEMA for reimbursement by these pre-determined time increments. 2023 saw three federally-declared disaster declarations for California, bringing three separate allocations of HMGP: Severe atmospheric rivers in January and March brought widespread flooding, infrastructure damage, and landslides across California, prompting DR-4683 (Attachment B) and DR-4699 (Attachment A) to be declared by the President several federal declarations to facilitate funding for response and rebuilding efforts. Hurricane Hilary in July caused damage in Southern California, resulting in DR- 4750 (Attachment C). In early 2024, California continued to experience severe weather impacts, with another series of two major disaster declarations from events in Southern California, DR-4758 (Attachment D) and DR-4769 (Attachment E) from January and March storms/flooding, respectively. 3 Page 161 of 251 RPV leveraged leftover funds from DR-4699 (Attachment A) after several sub-applicants unexpectedly withdrew from the program. Although there are three open HMGP application periods, communities have submitted applications exceeding the amount of funding available, leaving no current HMGP opportunities for the City of Rolling Hills to participate. However, there is a potential opportunity if the President declares the large wildfires in summer 2024 Borel and Park Fires, a major disaster declaration. APPLICATIONS Cal OES is currently accepting applications for future Presidentially-Declared Disasters, recognizing that gathering the necessary documentation and conducting analyses requires significant time. A critical element of the application process is completing a benefit-cost analysis to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of proposed mitigation efforts. This process requires a lot of technical documentation, which often takes more than the 12-month application timeframe allowed by FEMA for the HMGP. Staff are seeking direction from the City Council to authorize collaboration with the California Governor ’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). This collaboration would involve the following key actions: This evening, staff will present an overview of RPV’s program as a potential model for hazard mitigation strategies in the Rolling Hills community. Following the presentation, staff seek direction from the City Council on the following actions: 1. Authorize staff to arrange a meeting with Cal OES for a site visit to the City of Rolling Hills and attend a future City Council meeting; and 2. Direct staff to begin coordinating with Cal OES specifically to apply for available grant programs and return to the Council with updates and any required approvals. Staff will report back to the City Council on the next steps and whether to proceed with a particular grant. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A DR-4699-CA Public Notice.pdf Attachment B DR-4683-CA Public Notice.pdf Attachment C 4750-DR-CA Public Notice.pdf Attachment D 4758-DR-CA Initial Notice.pdf Attachment E 4769-DR-CA Initial Notice.pdf 4 Page 162 of 251 Apply for Assistance An oicial website of the United States government Here’s how you know DR-4699-CA Public Notice 001 English Notice Date April 4, 2023 The U.S. Department of Homeland Securityʼs Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice to the public of its intent to provide financial assistance to the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations under major disaster declaration FEMA-4699-DR-CA. This notice applies to the Individual Assistance (IA), Public Assistance (PA), and Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP) programs implemented under the authority of the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207. This public notice concerns activities that may aect historic properties, activities that are located in or aect wetland areas and the 100-year floodplain, and may involve critical actions within the 500-year floodplain. Such activities may adversely aect the historic property, floodplain or wetland, or may result in continuing vulnerability to flood damage. I. Public Notice – Major Disaster Declaration FEMA-4699-DR-CA and Overview of Authorized Assistance The President declared a major disaster for the State of California on April 3, 2023, as a result of the severe winter storms, straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides that began on Februar y 21, 2023 and are continuing, pursuant to his authority 5 Page 163 of 251 under the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93- 288 (1974) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.) (Staord Act). This declaration, numbered FEMA-4699-DR-CA, has authorized Individual Assistance (assistance to individuals and households) for Kern, Mariposa, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Tulare, and Tuolumne Counties. The following counties have been authorized for Public Assistance (A ssistance for emergency work and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged facilities): Calaveras, Los Angeles, Monterey, and Tulare Counties. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (assistance for actions taken to prevent or reduce long term risk to life and property from natural hazards) is available statewide. Additional counties may be designated at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments. Individual Assistance is authorized by Section 408 of the Staord Act. FEMA may provide IA program funding for disaster-related emergency housing. These actions may adversely aect a floodplain/wetland, or may result in continuing vulnerability to floods. These actions may include repair, restoration or construction of housing or private bridges, purchase and placement of travel trailers or manufactured housing units, or repair of structures as minimum protective measures. This will be the only public notice concerning these actions. The Public Assistance Program is authorized by Sections 403, 406, and 407 of the Staord Act. FEMA may provide financial assistance under the Public Assistance Program for the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations to perform debris removal and emergency protective measures. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is authorized by Section 404 of the Staord Act. Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, FEMA may provide financial assistance for the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations to implement mitigation measures to reduce the risk of life and property from future disasters during the recovery from the major disaster. In the course of developing project proposals, subsequent public notices will be published if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. 6 Page 164 of 251 II. Public Notice – Financial Assistance for Activities that Aect Historic Properties or Located in or that Aect Wetlands Areas or Floodplains Some of the activities for which FEMA provides financial assistance under the Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs may aect historic properties, may be located in or aect wetland areas or the 100-year floodplain, and may involve critical actions within the 500-year floodplain. In accordance with all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all federal actions must be reviewed and evaluated for feasible alternatives. FEMA must also comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-655 (1966) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.) (NHPA); and the implementing regulations at 44 C.F.R. pt. 9 and 36 C.F.R. pt. 800. The executive orders, NHPA, and regulations require FEMA to provide public notice for certain activities as part of approving the award of financial assistance for specific projects. A. Federal Actions in or Aecting Floodplains and Wetlands FEMA has determined for certain types of facilities there are normally no alternatives to restoration in the floodplain or wetland. These are facilities meeting all of the following criteria: 1) FEMAʼs estimate of the cost of repairs is less than 50% of the cost to replace the entire facility and is less than $100,000; 2) the facility is not located in a floodway; 3) the facility has not sustained major structural damage in a previous Presidentially declared flooding disaster or emergency; and 4) the facility is not critical (e.g., the facility is not a hospital, generating plant, emergency operations center, or a facility containing dangerous materials). FEMA intends to provide assistance for the restoration of these facilities to their pre-disaster condition, except certain measures to mitigate the eect of future flooding or other hazards may be included in the work. For example, a bridge or culvert restoration may include a larger waterway opening to decrease the risk of future washouts. For routine activities, this will be the only public notice provided. Other activities and those involving facilities not meeting the four criteria are required to undergo more detailed review, including the study of alternate locations. Subsequent public notices regarding such projects will be published if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. In many cases, an applicant may have started facility restoration before federal involvement. Even if the facility must undergo detailed review and analysis of alternate 7 Page 165 of 251 locations, FEMA will fund eligible restoration at the original location if the facility is functionally dependent on its floodplain location (e.g., bridges and flood control facilities), or the project facilitates an open space use, or the facility is an integral part of a larger network which is impractical or uneconomical to relocate, such as a road. In such cases, FEMA must also examine the possible eects of not restoring the facility, minimizing floodplain or wetland impacts, and determining both an overriding public need for the facility clearly outweighs the Executive Order requirements to avoid the floodplain or wetland, and the site selected is the only practicable alternative. The State and local oicials will confirm to FEMA the proposed actions comply with all applicable federal, state, and local floodplain management and wetland protection requirements. The Public Assistance (PA) Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) partial implementation policy, eective for all major disasters declared on or aer June 3, 2022, applies to PA projects in the 1% annual chance floodplain (1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains for critical actions) involving new construction of structures, structures that have a substantial damage determination, or structures that require substantial improvement. The policy applies regardless of the cause of damage. The Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) FFRMS partial implementation policy applies to non-critical actions involving structure elevation, dr y floodproofing, and mitigation reconstruction in the 1% annual chance floodplain. For all FEMA programs and project types, if a state, local, tribal, or territorial government has its own higher elevation standard, FEMA requires use of the higher standard. FEMA program policies also reference additional consensus codes and standards, such as ASCE-24-14, that incorporate additional elevation requirements beyond the base flood elevation. B. Federal Actions Aecting Historic Properties Section 106 of the NHPA requires FEMA to consider the eects of its activities (known as undertakings) on any historic property and to aord the Advisory Council on Historic Preser vation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on such projects before the expenditure of any federal funds. An Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program activity is an “undertaking” for the purposes of the NHPA, and a historic property is any property which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). For historic properties which will not be adversely aected by FEMAʼs undertaking, this will be the only public notice. FEMA may provide additional public notices if a proposed FEMA undertaking would adversely aect a historic property. 8 Page 166 of 251 III. Further Information or Comment The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects the civil rights of persons with disabilities. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors, and by recipients of federal financial assistance. Any recipient or sub- recipient of federal funds is required to make their programs accessible to individuals with disabilities. Its protections apply to all programs and businesses receiving any federal funds. This applies to all elements of physical/architectural, programmatic and communication accessibility in all services and activities conducted by or funded by FEMA. FEMA intends to comply with the Rehabilitation Act in all federally conducted and assisted programs in alignment with the principals of whole community inclusion and universal accessibility. Executive Orders 13985 and 14008 further address the need to achieve environmental justice and equity across the federal government. The issuance of the new executive orders more than 20 years aer Executive Order 12898 was signed indicates the administrationʼs directive to federal agencies to renew their energy, eort, resources, and attention to environmental justice. FEMA is working with applicants/sub-applicants to identify communities with Environmental Justice concerns and provide an avenue for local groups and non-profits with an Environmental Justice mission to self-identify so FEMA Programs can start to work with them on specific projects from the beginning of the application process. FEMA also intends to provide HMGP funding to the State of California to mitigate future disaster damages. These projects may include construction of new facilities, modification of existing, undamaged facilities, relocation of facilities out of floodplains, demolition of structures, or other types of projects to mitigate future disaster damages. In the course of developing project proposals, subsequent public notices will be published if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. This will be the only public notice regarding the actions described above for which FEMA may provide financial assistance under the Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. Interested persons may obtain information about these actions or a specific project by writing to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region RIX Oice, Acting Regional Environmental Oicer, Scott Fletcher, 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200, Oakland, CA 94607. All comments concerning this public notice must be submitted in writing to the Region RIX Oice within 30 days of its publication. 9 Page 167 of 251 Disasters & Assistance Grants Floods & Maps Emergency Management About Work With Us National Terrorism Advisory System Last updated April 5, 2023 Return to top Contact FEMA FEMA.gov An oicial website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Accessibility Accountability Careers Civil Rights Contact Us FOIA Glossary No FEAR Act Plug-Ins Privacy 10 Page 168 of 251 Report Disaster Fraud Website Information DHS.gov USA.gov Inspector General 11 Page 169 of 251 Apply for Assistance An oicial website of the United States government Here’s how you know DR-4683-CA Public Notice 001 English Notice Date January 27, 2023 The U.S. Department of Homeland Securityʼs Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice to the public of its intent to provide financial assistance to the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations under major disaster declaration FEMA-4683-DR-CA. This notice applies to the Individual Assistance (IA), Public Assistance (PA), and Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP) programs implemented under the authority of the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207. This public notice concerns activities that may aect historic properties, activities that are located in or aect wetland areas and the 100-year floodplain, and may involve critical actions within the 500-year floodplain. Such activities may adversely aect the historic property, floodplain or wetland, or may result in continuing vulnerability to flood damage. I. Public Notice – Major Disaster Declaration FEMA-4683-DR-CA and Overview of Authorized Assistance The President declared a major disaster for the State of California on January 14, 2023, and amended January 17, 2023, as a result of the severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides that began on December 27, 2022 and are continuing, pursuant to his authority under the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency 12 Page 170 of 251 Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93-288 (1974) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.) (Staord Act). This declaration, numbered FEMA-4683-DR-CA, has authorized Individual Assistance for Calaveras, Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz Counties; and reimbursement through the Public Assistance Program, including direct federal assistance, for emergency work (Categories A-B) for Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz Counties. The following counties have been designated as eligible for Public A ssistance, Category C through G for permanent work: Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz Counties. The following counties have been designated as eligible for Public A ssistance: San Benito, Tulare, and Ventura Counties. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is available statewide. Additional counties may be designated at a later date. Amendment No. 1, issued January 17, 2023, to the notice of major disaster declaration for the state of California (FEMA DR-4683-CA), dated January 14, 2023, identified the following counties as eligible for Individual Assistance: Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties, and identified the following counties as eligible for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public A ssistance program: Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties. Amendment No. 2 issued January 18, 2023, to the notice of major disaster declaration for the state of California (FEMA DR-4683-CA), dated January 14, 2023, identified the following county as eligible for Individual A ssistance: San Joaquin County. Amendment No. 3 issued January 23, 2023, to the notice of major disaster declaration for the state of California (FEMA DR-4683-CA), dated January 14, 2023, identified the following county as eligible for Individual A ssistance: Calaveras County. Amendment No. 4 issued January 26, 2023, to the notice of major disaster declaration for the state of California (FEMA DR-4683-CA), dated January 14, 2023, identified the following county as eligible for Individual A ssistance: San Mateo County. The following counties have also been identified as eligible for Public Assistance, Category C through G 13 Page 171 of 251 for permanent work: Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz Counties (already designated for Individual A ssistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program). Additionally, the following counties have been identified as eligible for Public Assistance: San Benito, Tulare, and Ventura Counties. Individual Assistance is authorized by Section 408 of the Staord Act. FEMA may provide IA program funding for disaster-related emergency housing. These actions may adversely aect a floodplain/wetland, or may result in continuing vulnerability to floods. These actions may include repair, restoration or construction of housing or private bridges, purchase and placement of travel trailers or manufactured housing units, or repair of structures as minimum protective measures. This will be the only public notice concerning these actions. The Public Assistance Program is authorized by Sections 403, 406, and 407 of the Staord Act. FEMA may provide financial assistance under the Public Assistance Program for the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations to perform debris removal and emergency protective measures. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is authorized by Section 404 of the Staord Act. Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, FEMA may provide financial assistance for the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations to implement mitigation measures to reduce the risk of life and property from future disasters during the recovery from the major disaster. In the course of developing project proposals, subsequent public notices will be published if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. II. Public Notice – Financial Assistance for Activities that Aect Historic Properties or Located in or that Aect Wetlands Areas or Floodplains Some of the activities for which FEMA provides financial assistance under the Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs may aect historic properties, may be located in or aect wetland areas or the 100-year floodplain, and may involve critical actions within the 500-year floodplain. In accordance with all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all federal actions must be reviewed and evaluated for feasible alternatives. FEMA must also comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; the National Historic Preservation 14 Page 172 of 251 Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-655 (1966) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.) (NHPA); and the implementing regulations at 44 C.F.R. pt. 9 and 36 C.F.R. pt. 800. The executive orders, NHPA, and regulations require FEMA to provide public notice for certain activities as part of approving the award of financial assistance for specific projects. A. Federal Actions in or Aecting Floodplains and Wetlands FEMA has determined for certain types of facilities there are normally no alternatives to restoration in the floodplain or wetland. These are facilities meeting all of the following criteria: 1) FEMAʼs estimate of the cost of repairs is less than 50% of the cost to replace the entire facility and is less than $100,000; 2) the facility is not located in a floodway; 3) the facility has not sustained major structural damage in a previous Presidentially declared flooding disaster or emergency; and 4) the facility is not critical (e.g., the facility is not a hospital, generating plant, emergency operations center, or a facility containing dangerous materials). FEMA intends to provide assistance for the restoration of these facilities to their pre-disaster condition, except certain measures to mitigate the eect of future flooding or other hazards may be included in the work. For example, a bridge or culvert restoration may include a larger waterway opening to decrease the risk of future washouts. For routine activities, this will be the only public notice provided. Other activities and those involving facilities not meeting the four criteria are required to undergo more detailed review, including the study of alternate locations. Subsequent public notices regarding such projects will be published if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. In many cases, an applicant may have started facility restoration before federal involvement. Even if the facility must undergo detailed review and analysis of alternate locations, FEMA will fund eligible restoration at the original location if the facility is functionally dependent on its floodplain location (e.g., bridges and flood control facilities), or the project facilitates an open space use, or the facility is an integral part of a larger network which is impractical or uneconomical to relocate, such as a road. In such cases, FEMA must also examine the possible eects of not restoring the facility, minimizing floodplain or wetland impacts, and determining both an overriding public need for the facility clearly outweighs the Executive Order requirements to avoid the floodplain or wetland, and the site selected is the only practicable alternative. The State 15 Page 173 of 251 and local oicials will confirm to FEMA the proposed actions comply with all applicable federal, state, and local floodplain management and wetland protection requirements. The Public Assistance (PA) Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) partial implementation policy, eective for all major disasters declared on or aer June 3, 2022, applies to PA projects in the 1% annual chance floodplain (1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains for critical actions) involving new construction of structures, structures that have a substantial damage determination, or structures that require substantial improvement. The policy applies regardless of the cause of damage. The Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) FFRMS partial implementation policy applies to non- critical actions involving structure elevation, dry floodproofing, and mitigation reconstruction in the 1% annual chance floodplain. For all FEMA programs and project types, if a state, local, tribal, or territorial government has its own higher elevation standard, FEMA requires use of the higher standard. FEMA program policies also reference additional consensus codes and standards, such as ASCE-24-14, that incorporate additional elevation requirements beyond the base flood elevation. B. Federal Actions Aecting Historic Properties Section 106 of the NHPA requires FEMA to consider the eects of its activities (known as undertakings) on any historic property and to aord the Advisory Council on Historic Preser vation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on such projects before the expenditure of any federal funds. An Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program activity is an “undertaking” for the purposes of the NHPA, and a historic property is any property which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). For historic properties which will not be adversely aected by FEMAʼs undertaking, this will be the only public notice. FEMA may provide additional public notices if a proposed FEMA undertaking would adversely aect a historic property. III. Further Information or Comment The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects the civil rights of persons with disabilities. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors, and by recipients of federal financial assistance. Any recipient or sub- recipient of federal funds is required to make their programs accessible to individuals 16 Page 174 of 251 with disabilities. Its protections apply to all programs and businesses receiving any federal funds. This applies to all elements of physical/architectural, programmatic and communication accessibility in all services and activities conducted by or funded by FEMA. FEMA intends to comply with the Rehabilitation Act in all federally conducted and assisted programs in alignment with the principals of whole community inclusion and universal accessibility. Executive Orders 13985 and 14008 further address the need to achieve environmental justice and equity across the federal government. The issuance of the new executive orders more than 20 years aer Executive Order 12898 was signed indicates the administrationʼs directive to federal agencies to renew their energy, eort, resources, and attention to environmental justice. FEMA is working with applicants/sub-applicants to identify communities with Environmental Justice concerns and provide an avenue for local groups and non-profits with an Environmental Justice mission to self-identify so FEMA Programs can start to work with them on specific projects from the beginning of the application process. FEMA also intends to provide HMGP funding to the State of California to mitigate future disaster damages. These projects may include construction of new facilities, modification of existing, undamaged facilities, relocation of facilities out of floodplains, demolition of structures, or other types of projects to mitigate future disaster damages. In the course of developing project proposals, subsequent public notices will be published if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. This will be the only public notice regarding the actions described above for which FEMA may provide financial assistance under the Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. Interested persons may obtain information about these actions or a specific project by writing to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region RIX Oice, Regional Environmental Oicer, Kenneth Sessa, 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200, Oakland, CA 94607. All comments concerning this public notice must be submitted in writing to the Region RIX Oice within 30 days of its publication. Last updated February 3, 2023 17 Page 175 of 251 Disasters & Assistance Grants Floods & Maps Emergency Management About Work With Us National Terrorism Advisory System Return to top Contact FEMA FEMA.gov An oicial website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Accessibility Accountability Careers Civil Rights Contact Us FOIA Glossary No FEAR Act Plug-Ins Privacy Report Disaster Fraud Website Information DHS.gov USA.gov Inspector General 18 Page 176 of 251 Apply for Assistance An oicial website of the United States government Here’s how you know 4750-DR-CA Public Notice 001 English Español Tagalog 简体中文 Notice Date December 27, 2023 The U.S. Department of Homeland Securityʼs Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice to the public of its intent to provide financial assistance to the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations under major disaster declaration FEMA-4750-DR-CA. This notice applies to the Public Assistance (PA) and Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP) programs implemented under the authority of the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207. This public notice concerns activities that may aect historic properties, activities that are in or aect wetland areas or the 100-year floodplain, and critical actions within the 500-year floodplain. Such activities may adversely aect an historic property, floodplain, or wetland, or may result in continuing vulnerability to flood damage. I. Public Notice – Major Disaster Declaration FEMA-4750-DR-CA and Overview of Authorized Assistance The President declared a major disaster for the State of California on November 21, 2023, as a result of flooding resulting from Tropical Storm Hillary that began on August 19, 2023, and ended on August 21, 2023, pursuant to his authority under the Robert T. 19 Page 177 of 251 Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93-288 (1974) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.) (Staord Act). This declaration has designated as eligible for Public Assistance, Categories A and B emergency work, and C thru G permanent work, for the following Counties: Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Riverside, and Siskiyou Counties. Additional counties may be designated at a later date. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is available statewide. The Public Assistance Program is authorized by Sections 403, 406, and 407 of the Staord Act. FEMA may provide financial assistance under the Public Assistance Program for the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations to perform debris removal and emergency protective measures. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is authorized by Section 404 of the Staord Act. Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, FEMA may provide financial assistance for the State of California, local and Indian tribal governments, and private nonprofit organizations to implement mitigation measures to reduce the risk of life and property from future disasters during the recovery from the major disaster. In the course of developing project proposals, subsequent public notices will be published, if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. II. Public Notice – Financial Assistance for Activities that Aect Historic Properties or Located in or that Aect Wetlands Areas or Floodplains Some of the activities for which FEMA provides financial assistance under the Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs may aect historic properties, may be in or aect wetland areas or the 100-year floodplain, and may involve critical actions within the 500-year floodplain. In accordance with all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all federal actions must be reviewed and evaluated for feasible alternatives. FEMA must also comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; the National Historic Preser vation Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-655 (1966) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.) (NHPA); and the implementing regulations at 44 C.F.R. pt. 9 and 36 C.F.R. pt. 800. The executive orders, NHPA, and regulations require FEMA to provide public notice for certain activities as part of approving the award of financial assistance for specific projects. 20 Page 178 of 251 A. Federal Actions in or Aecting Floodplains and Wetlands FEMA has determined that for certain types of facilities there are normally no alternatives to restoration in the floodplain/wetland. These are facilities that meet all of the following criteria: 1) FEMAʼs estimate of the cost of repairs is less than 50-percent of the cost to replace the entire facility, and is less than $100,000; 2) the facility is not located in a floodway; 3) the facility has not sustained major structural damage in a previous presidentially declared flooding disaster or emergency; and 4) the facility is not critical (e.g., the facility is not a hospital, generating plant, emergency operations center, or a facility that contains dangerous materials). FEMA intends to provide assistance for the restoration of these facilities to their pre-disaster condition, except that certain measures to mitigate the eects of future flooding or other hazards may be included in the work. For example, a bridge or culvert restoration may include a larger waterway opening to decrease the risk of future washouts. For routine activities, this will be the only public notice provided. Other activities and those involving facilities that do not meet the four criteria are required to undergo more detailed review, including study of alternate locations. Subsequent public notices regarding such projects will be published, if necessar y, as more specific information becomes available. In many cases, an applicant may have started facility restoration before federal involvement. Even if the facility must undergo detailed review and analysis of alternate locations, FEMA will fund eligible restoration at the original location if the facility is functionally dependent on its floodplain location (e.g., bridges and piers), or the project facilitates an open space use, or the facility is an integral part of a larger network that is impractical or uneconomical to relocate, such as a road. In such cases, FEMA must also examine the possible eects of not restoring the facility, minimize floodplain/wetland impacts, and determine both that an overriding public need for the facility clearly outweighs the Executive Order requirements to avoid the floodplain/wetland, and that the site is the only practicable alternative. The State of California and local oicials will confirm to FEMA that proposed actions comply with all applicable state and local floodplain management and wetland protection requirements. The Public Assistance (PA) Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) partial implementation policy, eective for all major disasters declared on or aer June 3, 2022, applies to PA projects in the 1% annual chance floodplain (1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains for critical actions) involving new construction of structures, structures that 21 Page 179 of 251 have a substantial damage determination, or structures that require substantial improvement. The policy applies regardless of the cause of damage. The Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) FFRMS partial implementation policy applies to non-critical actions involving structure elevation, dr y floodproofing, and mitigation reconstruction in the 1% annual chance floodplain. For all FEMA programs and project types, if a state, local, tribal, or territorial government has its own higher elevation standard, FEMA requires use of the higher standard. FEMA program policies also reference additional consensus codes and standards, such as ASCE-24-14, that incorporate additional elevation requirements beyond the base flood elevation. B. Federal Actions Aecting Historic Properties Section 106 of the NHPA requires FEMA to consider the eects of its activities (known as undertakings) on any historic property and to aord the Advisory Council on Historic Preser vation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on such projects before the expenditure of any federal funds. A Public Assistance or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program activity is an “undertaking” for the purposes of the NHPA, and a historic property is any property which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). For historic properties which will not be adversely aected by FEMAʼs undertaking, this will be the only public notice. FEMA may provide additional public notices if a proposed FEMA undertaking would adversely aect a historic property. III. Further Information or Comment The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects the civil rights of persons with disabilities. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors, and by recipients of federal financial assistance. Any recipient or sub- recipient of federal funds is required to make their programs accessible to individuals with disabilities. Its protections apply to all programs and businesses receiving any federal funds. This applies to all elements of physical/architectural, programmatic and communication accessibility in all services and activities conducted by or funded by FEMA. FEMA intends to comply with the Rehabilitation Act in all federally conducted and assisted programs in alignment with the principals of whole community inclusion and universal accessibility. Executive Orders 13985 and 14008 further address the need to achieve environmental justice and equity across the federal government. The issuance of the new executive orders more than 20 years aer Executive Order 12898 was signed indicates the 22 Page 180 of 251 Disasters & Assistance Grants Floods & Maps Emergency Management administrationʼs directive to federal agencies to renew their energy, eort, resources, and attention to environmental justice. FEMA is working with applicants/sub-applicants to identify communities with Environmental Justice concerns and provide an avenue for local groups and non-profits with an Environmental Justice mission to self-identify so FEMA Programs can start to work with them on specific projects from the beginning of the application process. FEMA also intends to provide HMGP funding to the State of California to mitigate future disaster damages. These projects may include construction of new facilities, modification of existing, undamaged facilities, relocation of facilities out of floodplains, demolition of structures, or other types of projects to mitigate future disaster damages. In the course of developing project proposals, subsequent public notices will be published, if necessary, as more specific information becomes available. As noted, this may be the only public notice regarding the above-described actions under the PA and HMGP programs. Interested persons may obtain information about these actions or a specific project by writing to the FEMA Region IX oice at FEMA-RIX-EHP- Documents@fema.dhs.gov or by mail to the Regional Environmental Oicer, 111 Broadway, Suite 1200, Oakland, CA 94607-4052 at either address within 30 days of the date of this notice. Last updated December 27, 2023 Return to top 23 Page 181 of 251 About Work With Us National Terrorism Advisory System Contact FEMA FEMA.gov An oicial website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Accessibility Accountability Careers Civil Rights Contact Us FOIA Glossary No FEAR Act Plug-Ins Privacy Report Disaster Fraud Website Information DHS.gov USA.gov Inspector General 24 Page 182 of 251 Apply for Assistance An oicial website of the United States government Here’s how you know 4758-DR-CA Initial Notice English Notice Date February 19, 2024 Billing Code 9111-23-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4758-DR] [Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001] California; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4758-DR), dated February 19, 2024, and related determinations. DATE: The declaration was issued Februar y 19, 2024. 25 Page 183 of 251 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Oice of Response and Recover y, Federal Emergency Manage ment Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 19, 2024, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Staord Act”), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of California resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the period of January 21 to January 23, 2024, is of suicient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Staord Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of California. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessar y for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Staord Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Staord Act. The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months aer the date of this declaration. 26 Page 184 of 251 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, N. Allison Pfaendler, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Oicer for this major disaster. The following areas of the State of California have been designated as adversely aected by this major disaster: San Diego County for Individual Assistance. All areas within the State of California are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster A ssistance - Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households - Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. /s/ _______________________________________ Deanne Criswell, Administrator, 27 Page 185 of 251 Disasters & Assistance Grants Floods & Maps Emergency Management About Work With Us Federal Emergency Management Agency. Last updated February 29, 2024 Return to top Contact FEMA 28 Page 186 of 251 National Terrorism Advisory System FEMA.gov An oicial website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Accessibility Accountability Careers Civil Rights Contact Us FOIA Glossary No FEAR Act Plug-Ins Privacy Report Disaster Fraud Website Information DHS.gov USA.gov Inspector General 29 Page 187 of 251 Apply for Assistance An oicial website of the United States government Here’s how you know 4769-DR-CA Initial Notice English Notice Date April 13, 2024 Billing Code 9111-23-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4769-DR] [Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001] California; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4769-DR), dated April 13, 2024, and related determinations. DATE: The declaration was issued April 13, 2024. 30 Page 188 of 251 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Oice of Response and Recover y, Federal Emergency Manage ment Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 13, 2024, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Staord Act”), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of California resulting from severe winter storms, tornadoes, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of January 31 to Februar y 9, 2024, is of suicient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Staord Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Staord Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of California. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessar y for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Staord Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Staord Act. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Andrew F. Grant, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Oicer for this major disaster. The following areas of the State of California have been designated as adversely aected by this major disaster: Butte, Glenn, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sutter, and Ventura Counties for Public A ssistance. 31 Page 189 of 251 Disasters & Assistance Grants All areas within the State of California are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster A ssistance - Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households - Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. /s/ _______________________________________ Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Last updated April 22, 2024 Return to top 32 Page 190 of 251 Floods & Maps Emergency Management About Work With Us National Terrorism Advisory System Contact FEMA FEMA.gov An oicial website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Accessibility Accountability Careers Civil Rights Contact Us FOIA Glossary No FEAR Act Plug-Ins Privacy Report Disaster Fraud Website Information DHS.gov USA.gov Inspector General 33 Page 191 of 251 California Office of Emergency Services State Hazard Mitigation Program Robyn Fennig, CFM https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the-director/operations/recovery-directorate/hazard-mitigation/ December 10, 2024 Page 192 of 251 FEMA’s Definition of Hazard Mitigation Hazard Mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, property and the environment from natural hazards and their effects. Page 193 of 251 Mitigation Program Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program | 3 •Planning (state and local) informs development and selection of projects •Technical assistance provides to support community subapplications •Grants division manages FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants •Quality Assurance Division provides support to monitor and measure effectiveness of program •Coordination with other federal, state, local and non-profit partners o FEMA Region IX o California Department of Water Resources (DWR) o California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) o California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) o US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Page 194 of 251 State Hazard Mitigation Plan Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program | 4 •Sets statewide mitigation priorities and documents statewide program efforts •Provides the foundation for strategies that should be considered in the Local Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) •Outlines actions to be implemented upon adoption •State agencies are covered by the SHMP for the purposes of Mitigation Grant Funding •Approved August 30, 2023 Page 195 of 251 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Funding Authorization Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program | 5 •Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Funding for California hazard mitigation actions. Available after federal major disaster declarations. Ongoing acceptance of proposals (Notices of Interest or NOIs). •Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC): Annual, nationally-competitive program funding mitigation actions. Process starts each year in fall. •Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA): Annual, nationally-competitive program funding mitigation actions that protect properties insured by National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Process starts each year in fall. •FMA Swift Current: provides funding to mitigate buildings insured through the National Flood Insurance Program after a major disaster declaration following a flood-related disaster event to reduce risk against future flood damage. •Legislative Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (LPDM): Annual earmark program overseen by the DHS Appropriations Committee •Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dam (HHPD) Grant Program: provides technical, planning, design, and construction assistance in the form of grants for rehabilitation of eligible high hazard potential dam in jurisdictions that address dam hazards in their LHMPs (managed by DWR)Page 196 of 251 Eligible Subapplicant Entities Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program | 6 •State Agencies •Local Governments: Counties, Cities, Towns, etc. •Special Districts •Federally Recognized Tribes •Private Nonprofit Organizations (PNPs) (not eligible for BRIC) •The entity must have a FEMA-approved and locally adopted LHMP •PNPs in HMGP are exempt from this requirement Page 197 of 251 Application Requirements (FEMA) Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program| 7 •Must have a FEMA-approved and locally-adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan •Participating in a multijurisdictional process with Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, and two geologic hazard abatement districts (Klondike Canyon and Albalone Cove) – grant awarded kickoff took place October 2024 •Would not be eligible for a grant until the planning process is complete and it’s been adopted •Long-term, standalone solution •Cost-effective using FEMA’s Benefit Cost Analysis toolkit; benefit cost ratio 1.0 or greater •48 month period of performance •25% non-federal cost share match required •No work can begin until it’s approved by FEMA •City of Rolling Hills has had several HMGP subgrants •DR-4382 – wildfire mitigation project to underground power lines in partnership with SoCal Edison •DR-4382 – vegetative management/fuel break/erosion control •DR-4344 – wildfire/seismic mitigation project to underground power lines Page 198 of 251 Eligible Activities Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program | 8 •Planning Grants: deliverable is a FEMA-approved LHMP (new or update) •Planning-related activity grants aim to integrate LHMPs to other planning mechanisms, outreach/education for your LHMP or floodplain management •Project scoping should be used when the mitigation problem and solution are not known, and you need to evaluate a potential intervention (i.e. the proposed activity results in a resource, strategy, or tangible mitigation product that will reduce or eliminate risk and damage from future flooding and increase resilience) •Construction projects: structural mitigation (A/D, elevation, reconstruction), wildfire mitigation, nature-based solutions. •Nature-based solutions include, but are not limited to, restoration of grasslands, rivers, floodplains, wetlands, dunes, and reefs; living shorelines; soil stabilization; aquiver storage and recovery; bioretention systems Page 199 of 251 Submitting a Subgrant – Cal OES Process Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program| 9 •Request a Project Scoping Call •Submit a Notice of Interest (NOI) – accepted anytime, priority given to subapplicants who submit by deadlines for specific NOFOs in online system •NOI reviewed by Cal OES, subapplicants with eligible activities will be invited to attend a subapplication development webinar/workshops •Subapplication submitted to Cal OES in our online system •Cal OES reviews subapplications •Request for Information (RFI) •Cal OES submits all subapplications to FEMA •FEMA may have additional RFIs Page 200 of 251 Cal OES Assistance – Technical Assistance Additional Points: Ensure detailed Scope of Work (SoW) •Location •Purpose •Approach •Feasibility •Expected outcomes •Benefits of the activity Cost estimate and narrative describing the anticipated costs Data collection for cost-effectiveness screening A FEMA credible BCA is key. If the project is preliminary, phase the project and include a rerun of the BCA as a Phase I deliverable Identification of the Problem •Problem statement and history of hazards •What is the hazard and risk? •How long has it been occurring? •What are the damages and loss of function/service? •Note quantitative and qualitative losses •Future conditions (SLR, climate impacts, demographic changes, etc.) •How is climate change worsening the problem? Potential Projects/Solutions •Include: •Hazard Mitigation Planning •Planning Studies •Feasibility Studies •Capital Project Plans •New budgetary need requests •Comprehensive stakeholder engagement for project identification •Do you know if solution is feasible? •What may be the challenges with implementation? Technical Assistance (TA) •Assistance with project scoping •How to quickly identify projects that may be eligible, feasibility, cost-effective, and competitive •Goal is to identify projects that will be competitive with FEMA’s priorities for BRIC & FMA •Focus time and resources on good, fundable projects Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program| 10 Page 201 of 251 BRIC Funding by Year Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program | 11 $95,448,982.00 $180,180,256.00 $501,828,488.00 $238,226,147.00 $404,551,018.00 $819,819,744.00 $1,798,171,512.00 $761,773,853.00 BRIC 2020 BRIC 2021 BRIC 2022 BRIC 2023 Funding Available by Year California Rest of Nation Page 202 of 251 California BRIC History Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program| 12 CA BRIC 2021 (Fed Share) $66,274,460 $180,180,256 CA BRIC 2023 (Fed Share) $338,363,247 $238,226,147 CA BRIC 2022 (Fed Share) $501,828,488 CA BRIC 2020 (Fed Share) $377,721,964 $95,448,982 BRIC 2021 (Competitive) Total Funding Available: $1 billion California Selected: $180 million (18%) Projects Submitted: 11 Projects Selected: 9 BRIC 2020 (Competitive) Total Funding Available: $500 million California Selected: $95.5 million (19.1%) Projects Submitted: 26 Projects Selected: 4 BRIC 2023 (Competitive) Total Funding Available: $1 billion California Selected: $238 million (24%) Projects Submitted: 24 Projects Selected: 13 BRIC 2022 (Competitive) Total Funding Available: $2.3 billion California Selected: $501.8 million (21.8%) Projects Submitted: 19 Projects Selected: 19 SelectedNot Selected Page 203 of 251 Next Steps Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Program| 13 •Submitting a Notice of Interest •Discuss what data is available, specifically for the BCA •Outline what goes into a budget, scope of work, and schedule •Complete the local planning process – adopt the plan! •Recommend meeting with other communities Page 204 of 251 Thank you! Page 205 of 251 Agenda Item No.: 12.A Mtg. Date: 06/23/2025 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:SAMANTHA CREW, MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE A PRESENTATION REGARDING CALOES/FEMA BUYOUT PROGRAM DATE:June 23, 2025 BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes faced significant land movement in areas such as Seaview, Portuguese Bend Beach Club, and the Portuguese Bend Community Association. These areas lie atop a complex ancient landslide system that was reactivated in 1956 and further accelerated by heavy rainfall in 2023 and 2024. The area’s bentonite-rich clay soil contributes to ongoing ground instability, resulting in significant damage to roads, utilities, and homes. Some residents were forced to abandon their properties or implement structural shoring to stabilize their homes against the shifting terrain. In September 2024, the City of Rolling Hills experienced unexpected utility shutoffs in the Flying Triangle, Cinchring Road, and Quail Ridge Road South areas due to land movement, impacting electricity, gas, and telecommunications services. In response, the City worked with its residents to mitigate disruptions, engaging legal counsel, hosting community meetings, coordinating emergency communications, expediting permits for alternative power sources, and working closely with utility providers, local organizations, and regional partners. Relief and support measures were launched, including donations, neighborhood outreach, and advocacy at the state and federal levels. While power and gas outages affected dozens of homes, the City continues to coordinate with agencies and utility companies to restore services, communicate updates, and support long-term resiliency planning. Overall, the scale and severity of damage in Rancho Palos Verdes significantly exceeds that of Rolling Hills. In October 2024, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in partnership with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Governor ’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), launched a $42 million Voluntary Property Buyout Program to support homeowners in the Greater Portuguese Bend landslide area. The Cal OES Voluntary Buyout Program, Page 206 of 251 administered by the California Governor ’s Office of Emergency Services and funded through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), is intended to help local governments reduce long-term risks to people and property in areas prone to recurring natural hazards such as wildfires, flooding, and landslides. The program provides financial assistance to acquire high-risk properties, with the goal of removing structures from hazardous areas and converting the land to permanent open space. By the program’s application deadline of November 8, 2025, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes received 85 applications. Of these, 52 (61%) came from residents in the Portuguese Bend Community Association, 21 (25%) from the Seaview community, and 12 (14%) from the Beach Club. Following the program’s announcement and the City’s release of minimum eligibility criteria, 20 properties were red-tagged and 37 yellow-tagged, compared to just two red-tagged and four yellow-tagged homes before October 28, 2024. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was able to mobilize quickly, and the successful award of funds was a direct result of its years of research, consistent grant application efforts, comprehensive data collection, and the ongoing land movement impacting the area. Beginning in November 2024, Rolling Hills City staff initiated a series of coordination meetings with Cal OES to discuss the framework, requirements, and strategic considerations for implementing a Voluntary Buyout Program in Rolling Hills. These discussions have continued consistently through December, January, February, April, and May, reflecting the City’s commitment to thoroughly understanding the program’s structure before making any formal decisions. Each meeting focused specifically on how the buyout process could be tailored to the City’s unique circumstances, including eligibility criteria, property valuation procedures, funding mechanisms, and long-term implications for residents and the City. Staff sought to clarify regulatory expectations, outline potential roles and responsibilities, and gather insight into how similar programs have been successfully executed elsewhere in California. On November 25, 2024, staff provided the City Council with an update on federal emergency management grant programs administered by Cal OES in partnership with FEMA (Attachment A). The update focused on the $42 million Voluntary Property Buyout Program introduced by RPV, which now serves as a model for potential hazard mitigation strategies applicable to the City of Rolling Hills. Staff shared that the RPV program, funded through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), assisted property owners in areas at risk of imminent failure due to ongoing land movement by offering fair market value for their properties and converting acquired parcels into permanently protected open space. Staff also shared that a Presidentially-declared major disaster triggers HMGP funding. Once a disaster meets federal assistance thresholds, FEMA activates the program, allowing funds to flow through state agencies like Cal OES to eligible local governments, special districts, and nonprofits for long- term hazard mitigation projects. On December 10, 2024, Robyn Fennig, Assistant Director of the Hazard Mitigation Branch at Cal OES, visited Rolling Hills to tour impacted areas and engage with residents, staff, and City Council. That evening, she delivered a presentation to the Rolling Hills City Council during its regularly scheduled meeting (Attachment B). Her presentation provided an in-depth overview of the State Hazard Mitigation Program, addressing topics such as funding authorization, FEMA application requirements, eligible project activities, BRIC (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) funding, and the process for submitting a Notice of Interest (NOI). Since the December 10 meeting, staff have continued to meet with Ms. Fennig and her Page 207 of 251 team to review potential funding pathways and have also spoken with residents interested in participating in such a program. This evening, Ms. Fennig will present to the City Council an overview of current grant funding opportunities, the status of programs that are no longer available, and information regarding a potential, if feasible, buyout program for the City of Rolling Hills. Her presentation will also include an update on FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the recent Presidential Declaration (DR-4856), which enables eligible agencies to apply for federal hazard mitigation funding (Attachment C). In connection with the DR-4856 declaration for the California wildfires, Ms. Fennig advised that the City may benefit from participating in the current funding cycle, especially considering the uncertainty surrounding future federal funding opportunities. In April, Cal OES released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for DR-4856 (Attachment D), opening the door for Los Angeles County jurisdictions to apply for available disaster recovery funds. To preserve eligibility, City staff submitted a non-binding draft Notice of Interest (NOI) by the May 29 deadline. This preliminary submission does not obligate the City to pursue the grant but keeps the option open. After the presentations, Staff will seek City Council direction on whether to proceed with the DR-4856 grant opportunity by finalizing and officially submitting the NOI. Should the Council choose to move forward, the next step would be to prepare and submit a subapplication by the September 15, 2025 deadline. Cal OES will then review and develop the subapplications for submission to FEMA by April 2026. Alternatively, the Council may direct staff to conduct additional research and return at a future meeting for further discussion. DISCUSSION: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program The Voluntary Buyout Program (part of FEMA’s HMGP) allows the City to acquire residential properties that have been damaged or are at imminent risk from natural hazards. Participation is entirely voluntary, and eligible properties must include permitted residential structures. The City purchases qualifying properties at fair market value, based on a predetermined appraisal date, demolishes any existing structures, and converts the land to permanently protected open space, as required by FEMA regulations. A city must act as the sub-applicant and submit an application to Cal OES on behalf of interested property owners. If the application is approved, participating homeowners are offered fair market compensation for their property, based either on pre-disaster or current appraised value, depending on program criteria and timing. Acquired properties are deed- restricted to remain undeveloped in perpetuity and may only be used for open space, recreation, or natural floodplain functions. FEMA funds up to 75% of eligible project costs under the Voluntary Buyout Program, with the remaining 25% covered either by the property owner or through in-kind contributions from the City. The program is administered by Cal OES and locally managed by the City, which selects properties for participation based on criteria such as structural damage, program eligibility, and overall community benefit. Homeowners must apply through the City, not directly to FEMA or Cal OES. Once acquired, properties must be demolished and permanently maintained as Page 208 of 251 open space and they cannot be resold to private individuals or redeveloped. To initiate the process, the local jurisdiction must assess community interest and determine whether the buyout aligns with broader hazard mitigation and land-use planning goals. The City is responsible for preparing a detailed application to Cal OES, which includes environmental assessments, cost-benefit analysis, and documentation of the hazard risk. Cal OES then reviews the submission and forwards qualifying proposals to FEMA. An important program requirement is demonstrating cost-effectiveness through FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) methodology, using a specialized software toolkit. The BCA is used to demonstrate that a hazard mitigation project is cost-effective by showing that the expected benefits equal or exceed the project costs. To support this, the City must identify benefits recognized by FEMA, such as avoided damages, emergency response costs, service disruptions, and displacement, and accurately document all project costs, including construction, design, and compliance. Using FEMA-approved data sources and hazard information, the City must also demonstrate the frequency and severity of the risk and provide supporting documentation, such as maps, cost estimates, and damage data. The BCA is often the most difficult threshold to meet, and even well-developed proposals may be excluded from consideration if they fail to demonstrate adequate cost-effectiveness. The Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) review process ensures that all program applications comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other program-specific environmental regulations. This compliance review can take several months to complete and must be finalized before the City can receive FEMA approval. The Voluntary Buyout Program is not intended for immediate post-disaster relief but is part of a long-term hazard mitigation strategy. Due to environmental reviews and the federal approval process, extended time may pass between application submission and actual property acquisition. Cities considering participation must be prepared to lead a transparent community engagement process, support applicants throughout the program, and assume responsibility for managing the acquired land in perpetuity. Rancho Palos Verdes Voluntary Buyout Program In May 2025, City of Rolling Hills staff met with representatives from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) to learn about their experience designing and implementing a Voluntary Buyout Program under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The purpose of the meeting was to understand the program’s development from initial concept to current implementation and to gather insights and lessons learned from a neighboring jurisdiction already navigating this complex process. The information provided by RPV offers a valuable roadmap for communities considering a similar initiative. RPV launched its buyout program in response to accelerated land movement in the Greater Portuguese Bend area. City staff emphasized the importance of establishing clear systems and procedures from the outset. This included designing a transparent application process, conducting broad and inclusive outreach to potentially eligible property owners, and creating structured screening and evaluation criteria to ensure fairness and efficiency. RPV received 85 applications, of which 23 were selected to move forward. The selection Page 209 of 251 process began with strict minimum eligibility requirements. Notably, applicants involved in either of the two lawsuits, Black or Monks, stemming from prior development agreements in high-risk areas were deemed ineligible, as those agreements included waivers against future claims. Additionally, any applicant involved in active litigation against the City was required to release all legal claims prior to being awarded grant funds. Program Design and Funding RPV’s program is strictly voluntary; homeowners are not required to participate, and eminent domain is not used. Properties in RPV are acquired at fair market value as determined by a licensed real estate appraiser, using a set appraisal date (e.g., December 1, 2022). FEMA provides 75% of the property acquisition cost and associated eligible expenses, including: Appraisal and title search costs Lot surveys (if needed) Real estate transaction, escrow, and closing costs Demolition and site restoration Environmental remediation (e.g., lead paint or asbestos removal) RPV is responsible for advancing all upfront costs, which are later reimbursed by FEMA. To manage the workload and meet compliance obligations, the City contracted with a grant management firm to support both pre-award application development and post-award program administration. To meet FEMA’s 25% non-federal cost share requirement, property owners contribute the remaining share through a deduction from the final fair market value payment. A portion of this contribution is held in escrow at closing to cover costs such as demolition and restoration. Any remaining balance is returned to the property owner upon completion and closeout of site restoration. Properties acquired through the program must be demolished and cleared, with the site regraded and restored to eliminate any public safety concerns. Once cleared, the land is permanently deed-restricted for open space, recreation, or natural hazard mitigation functions and cannot be redeveloped or sold to private individuals. Appeals, Phased Implementation, and Grant Management RPV implemented the program in phases, starting with the acquisition of three properties funded through an initial $10 million allocation from their General Fund reserves. The City must wait for reimbursement from this first round before proceeding with the next set of property purchases. To streamline operations, the City relied on pre-qualified vendors for appraisal, title, and escrow services and planned to issue RFPs for demolition contractors. While surveyor services were not yet required, the City remained prepared to issue additional RFPs if needed. To address potential disputes over property valuations, RPV developed a formal appraisal appeal process. The City contracted with two separate appraisal firms, one for the Portuguese Bend area and another for the Seaview neighborhood. If a property owner challenged their appraisal, the case was reviewed by the alternate firm for an independent secondary valuation. Page 210 of 251 RPV also noted the importance of accounting for in-kind costs such as staff time and administrative resources, which can be significant. Outsourcing key program components helped the City manage these demands while maintaining compliance with federal and state requirements. Eligibility and Prioritization Criteria RPV, in coordination with Cal OES and FEMA, ensured that each application complies with all applicable program rules, regulations, and federal requirements, including Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) guidelines. Only properties deemed eligible by FEMA would advance to the formal selection process. Minimum eligibility criteria include: The property is not bank-owned (mortgages do not disqualify; foreclosure ownership does) The property has not changed ownership since December 1, 2022 The property contains legally permitted residential structures The applicant is the legal property owner according to the County Assessor and building permit records Once eligibility was established, properties were prioritized for acquisition based on the following factors: 1. Properties red-tagged by the City’s Building Official. 2. Properties yellow-tagged by the City’s Building Official. 3. Properties in imminent danger of being red or yellow tagged due to proximity to fissures, sinkholes, or other geologic hazards. 4. Properties that have been de-energized indefinitely. 5. Properties offering strategic value for landslide stabilization or winterization efforts. 6. Properties that enhance or expand the adjacent Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Duplication of Benefits FEMA regulations prohibit duplication of benefits. If a property owner has received financial assistance (e.g., insurance payouts or other grants) for the same damage or purpose, those amounts must be accounted for and deducted from the buyout payment unless the owner can document that the funds were used for repairs. For example, if a structure was damaged and the owner received insurance funds for repairs, they must prove that those funds were spent. If not, FEMA will reduce the buyout amount accordingly. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In evaluating the potential participation in the Cal OES Voluntary Buyout Program, it is important to consider not only the grant funding and long-term benefits of hazard mitigation, but also the fiscal impacts that accompany property acquisitions. The following outlines a few key cost considerations that would affect the City’s general fund and operational responsibilities should it move forward with a property buyout program: Page 211 of 251 Potential Ongoing Costs (all estimates ): Loss of Property Tax Revenue Each acquired property is permanently removed from the tax rolls. Example: A $3.5 million property could generate $2,700/year for the City (1% of assessed value = $35,000/year paid by the property owner. Most cities in LA County receive about 7–8% of the 1% general levy collected by the County. $35,000 × 0.077 (7.7%) = $2,695/year to the City). Multiple acquisitions would result in a cumulative annual revenue loss. Parcel Maintenance Vacant lots require vegetation management to comply with fire codes. Costs vary based on terrain, vegetation density, and contractor rates. Liability Insurance Annual cost depends on parcel access, size, location, and risk exposure. Estimated range: $1,000 - $3,000 per parcel annually, higher if public access is allowed or terrain is hazardous. Each City-owned parcel will be added to the City's Property schedule and reported to the California Joint Powers Authority on an annual basis. Program Administration As seen in RPV, in-kind contributions (e.g., staff coordination, oversight) remain under 1% of the total FEMA grant. Grant Management Services The City may need to hire a specialized grant management firm to initiate and oversee the application process for the Cal OES Voluntary Buyout Program. CONCLUSION The City of Rolling Hills recognizes the severe impact the recent utility shutoffs and ongoing land movement have had on residents in the Flying Triangle, Cinchring Road, and Quail Ridge Road South areas. These disruptions have led to significant financial burdens for many, including costs associated with prolonged outages, alternative energy solutions, and, in some cases, unreported home repairs necessitated by ground instability. As the City considers participation in the Cal OES Voluntary Buyout Program, it is essential to weigh both the immediate and long-term implications of acquiring properties behind the gates. While the program offers a potential path toward permanent risk reduction and open space preservation, it also represents a substantial policy and fiscal commitment that will shape the City’s future land use, financial planning, and emergency management responsibilities. Tonight’s discussion provides an opportunity to reflect on the technical and regulatory dimensions of a potential buyout initiative, as well as the potential impacts it may have on our community. Informed by Rancho Palos Verdes' experience, staff recommend that the City Council carefully evaluate the potential grant opportunity and provide direction on whether to proceed with finalizing the Notice of Interest (NOI) for the current DR-4856 funding cycle and/or ask that Staff return to the City Council with additional information. Page 212 of 251 FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown at this time RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A CL_AGN_241125_CC_Item15B.pdf Attachment B CL_AGN_241210_CC_Item4B.pdf Attachment C FEMA-4856-DR-CA Major Disaster.pdf Attachment D Cal OES DR-4856 HMGP NOFO.pdf Page 213 of 251 EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Hello Robyn, Thank you again for your reply. I appreciate it. I wish you great success in your career. Cal OES is lucky to have you on-board. Thank you again for your time, everyone. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:54 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: Matthew- FEMA has never funded a buyout for land movement like this before RPV. FEMA seemed very unwilling to consider a later date in all the meetings I had with them for RPV. I think that fundamentally, FEMA would view it the same, as the geology of the Peninsula seems linked – and things started moving with the atmospheric rivers. I wouldn’t even know what FEMA would need. Based on the speed to review things, I don’t think they’re going to rush to get back to us on it. It still makes a key issue that Cal Water must come on record and say the pipe breaks were due to land movement, and not due to anything else. I will say – if there is any change in the discount rate with OMB again, I will absolutely let you and the City know. We have the Notice of Interest in our system, and we can always change the status to “active” at any time. I mean that. I cannot even begin to put into words how disappointed I am by the rollback of the BCA policy changes we finally got in 2023 and 2024. There are going to be a LOT of projects that were submitted to FEMA and are no longer eligible. I’ve been talking to my counterparts in other states. Any time we can resubmit things with policy changes, we do, because we don’t want to miss the opportunity to say, “Thank you FEMA, these projects are good and are eligible!” Page 214 of 251 We are working with the City on other HMA grants – we’ll continue to be in touch! Robyn Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:42 AM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Subject: Re: Thank You This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hello Robyn, Page 215 of 251 Thank you for the thorough and kind response. I appreciate it. Since the pipe breaks happened in Rolling Hills in 2024 (instead of 2022), would this change the calculations at all? Note: Cinchring is not part of the historical landslide complex that encompasses RPV. So, would the Cinchring pipe breaks and the RPV landslide be viewed as separate issues by Cal OES? Although, as you said, I'm disappointed in the outcome for 13 Cinchring, since I very strongly disagree with the Cal OES calculations... I really do appreciate your effort throughout this process. You deserve an A+ for your work. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:21 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: Hi Matthew- The thing I want to preface is that we are bound to use methodology approved by FEMA. The BCA process does not allow for a lot of wiggle room. Every input must be backed up by FEMA-credible, acceptable sources, using the methodology approved by FEMA. In 2024, there were a lot of changes to the policies/regulations that govern BCAs and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs more broadly. Mitigation programs at the state, tribal and territorial levels were very happy with these changes. When I met with you on your Page 216 of 251 property, my assessment of the feasibility of the project was based on those changes coming online. Those changes have been rescinded. If the land movement is the root cause of the property damage, FEMA will uniformly use the same “pre-event” date for the entire Peninsula – they have had to really think outside the box, because the Peninsula’s situation is not the cookie cutter way FEMA typically defines “landslide” hazards. Getting FEMA to accept the November 2022 as the timeframe by which to estimate fair market value AND replacement value was a huge deal nationally. That means we also have to look at building replacement value, in addition to fair market value, in November 2022 – not September 2025. I understand that the determination is disappointing. Even when I drop the cost to $4.15 million and scale the rest of the project costs accordingly, it’s still not cost effective. The limitations of the FEMA methodology are why we don’t do a lot of acquisition/demolition projects in the State of California (whereas, in most other states, it’s the number one funded project type). The housing market in California is a huge factor – and I will continue to reiterate, we are using methodology that was created for floodplain buyouts. They’ve tweaked the tool to support landslide risk, but the entire program was designed to reduce losses to the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodplain buyouts are a lot easier in a mapped 100-year floodplain. Moreover, the underlying assumption in this BCA is that the property is at imminent risk of failure within 5 years. That underlying assumption is still undocumented. Even if we find all the FEMA credible inputs to get us over the 1.0 benefit cost ratio, we still need that study to show that and for the Cal Water event that really jumpstarted movement on your property to be linked to the land movement. I have been doing BCAs for HMA programs since 2011, with my longest experience in acquisition/demolition. I am on national panels for mitigation, a certified floodplain manager (matters because that’s what the methodology is set up for), have a degree in economics, and have provided a lot of feedback on the BCA process, inputs, etc. I am just sharing this to highlight that I am very up to date on the methodology, changes, and very passionate Page 217 of 251 about advocating for changes in the processes. I am not trying to say I disagree with any of your rationale. It’s simply that we are limited and truly understand the frustration. The worst part of my job is communicating with real Californians who are living with the impacts of disasters that we can’t get a BCA to work in their favor. I’ve been advocating for changes to the methodology and HMA program on a whole for almost 15 years and will continue to do so. Sincerely, Robyn Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 2:52:53 PM To: Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Thank You This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Page 218 of 251 Hello Robyn, I hope that you're having a good day. I've really appreciated your time over the past year or so. You've been very helpful and kind throughout the process. My thoughts on the results: * Can FEMA give me an example of a home being built in Palos Verdes for the cost-per- square-foot that you're assuming? I strongly doubt that you'll find a single example, since it's very, very unrealistic. Would you be open to taking a sample of 50 homes built in Palos Verdes over the past several years to find an average building cost? Can you also take a sample of 50 homes being built now? * Although the tax assessor shows square footage of 3,507, the actual square footage is what's shown on Zillow (above 4,000). I'm happy for you to measure it; I'm happy to pay for the process. * It sounds as if the funding wouldn't work at $5 million, but would work at $4.15 million. Couldn't Cal OES just adjust the payment down to where it would work? Regardless, I've appreciated your time and communication throughout the process, and wish you a great weekend. Take care. Sincerely, Page 219 of 251 Matthew Fournier On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:39 PM Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> wrote: My pleasure. Sincerely, Samantha Crew Management Analyst From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 12:19 PM To: Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Robyn@CalOES Fennig <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Thank You EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Page 220 of 251 Hello Samantha, Thank you for your reply. Great, I've accepted the invitation, and look forward to speaking with you this Friday. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 12:01 PM Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> wrote: Hello Matthew Thank you for the availability window. I’ve just sent a calendar invitation for Friday, September 12 at 2:30 p.m. to you and Jasmine. I hope this time works for you and if not, I'm happy to adjust if needed. Looking forward to our conversation. Sincerely, Samantha Crew Management Analyst Page 221 of 251 From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:56 AM To: Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Robyn@CalOES Fennig <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Thank You EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Hello Samantha, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I'm available from 12 PM PST - 5 PM PST this Friday. What works best for you? Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Page 222 of 251 Matthew Fournier On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 9:53 AM Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> wrote: Good morning, Matthew Thank you for following up. I hope your week is off to a good start. Staff met with Cal OES last week, and we anticipate receiving an update from them later this week as they finalize their Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). Would you like to schedule a call with me on Friday, September 12, to review their findings? I am available at any time that day and would be glad to adjust to your schedule. Please let me know what works best for you. Sincerely, Samantha Crew Management Analyst From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:20 AM To: Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Robyn@CalOES Fennig <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Thank You Page 223 of 251 EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Hello Samantha, I hope that you had a good weekend. I'm just following up to see if you've received the Benefit/Cost analysis, and/or if there's been any further discussion about the Voluntary Buyout Program? I'm happy to jump on a call, run through numbers, etc., if it's useful. Thank you for your time. Have a good week. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 9:53 AM Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Samantha, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. Page 224 of 251 That sounds good. In the meantime, if you need any additional data/info, please feel free to let us know. We’ll try our best to get it to you. Thank you for your time. Have a good week! Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Aug 11, 2025, at 9:48 AM, Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> wrote: Good morning, Matthew Thank you for reaching out and for your willingness to participate and provide additional information for this effort. At this time, Cal OES has not indicated that they require any further information, and they have been provided with all of the materials you previously supplied. About a week and a half ago, staff met with the Cal OES team to discuss the Voluntary Buyout Program. They are currently working on the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and indicated that they hope to have an update for us by the first or second week of September. Once we receive their feedback, staff will follow up with you. I hope all is well with you in the meantime, and we appreciate your patience as we await the next steps. Sincerely, Page 225 of 251 Samantha Crew Management Analyst <Outlook-o2ka1ze3.jpg> From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 6:56 AM To: Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <robyn.fennig@caloes.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Thank You EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Hello Everyone, I hope that you had a good weekend, and that you're enjoying Summer. I'm just following up to see if there's any other data/information that you need from us? We're happy to jump on a call, if it's useful. Page 226 of 251 Thank you for your time. Have a good day. Take care. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:34 AM Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Samantha, Thank you for your e-mail, effort and time. We appreciate it. Have a good upcoming weekend. Take care. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:16 AM Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> wrote: Good morning Thank you for your assessment notes. We appreciate you taking the time to use the FEMA calculator tool and share your findings. Staff was in communication with Cal OES this morning and passed along your notes to support their ongoing efforts in conducting the Benefit-Cost Analysis. Page 227 of 251 We’re hopeful that the results will be available within the next couple of weeks, and we’ll be sure to keep you informed as soon as we hear back. Thanks again for your time and effort. Wishing you a great weekend, we’ll be in touch soon. Sincerely, Samantha Crew Management Analyst <Outlook-ay1u3lgh.jpg> From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 10:50 AM To: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Thank You EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Hello Karina and Samantha, One note in those assumptions: Robyn said that the FEMA team will be using the "landslide" hazard type. I was just following her direction when using the calculator. Page 228 of 251 Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:29 AM Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Robyn, Thank you for your reply. No worries, that sounds good. (Moving you to "cc"). For the RH and Cal OES Modeling Teams, please see the attachments, which show Benefit/Cost analysis using the FEMA tool. My notes: * For "Analysis Method Type", I used "Modeled Damages". * For "Project Cost", I said $6 million, with an annual maintenance cost of $5k (post-demolition, since it'd just be an open field at that point). * For "Total Building Area", I used what was stated on Zoom (4,488 square feet). Page 229 of 251 * For "Building Replacement Value", I modified the default. In California, as you know, building costs are very high. I watched a documentary last weekend about the California fires, and it discussed how building costs right now in Southern California can be over $1,500/square foot. In Rolling Hills, as you know, building costs can also be very high relative to other Southern California areas. So, this was my one notable adjustment relative to the FEMA Model (which was unrealistically low for California). * I used the default for Contents Damage, Displacement Costs Avoided, Life Safety Costs. I assumed 3 displaced residents (Me, Jasmine, my son), 1 who is working (me). * For "Ecosystem Services Losses Avoided", I said 100% Rural Green Open Space. The result of the above is a benefit/cost ratio of 2.03. (This is higher than the previous 1.99 because I adjusted the house square footage to what's exactly stated on Zillow, as compared to just rounding to a simpler number). Happy to chat with someone at some point in time, if necessary. Regardless, thank you for your time. Have a good rest of the week. Take care! Sincerely, Matthew Fournier Page 230 of 251 On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:16 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: Hi Matthew- The program guidance for what is allowable and what documentation is acceptable to substantiate inputs is pretty particular – there are requirements that must be met to go outside the required inputs for certain hazards and project types. My team is still working through that documentation process with Karina and Samantha. I’m not the person conducting the analysis – please continue to communicate with Karina and Samantha so that my team can be looped in! Cheers, Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Page 231 of 251 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me <image001.png> From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 9:36 AM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>; Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net> Subject: Re: Thank You This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hello Robyn, Thank you for your helpful reply, as always. Along with your patience. I downloaded the FEMA Calculator. Does this online calculator assume the aforementioned 100 year "useful life"? Is this the exact calculator that you use? My results came out with a benefit/cost ratio of 1.99. I'm happy to walk through my assumptions, which I think are very reasonable and realistic. Thank you for your time Page 232 of 251 Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:25 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: Hi Matthew- 1.0 or greater - benefits equal to costs (or outweigh costs). Costs include the project costs and maintenance over the 100 year “useful life” that FEMA allocates per guidance for acquisition. Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 8:58:15 AM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Thank You This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Page 233 of 251 Good morning, Robyn. We hope that you've been well. Quick question: what benefit-to-cost ratio is needed for Cal OES (and FEMA) to approve the acquisition? Thank you for your time. Have a good day! Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:22 PM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: The water agency would likely have to come on record with data showing that the pipe bursts were related to land movement in order for us to attribute the damage from pipe failure to the event. We’re conducting our analysis with that assumption in mind. From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:35 PM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net>; Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net> Subject: Re: Thank You Page 234 of 251 This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hello Robyn, Very interesting, thank you! Does the probability of a future hazard (as calculated by the software) take into account conditional probabilities? Ex: given the previous pipe breaks that have already occured, it increases the probability of future catastrophic events, etc. No need to reply. Jasmine and I are somewhat nerdy, so this is partly just curiosity. Have a good afternoon. Take care! Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 10:59 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: Future damages – since the mitigation action is acquisition and demolition, we can look at the avoided damages associated with a catastrophic land failure and home failure. The costs include the appraised value (not property value, since those are likely higher than the assessed value). We usually have to estimate that, but Page 235 of 251 getting some data about how the appraisals are coming in for the RPV residents vs. what we estimated in the subapplication is helpful! -Robyn Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me <image001.png> From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 10:52 AM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Samantha Crew <sjcrew@cityofrh.net>; Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net> Subject: Re: Thank You This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hello Robyn, Page 236 of 251 I hope that you had a good weekend. Great, thank you, we appreciate it. I'm guessing the software takes into account local property values, since that's what's directly impacted (homes across Rolling Hills, etc.)? (No need to respond). Have a good week. Take care! Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: Jasmine and Matthew- The Benefit-Cost Analysis must be conducted using FEMA software. The probability of a failure is based on geologic hazard data – specifically, the event must come from a natural hazard cause to be eligible in our programs. It’s an annual probability that will be factored into the calculations. We can no longer submit narratives, as OMB removed that option with their policy rollback along with the increase of the discount rate to 7%. Page 237 of 251 Our team is working closely with the Rolling Hills staff to ensure we have everything captured. We appreciate your willingness to ensure we have all of the information captured! Thanks, Robyn Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me <image001.png> From: Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 11:17 AM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Thank You Page 238 of 251 This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hi Robyn, We apologize for all of these emails! Matthew forgot to mention the most important point, which is: * If there are about 600 homes in Rolling Hills, and the average pre- pipe-break price was about $4 million, then the property values in Rolling Hills would be about $2.4 billion. * By buying out the highest risk homes on Cinchring, you could reduce the risk to the rest of the homes in Rolling Hills. Or, you could spend $X today to reduce the risk to $2.4 billion in home values (maybe more). Doing so would preserve the property tax base, which funds essential public services. So, the cost/benefit to the home buyout program suggests that it's very much worth buying out the highest risk homes on Cinchring, in my opinion. Thank you again for your time. Best wishes! Sincerely, Page 239 of 251 Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 8:53 AM Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Robyn, I hope that you had a good July 4th, and that you're enjoying a long weekend. I apologize for all of the e-mails. This is our last intended e-mail on this subject. I was talking with Jasmine, and we're wondering if it'd be useful for us to also provide some feedback on potential costs of Rolling Hills not purchasing 13 Cinchring through a Voluntary Home Buyout Program? To us, here are some potential costs: * As mentioned in the prior e-mail, 13 Cinchring has already experienced damage from pipe breaks, etc. Now that there are land fissures, sinkholes, and eroding hillsides, there are also immediate risks of landslides, etc. Thus, the damage and risks are existing and immediate. * Since 13 Cinchring now faces an existing and immediate risk of home failure, then this could create a number of other risks for all of the homes on the Cinchring hillside. For example: Page 240 of 251 - Cinchring is located at the perimeter of the PV Nature Preserve. There are fire risks in this area. A large fire in 1973 burned homes on the hillside, including 13 Cinchring and several other homes on Cinchring. Another fire in 2009 damaged several homes in the area, including 13 Cinchring. There have been other fires in the area in recent years. One concern: should 13 Cinchring fail and this impact the power lines in the area (since it's linked to the power grid), then this could trigger fire issues. - Similarly, Cinchring has a septic tank. Home failure could dump sewage into the area. - Additionally, Cinchring is obviously linked to the water system in the area. Home failure could cause water dumping on the hillside, triggering landslides, sinkholes, etc. This could impact all of the homes on the Cinchring and Quail Ridge hillside. * What would be the dollar cost of this damage? In general, using broad assumptions: - There are about 15 homes or so on Cinchring and Spur Lane. If the average pre-pipe-break home value was around $4 million, then that would represent $60 million in potential damages on Cinchring and Spur Lane. from fires, landslides, septic dumps, etc. - Similarly, if there are an additional 8 homes or so on Quail Ridge with an average pre-pipe-break home value of $3.5 million, that would be potential damages of about $28 million or so. - If there are 5 Crest Road homes (or so) on the immediate Cinchring hillside with an average pre-pipe-break value of $4 Page 241 of 251 million, then that would be an additional $20 million of potential damages. - Thus, a fire, landslide, and/or septic issue that impacts all of the homes on the Cinchring and Quail Ridge hillside could mean pre- pipe-break damages of $100 million+, under these basic assumptions. In conclusion, the potential costs of not doing the buyout program are high. Allowing 13 Cinchring (and others) into the Home Buyout Program can reduce these risks to the broader hillside, saving the City and State money from future disasters, while allowing citizens to relocate today to new areas. Thank you again for all of your time and effort, Robyn. I hope that you enjoy the rest of this weekend and don't see this e-mail until Monday. Take care. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 11:07 AM Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Robyn, Thank you for your reply. Page 242 of 251 Yes, please feel free to share this information with your Technical Assistance team conducting the BCA. We appreciate your time and effort. Have a good weekend! Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 10:55 AM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: Hi Matthew- Thank you for taking the time to capture this in an email. I know we have discussed it in person during my site visit in December 2024, as well as in conversation since. Are you okay if I share this information via email with my Technical Assistance team conducting the BCA? -Robyn Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer Page 243 of 251 Alternate State Coordinating Officer DR-4856, LA Wildfires California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me <image001.png> From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 10:34 AM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Jasmine Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Thank You This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hello Robyn, I hope that you're having a good morning. Also, my wife and I want to quickly write down the facts about 13 Cinchring, so that you have the necessary information when analyzing whether or not 13 Cinchring should be accepted by the Voluntary Property Buyout Program. In our opinion, the answer Page 244 of 251 is: yes, 13 Cinchring should be accepted by the Voluntary Property Buyout Program. Existing and Immediate Damage + Failures: * As you know, multiple pipe breaks resulted in potentially 100,000+ (hundreds of thousands?) of gallons of water being dumped onto our property. This, in turn, resulted in our property being "pushed" down the hillside. For example, at least 2800 cubic feet of dirt from the top of our property was pushed down to fill the storm drain at the bottom of Cinchring after the pipe breaks. Again, more than 2800 cubic feet of property was dislodged and moved: some dirt was placed before the storm drain, some after the storm drain, etc. Thus, the damage that's already been done is notable and measurable. * Since the pipe breaks, 13 Cinchring and the nearby roads have already experienced sinkholes and fissures. Thus, there is existing damage, and an imminent risk of future landslides. * Since the pipe breaks, we've been experiencing slope failures in multiple locations. Thus, there is existing damage. This also points to the imminent risk of future landslides. * Our garage and home have experienced floor, wall, ceiling, and beam cracking. Our own water pipes (as opposed to the aforementioned City street pipe) have also recently been breaking. This represents current damage, while also pointing to the imminent risk of failure. * Our home was de-energized for multiple months in the past year. Given this event, we're concerned that the home will again be de-energized by the utility companies and/or the City. Page 245 of 251 * As you know, 13 Cinchring is adjacent to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, making it easy to incorporate into this broader area. This is a positive of 13 Cinchring being accepted into the buyout program. * As you know, 13 Cinchring is not located in a pre-existing, known landslide zone. What occurred was truly unexpected, and thus there's a stronger argument for emergency assistance for 13 Cinchring than other Southern California areas that are located in long-known landslide zones. Summary: In summary, 13 Cinchring has already experienced notable damage. It is also at risk of further imminent events such as landslides, de-energization, the home collapsing, etc. Since it wasn't part of a historical landslide zone, there's a stronger argument for assistance and acceptance into the Home Buyout Program than other homes located within previously well-known slide complexes. If you have any questions/comments, please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your effort and time, and again, have a good rest of the week. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier Page 246 of 251 On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 8:35 AM Allison Smart <amhill210@gmail.com> wrote: Replying all to add my mom to these emails. Please reply to her as well in the future. Thanks! On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 7:21 AM Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Robyn, Thank you for your reply and time, as always. Have a great rest of the week. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:22 PM Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov> wrote: We unfortunately don’t have a choice in the matter - it’s an OMB directive to go back quite a bit in the changes to the BCA process across the board for all federal agencies. Fingers crossed! Page 247 of 251 Robyn Fennig, CFM (she/her/hers) Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation State Hazard Mitigation Officer California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cell: (916) 799-8660 Email: Robyn.Fennig@caloes.ca.gov Click here to request a meeting with me From: Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 5:55:51 PM To: Fennig, Robyn@CalOES <Robyn.Fennig@CalOES.ca.gov> Cc: Jasmine Fournier <jasmine4nier@gmail.com>; Allison Smart <amhill210@gmail.com>; Waylon Smart <waylonsmart@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Thank You This Message is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Hello Robyn, Thank you for all of your time and effort working with Rolling Hills. We really do appreciate it. As an update, we received the related paperwork today. We'll be submitting it to Rolling Hills tomorrow, in person. Also, one thing we're wondering: during the City Council meeting, you discussed the recent increase in the discount rate used for buyout analysis. Page 248 of 251 Since we: i) submitted an application to RPV; and ii) requested that Rolling Hills submit our application prior to the increase in the discount rate, does this mean that our homes will be analyzed using the old (sub-4%?) discount rate, or the new (higher) discount rate? We'd obviously argue for the lower discount rate, since that was the applicable rate when we applied. Thank you for your time. Have a good night. Take care! Sincerely, Matthew Fournier On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 7:33 AM Matthew Fournier <g.matthew.fournier@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Robyn, Thank you for your time and efforts last night at the Rolling Hills City Council meeting. We truly appreciate it. If there's any way that we may be of assistance with next steps--for example, providing you with home data, etc.-- please don't hesitate to contact us. Page 249 of 251 Jasmine and I are, as you know, willing to be a part of the "Rolling Hills pilot program". I've also included our neighbors, Allison and Waylon, in this e-mail. Thank you again for all that you do, Robyn. Sincerely, Matthew Fournier WARNING: Do not click links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the email is safe. WARNING: Do not click links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the email is safe. -- Jasmine Nachtigall-Fournier (650) 269-6333 Page 250 of 251 Item: 14.C. Meeting Date: 9/22/2025 To: City Council From: Karina Bañales, City Manager Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager Subject: Receive a verbal update on Planning Department Recruitment(s) Background: None. Discussion: None. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. Recommendation: Receive a verbal update Attachments: None Page 251 of 251