Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-01-10_CC_AgendaPacket
1.CALL TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 5.CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. 5.A.APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Approve. NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 AGENDA Regular City Council Meeting CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 10, 2022 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 7:00 PM All Councilmembers will participate in-person wearing masks per Los Angeles County Health Department's Health Officer Order effective Saturday, July 17, 2021. The meeting agenda is available on the City’s website. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the City’s website. Both the agenda and the live-streamed video can be found here: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php Members of the public may 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. Recordings to City Council meetings can be found here: https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/government/agenda/index.php Next Resolution No. 1286 Next Ordinance No. 374 1 5.B.APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 5.C.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: DECEMBER 14, 2021 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5.D.PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5.E.REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 2021. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5.F.CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5.G.CITY COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5.H.ANNUAL VENDOR LIST FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5.I.ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 372 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING CHAPTERS 16.50 (SB 9 URBAN LOT SPLITS) AND 17.45 (SB 9 TWO-UNIT PROJECTS) TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE; AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 373 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 (BUILDING CODE) TO ADOPT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE CODE BY REFERENCE AND MAKE LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO. FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 5.J.RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE TO THE DESIGN OF THE 8" SEWER MAIN ALONG ROLLING HILLS ROAD. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 5.K.RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON THE CREST ROAD EAST UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING GRANT PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. 2021-12-14_CCMinutes.pdf Council report 12-14-2021 to 01-10-2022.pdf 1121 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf CL_AGN_2022_Council_MeetingDates.pdf FN_BUD_220110_Calendar_FY22-23_F.pdf CC_AGN_220110_AnnualVendorList_2022.pdf 372_SB9_Ordinance.pdf 373_SB9_FireCode_Ordinance.pdf Portuguese Bend Sewer Main_Cost Estimate_11222021.pdf Exhibit A - Underground Utility District Limits Exhibit_Parcels_V1.pdf 2 5.L.FILING OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS GRANT PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 6.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 7.COMMISSION ITEMS 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.A.6TH CYCLE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE R ECOMM ENDATION: Authorize staff to forward the “HCD Draft” 6th Cycle Housing Element to HCD for review and comment. 9.OLD BUSINESS 9.A.RECEIVE AND FILE THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SEWER CONNECTIONS ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (WILLIAMSBURG AND MIDDLERIDGE LANE) AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file study and provide direction to staff. 9.B.RECEIVE AND FILE FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT FROM HQE SYSTEMS (SIREN STUDY) AND DIRECT STAFF CONDUCT A COMMUNITY SURVEY. R E COM M EN D ATIO N : Receive and file report and direct staff to conduct a community survey. 10.NEW BUSINESS 10.A.DISCUSS THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST RELATING TO THE CITY HALL CAMPUS EMERGENCY POWER PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. 10.B.CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO TEMPORARILY STAFF THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to engage professional services. Crest Road Underground Utility District Letter No.2.pdf Frontier- Rule 33 Tariff A.1.a..pdf Environmental Assessment Process Flow Chart.pdf Categorical Exemption Memo.pdf Notice Of Exemption Form.pdf RollingHillsHCDDraftHousingElement-120321.pdf HousingElementPresentation-011022.pdf RH Sewer Feasibility Study Ph III 09-3-2021-Complete (1).pdf HQE Systems - Mass Notification Systems Installation Report - The City of Rolling Hills - Final JW (Email Version 2).pdf Rolling Hill Maintenance Buildings One Two- SFR V3_Review.pdf 2021.12.07 RH Architectural Review_Solar Panels.pdf 3 10.C.CONSIDER HIRING A PENINSULA CITIES JOINT HOUSING/LOCAL CONTROL LOBBYIST. RECOMMENDATION: Consider and provide direction to staff. 11.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS 11.A.REPORT BY THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE ON THE DECEMBER 15, 2021 COMMITTEE MEETING; APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD A SECOND COMMUNAL BIN EVENT PROPOSED FOR JANUARY 24, 2022 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2022; AND APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. RECOMMENDATION: Receive report, consider Committee's recommendations and provide direction to staff. 11.B.REVIEW THE ADOPTED COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM AND CONSIDER ADJUSTMENTS PER LATEST CHANGES TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY HEALTH ORDERS (MAYOR PRO TEM BLACK). RECOMMENDATION: Review and provide direction to staff. 11.C.DISCUSS PROPOSED CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) DECISION REVISING NET ENERGY METERING TARIFF AND SUBTARIFFS (MAYOR DIERINGER). RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation from Mayor Dieringer and provide direction to staff. 12.MATTERS FROM STAFF 12.A.PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVER (CAL-RECYCLE) BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING CITY PSA_with_MICHAEL_BAKER-_executed_10.13.21.pdf Rolling Hills First Amendment Michael Baker-c1_12.01.21_executed.pdf Michael Baker Letter Proposal for additional hours Updated_11.29.21.pdf Rolling Hills Second Amendment Michael Baker_01.10.22-c1.pdf RFP_JointPeninsulaLobbyist_2021-08-27_assembled.pdf Renne Public Policy Law Group Proposal.pdf Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Lobbyist Proposal- Received 9.10.21.pdf Agenda FF Committee Meeting 12.15.21.pdf Proposal from Wildland Res Mgt-City of RH.pdf Communal Bin 1st Event & 2nd Event Placement.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachA_BestPracticesOffices.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachB_HOO_SaferReturnWorkCommunity.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachC_HOO_Coronavirus_Blanket_Isolation.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachD_HOO_Coronavirus_Blanket_Quarantine.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachE_PressRelease_AddMaskin Requirements.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachF_01-05-22_HOO_SaferReturnWorkCommunity.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachG_Continuing_Safety_Measures .pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_SRA__AttachA.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_LAT2_AttachB.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_LAT1_AttachC.pdf 4 PAYMENT PROGRAM. RECOMMENDATION: Approve participation in program and direct City Attorney to draft multi-year resolution authorizing submittal of application for the January 24, 2022 City Council meeting. 13.CLOSED SESSION 14.ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Monday, January 24, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274. PW_REF_220118_CRC_BevGrant_DualBinExamples_AttachA.pdf Notice: Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. 5 Agenda Item No.: 5.A Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2022 DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. ATTACHMENTS: 6 Agenda Item No.: 5.B Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: 7 Agenda Item No.: 5.C Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: A. DECEMBER 14, 2021 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: 2021-12-14_CCMinutes.pdf 8 9 10 11 12 13 Agenda Item No.: 5.D Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:MAIDA ALCANTARA, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:PAYMENT OF BILLS. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: Council report 12-14-2021 to 01-10-2022.pdf 14 Check No. Check Date Payee Descritption Amount027304 12/13/2021 MARK TOWLE Holiday 2021 City of RH365.42027305 12/13/2021 SANDRA DANKO Holiday 2021 City of RH815.00ACH 310513422_PITNEY 12/15/2021 Pitney Bowes GlobalOctober 2021 Postage Machine Lease712.56ACH SCE_8030 12/15/2021 Southern California EdisonElectricity usage 10/22/21 to 11/21/21 ACCT#8030787.18ACH CALWATER_RANCHO 12/15/2021 California Water Service Co.Water Usage 10/26/21 to 11/24/21_RANCHO488.09ACH CALWATER_ROLLING 12/15/2021 California Water Service Co.Water Usage 10/26/21 to 11/24/21_ROLLING764.48027306 12/15/2021 Armstrong Corporate TREES AND WREATHS FOR HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE 2021 724.66027307 12/15/2021 Environmental Design Associates Landscape Plan Review, MWELO Compliance 1st/2nd submittals 1,250.00027308 12/15/2021 File Keepers LLC Document scanning and drawing 2,581.82027308 12/15/2021 File Keepers LLC FileKeeper Late Fee32.27CHECK TOTAL2,614.09027309 12/15/2021 Greg MacDonald November 2021 Arborist Consulting 61 Eastfield Dr. 480.00027310 12/15/2021 LA County Sheriff's Department November 2021 Law Enforcement Services 30,597.68027311 12/15/2021 Micahel Baker International November 16 - December 3 2021 Profess Serv for 77 Portuguese 18,880.00027312 12/15/2021 ELAN Cardmember Services November 2021 Credit card expenses 1,751.02027313 12/15/2021 City of Rolling Hills Estates Prepared Peninsula Expo - October 24,2021 266.63027314 12/15/2021 RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC November 2021 Services RH Safety Element update 606.75027315 12/15/2021 Sterling Background Checks287.64PR LINK 12/17/2021 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR#25 Payroll Processing Fee 12/01/21 to 12/14/21 65.76PR LINK 12/17/2021 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR#25 Pay Period -November 12/01/21 to 12/14/21 20,415.51027316 12/22/2021 Barry J. Miller, FAICP Feb - Mar 2021 Srvcs - RH 5th Cycle Housing Elmnt Compliance 6,750.00027316 12/22/2021 Barry J. Miller, FAICP October 2021 Svcs - RH 6th Cycle Hsng Element 4,275.00CHECK TOTAL11,025.00 027317 12/22/2021 California City Management Foundation 2022 Annual Member Dinner CCMF 75.00027318 12/22/2021 Delta Dental January 2022 Delta Insurance538.94027319 12/22/2021 Forum Info-Tech. Inc./Levelcloud December 2021 RH Cloud Hosting 4,748.86027320 12/22/2021 Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc. Monthly Maintenance 11-11-21 to 12-10-21 381.80027321 12/22/2021 Palos Verdes Florist Christmas Flowers for Holiday Event 651.25027322 12/22/2021 Palos Verdes Security Sys, Inc. January 2022 CCTV Lease & Quart Fre Alm 01-01-22 to 03-31-22 360.00027323 12/22/2021 Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Printing Newsletter Master1,691.78027324 12/22/2021 Standard Insurance Company January 2022 Life Insurance198.60027325 12/22/2021 Vision Service Plan - (CA) January 2022 Vision Insurance108.85027326 12/22/2021 Willdan Inc. Professional Services through 07-30-21 Proj. 101749 1,260.00027326 12/22/2021 Willdan Inc. Professional Services through 11-30-2021 Proj. 101749 483.75027326 12/22/2021 Willdan Inc. Professional Services through 8-31-2021 Proj. 101749 642.50027326 12/22/2021 Willdan Inc. Professional Services through 9-30-2021 Proj. 101749 2,462.50CHECK TOTAL4,848.75 ACH 2021 11 16 CALPERS 12/22/2021 CalPERS PR#23 11 16 2021 CALPERS Retirement 2,400.64ACH 2021 11 30 CALPERS 12/22/2021 CalPERS PR#24 11 30 2021 CALPERS Retirement 3,312.97027327 12/29/2021 Best Best & Krieger LLP August 2021 Brunner/Korzennik V City of Rolling Hill 1,217.00027328 12/29/2021 NV5, INC. November 2021 Services- CORH-209641 MS4 Monitoring 6,968.75CITY OF ROLLING HILLSACH22-050-055 & AP22-049-054Check Run 12-13-2021 through 01-10-202215 02732812/29/2021 NV5, INC.October 2021 Services- CORH-209641 MS4 Monitoring7,512.5002732812/29/2021 NV5, INC.September 2021 Services- CORH-209641 MS4 Monitoring6,548.75CHECK TOTAL21,030.00 02732912/29/2021 Republic ServicesResidential Service July to December 2021456,364.1402733012/29/2021 Willdan Inc.November 2021, Prof svcs Project 105238.00 67 Portuguese B840.0002733012/29/2021 Willdan Inc.November 2021, TE Services as needed Project 105238.0077.50CHECK TOTAL917.50 ACH 2021 12 17 SCE 421812/29/2021 Southern California EdisonElectricity usage 11/17/21 to 12/16/21 ACCT#4218322.36PR LINK 12/31/2021 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR#26 Payroll Processing Fee 12/15/21 to 12/28/21 55.76PR LINK 12/31/2021 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR#26 Pay Period -November 12/15/21 to 12/28/21 18,979.66027331 1/10/2022 Abila January 2022 Accounting Software 202.59027332 1/10/2022 Alan Palermo Consulting December 2021 Svcs - City HallADA, Sewer, Block Captain 3,040.00027333 1/10/2022 Castro2 I Construction Refundable Recycle deposit Permit#838 1,000.00027334 1/10/2022 Cox Communications Phone Services December 26 - January 25, 2022 150.05027335 1/10/2022 Delta Dental December & January for New Employees 888.04027336 1/10/2022 Executive Suite Services Inc. December 2021 Monthly Janitorial Services 1,700.00027336 1/10/2022 Executive Suite Services Inc. December Annual Detail Cleaning 550.00CHECK TOTAL2,250.00 027337 1/10/2022 Forum Info-Tech. Inc./Levelcloud January 2022 RH Cloud Hosting 4,805.38027338 1/10/2022 GPA CONSULTING Profess Svcs through November 30,2021 Project #00000918 40,005.71027339 1/10/2022 John T. Bulaich Refundable Recycle deposit Permit#809 750.00027339 1/10/2022 John T. Bulaich Refundable Recycle deposit Permit#816 750.00CHECK TOTAL1,500.00 027340 1/10/2022 LA County Sheriff's Department Traffic Enforcement Special Events 11-03-21 to 11-13-21 1,337.37027341 1/10/2022 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 7% Monthly ALPR Camera Cnctvty - October 2021 73.31027342 1/10/2022 SWRCB Fees Annual Permit Fees - Section 13260 & 13269 Water Code 7,067.00027343 1/10/2022 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents - 306580 Deferred Compensation 3 pay period in December F.S. 2,250.00027344 1/10/2022 Vision Service Plan - (CA) December & January for New Employees, C.H & F.S. 128.52ACH 22_001 1/3/2022 CalPERS PR#25 12 14 2021 CALPERS Retirement 3,664.51ACH 22_002 1/3/2022 CalPERS PR#26 12 28 2021 CALPERS Retirement 3,566.31ACH 22_003 1/5/2022 Southern California Edison Electricity usage 11/22/21 to 12/21/21 ACCT#8030 1,068.07ACH 22_004 1/5/2022 CalPERS January 2022 January 2022 Health Premium 14,296.51PR LINK 12/31/2021 PR LINK -Adjustments Deferred Compensation adjustment 1,286.58PR LINK 12/31/2021 PR Link - Adjustments Payroll Processing Fee41.59Report Total 699,722.87 699,722.87for the payment of above items.Elaine Jeng, P.E., City ManagerI, Elaine Jeng, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 01/06/202216 Agenda Item No.: 5.E Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 2021. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: None DISCUSSION: None FISCAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: 1121 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf 17 Franchise?Y Mth/Yr Overall Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion % Jan-21 Trash 235.42 36.03 199.39 15.30% Greenwaste 49.43 49.43 - 100.00% Jan-21 Total 284.85 85.46 199.39 30.00% Feb-21 Trash 206.11 18.38 187.73 8.92% Greenwaste 62.07 62.07 - 100.00% Feb-21 Total 268.18 80.45 187.73 30.00% Mar-21 Trash 231.10 7.19 223.91 3.11% Recycle 3.64 0.91 2.73 24.95% Greenwaste 89.04 89.04 - 100.00% Mar-21 Total 323.78 97.14 226.64 30.00% Apr-21 Trash 239.29 34.90 204.39 14.58% Greenwaste 52.70 52.70 - 100.00% Apr-21 Total 291.99 87.60 204.39 30.00% May-21 Trash 147.58 - 147.58 0.00% Greenwaste 125.97 125.97 - 100.00% May-21 Total 273.55 125.97 147.58 46.05% Jun-21 Trash 193.00 - 193.00 0.00% Greenwaste 111.34 111.34 - 100.00% Jun-21 Total 304.34 111.34 193.00 36.58% Jul-21 Trash 207.99 - 207.99 0.00% Greenwaste 96.98 96.98 - 100.00% Jul-21 Total 304.97 96.98 207.99 31.80% Aug-21 Trash 203.81 - 203.81 0.00% Greenwaste 103.02 103.02 - 100.00% Aug-21 Total 306.83 103.02 203.81 33.58% Sep-21 Trash 171.31 - 171.31 0.00% Greenwaste 107.29 107.29 - 100.00% Sep-21 Total 278.60 107.29 171.31 38.51% Oct-21 Trash 180.87 - 180.87 0.00% Greenwaste 127.16 127.16 - 100.00% Oct-21 Total 308.03 127.16 180.87 41.28% Nov-21 Trash 181.99 - 181.99 0.00% Greenwaste 132.85 132.85 - 100.00% Nov-21 Total 314.84 132.85 181.99 42.20% Grand Total 3,259.96 1,155.26 2,104.70 35.44% 1155.26 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE 2021 Contract Requires 30% Household - Page 1 of 3 18 Agenda Item No.: 5.F Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: Annually in January, the City Council establishes the meeting dates for the calendar year. DISCUSSION: Unlike years past, there are no conflicts between regularly scheduled City Council meetings and holidays for calendar year 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_2022_Council_MeetingDates.pdf 19 2022 City Council Meeting Dates and City Holidays Unless otherwise noted, meetings in conflict with a holiday will be cancelled. Unless otherwise noted, meetings in conflict with a holiday will be cancelled.DRAFT 01/03/22 Scheduled Date Holiday Conflict Holiday Date Re-scheduled Date/TimeJanuary 10, 2022January 24, 2022February 14, 2022February 28, 2022March 14, 2022March 28, 2022April 11, 2022April 25, 2022May 9, 2022May 23, 2022June 13, 2022June 27, 2022July 11, 2022July 25, 2022August 8, 2022August 22, 2022September 12, 2022September 26, 2022October 10, 2022October 24, 2022November 14, 2022November 28, 2022December 12, 2022 Holiday Open House N/A N/ADecember 26, 2022 No Meeting Scheduled N/A N/A 2022 Holidays Observed (City Hall Closed)Other Holidays:January 1, 2022 New Year's Day (observed)March 28 - April 1, 2022 PVPUSD Spring BreakJanuary 17, 2022 Martin Luther King Jr. Day April 15 - April 23, 2022 PassoverFebruary 21, 2022 President's Day September 25 - 27, 2022 Rosh HashanahMay 30, 2022 Memorial Day October 4 - 5, 2022 Yom KippurJuly 4, 2022 Independence DaySeptember 5, 2022 Labor DayNovember 11, 2022 Veterans Day November 24-25, 2022 Thanksgiving HolidayDecember 24, 2022 Christmas Eve (Observed) December 25, 2022 Christmas Day 20 Agenda Item No.: 5.G Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: Annually in January, the City Council approves a budget calendar for the next fiscal year. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: FN_BUD_220110_Calendar_FY22-23_F.pdf 21 City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 REVISED BUDGET CALENDAR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 January 10, 2022 City Council receive, review and approve FY 2022/2023 budget calendar. Febr uary 14, 2022 Finance/Budget/Audit Committee meeting with Auditor to review FY 2020/2021 Annual Financial Report. February 14, 2022 City Council receive and review FY 2020/2021 Audited Financial Statements. March 14, 2022 City Council receive and review FY 2021/2022 mid-year budget report and appropriations. April 20, 2022 Staff review of FY 2021/2022 year-end expenditure projections with City Manager. April 25, 2022 Finance/Budget/Audit Committee review Financial and Investment Policies; and review and discuss Schedule of Fees and Charges. April 25, 2022 City Council review of FY 2021/2022 year-end revenue and expenditure projections, and annual CPI projections. April 27, 2022 Staff proposed FY 2022/2023 Budget Requests and discussion with City Manager. May 0 4, 2022 Final Staff proposed FY 2022/2023 Budget Requests with City Manager. May 09, 2022 Finance/Budget/Audit Committee review of FY 2022/2023 staff proposed budget. May 1 2, 2022 If the solid waste collection fees are going to be increased by CPI, public notice sent to all property owners advertising a public hearing for an increase in the solid waste collection fee. Also, as directed, public notice is required for updates to Schedule of Fees & Charges (by June 13, 2022). May 23, 2022 City Council budget workshop. 22 City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 June 13, 2022 City Council budget public hearing, adoption of FY 2022/2023 budget, and approval of Gann Limit. If necessary, City Council public hearing on proposed update(s) to solid waste collection fee and/or Schedule of Fees and Charges. 23 Agenda Item No.: 5.H Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:ANNUAL VENDOR LIST FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: Section 3.04.060 of the City's Municipal Code regarding purchasing provides that the City purchases may be made from vendors without bidding when any of the following conditions exist: 1. The amount of the purchase has a total estimated value of less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) 2. Sole source purchases such as legal advertising, utility, conferences, and Sheriff's Department services. 3. An essential or critical need requires that an order be placed with the best available source of supply due to time constraints. 4. Purchases from vendors on the City Council Approved Vendor's List. 5. If, at the discretion of the City Manager, and upon a finding supported with written documentation, it is in the City's best interest in regard to product uniformity, total cost acquisition, and/or similar considerations. These purchases must be approved by the City Manager or his/her designee. 6. Purchases made through a Cooperative Purchasing Program utilizing purchasing agreements maintained by the State, County, or other public agencies. DISCUSSION: Annually the City Council approves a Vendor List for the calendar year to facilitate purchases of material and services. The updated Vendor List for calendar year 2022 is comprised of vendors who have consistently provided excellent service to the City. In a competitive setting, these vendors have been historically the lowest bidders and they have proven to deliver goods and or services timely. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: 24 Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: CC_AGN_220110_AnnualVendorList_2022.pdf 25 - 1 - “2022 PROPOSED “CITY COUNCIL APPROVED VENDOR LIST” A-1 All American Roofing Co. 22029 S. Figueroa St. Carson, CA 90745 Craig Ekberg (310) 320-0224 800roofusa.com Roofing company Bennett Landscape 25889 Belle Porte Avenue Harbor City, CA 90710 (310) 534-3543 Tree trimming services, landscaping Cox Com, LLC 29947 Avenida De Las Banderas Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 (310) 891-1020 or 949-546-2406 cox.com Telephone and cable internet services Dell, Inc. One Dell Way Round Rock, TX 78682 (800) 677-9725 Dell.com Computer equipment DANKA 8226 Park Meadows Dr Lone Tree, CO 80124 (800) 686-2733 Electronic equipment repair service Executive-Suite Services 19025 Parthenia St. Suite 200 Northridge, CA 91324 818-993-6300 Janitorial services Lisa’s Bon Appetit 3535 Lomita Blvd Suite C, Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 784-1070 Janet Faria Catering 2837 E. 220th Place Long Beach, CA 90820 (310) 834-6836 Catering service First Call Staffing 3511 Pacific Coast Hwy # E Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 539-2884 Employment agency Finley Tree & Land Care Service 23033 Crenshaw Blvd, Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 326-9818 Tree trimming services, landscaping Diane Gladwell 1028 Tirol Lane Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 (909) 337-3516 Election consultant, records management Konica Minolta Business Solution, USA Inc. Dept. LA 22988 Pasadena, CA 91185-2988 (800) 456-5664 Copier and office equipment supplier Mahaffey Companies (Atlas Cesspool Service) 1800 S. Alameda St. Rancho Dominguez, Ca. 90221 (310) 605-1700 Septic tank services Major Surplus 435 W Alondra Blvd. Gardena, CA 90248 (310) 324-8855 Emergency supplies Michael Baker International 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Ste. 270 Long Beach, CA 90806 (562) 200-7165 Plancheck, Peer Review PVPUSD Printing Services 375 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 310-896-3426 Copy & stationary printing services 26 -2- Peninsula Septic 1840 S. Gaffey Street #53 San Pedro, CA 90731 Nick Dragich (310) 832-4800 Septic tank services S &W Communications 14714 Lull Street Van Nuys, CA 91405 (818) 786-7050 ext 207 Telephone equipment, maintenance, repair service Smart Source LLC. 21818 S. Wilmington Ave., Ste 406 Long Beach, CA 90810 (310) 513-2000 Stationery Traver’s Trees P. O. Box 7000-416 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 (310) 545-5816 (310) 530-3920 Tree trimming services, landscaping TR Trading Co. 15604 S. Broadway Gardena, CA 90248 (310) 329-9242 Furniture store Xerox 101 Continental Blvd. El Segundo, CA 90245 Lori Murphy (877) 395-6318 Xerox.com Printers, copiers Yosemite Water 226 South Avenue 54 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (323) 256-2265 yosemitewaters.com Water delivery Office Depot (on-line ordering) Office Supplies Armstrong Nursery 25225 Crenshaw Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 326-1892 Christmas tree Costco Wholesale 2640 Lomita Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 891-1020 Office Supplies RACE Communication 1170 Unit C, E Tehachapi Blvd. Tehachapi, CA 93561 (877) 722-3833 Internet Communications Stephens Plumbing & Heating Company 616 W 6th Street San Pedro, CA 90731 (310) 832-9009 Plumbing and Heating Environmnetal Design Associates (EDA) 14121 Sawston Circle Westminster, CA 92683 (714) 350-6910 Landscape Plan Review Warriner Associates 47-568 Hakulhale Street Kaneohe, HI 96744 310-378-1764 Arborist JTL Consultant 952 Buena Vista Street Duarte, CA 91010 (626) 358-5690 Arborist 27 Agenda Item No.: 5.I Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 372 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING CHAPTERS 16.50 (SB 9 URBAN LOT SPLITS) AND 17.45 (SB 9 TWO- UNIT PROJECTS) TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE; AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 373 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 (BUILDING CODE) TO ADOPT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE CODE BY REFERENCE AND MAKE LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO. FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, Governor Newsom signed several new housing bills into law. Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) is the most controversial and substantive of the new housing laws. SB 9 requires cities to allow any single family zoned lot to be split into two lots and allow up to two single-family dwellings on each created lot without any discretionary review. This could result in the development of up to four dwelling units on what was formally one single-family residential lot with no public hearing. SB 9 allows local governments to impose restrictions on lot splits and two-unit projects, but any such restrictions must be objective and necessary to protect public health and safety. The new SB 9 provisions go into effect on January 1, 2022. As a result, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance that would amend the City’s Land Use, Subdivision, and Fire Code to bring the City’s current residential lot split and residential development regulations into conformance with the new SB 9 regulations. In addition, the ordinance would impose the restrictions allowed by SB 9 so that any SB 9 lot splits and two-unit projects remain compatible with existing residential neighborhoods as much as possible. At the September 27, 2021 meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney's office to provide input and advice on SB 9. At the October 11, 2021, the City Council meeting, the City Attorney's office gave 28 a presentation on the provisions of SB 9. At the October 25, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Attorney's office provided a draft ordinance to comply with the provisions of SB 9. The City Council delayed the review and discussion of the draft ordinance to the November 8, 2021 City Council meeting. At the November 8, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council provided feedback on the draft ordinance and directed the City Attorney to prepare another draft. The City Council also directed staff to present the updated draft to the Planning Commission for review and adoption. Prior to the November 8, 2021 City Council meeting, the Planning Commission cancelled the November meeting. The Planning Commission could not review the updated draft ordinance, so the City Council directed staff to bring back the updated ordinance to the City Council at the November 22, 2021 meeting, and directed staff to present the updated draft ordinance to the Planning Commission. On December 7, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the draft ordinance. Members of the public, including representatives from the RHCA, participated in the hearing and provided comments. As a result of testimony, the ordinance has been revised to eliminate certain requirements in the architectural and landscaping sections. These changes are reflected in the attached ordinances. On December 14, 2021, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 372 and Ordinance No. 373 for introduction and first reading. The ordinances are now ready for adoption and second reading. If adopted, the ordinances wilol take effect in thirty days. DISCUSSION: SB 9 allows any single-family lot to be split, roughly into halves, with resulting lots as small as 1,200 square feet. In addition, SB 9 allows up to two single-family dwellings to be developed on each created lot. An SB 9 lot split followed by an SB 9 two-unit project on each of the two new lots would result in four total dwellings on what was formally one single-family residential lot, all without any discretionary review. SB 9 requires said lot splits and resulting two-unit projects to be approved ministerially with no public hearing. SB 9 allows local governments to impose limited restrictions on lot splits and two-unit projects, but any such restrictions must be objective and necessary to protect public health and safety. Provided below is a summary of the SB 9 provisions. Regulations for Urban Lot Splits A lot split must result in two lots that are fairly equal in size (a 60/40 split at most) Each new lot must be at least 1,200 square feet in size A lot split cannot involve the demolition or alteration of a) affordable housing, b) rent-controlled housing, c) housing that was withdrawn from rent within the last 15 years or d) housing occupied by a tenant in the past three years A lot split must be in a single-family zone A lot cannot be split if it is a historic landmark or within a designated historic district The lot split must be within an urbanized area or urban cluster. This includes most cities in the state including Rolling Hills. A lot cannot be split if it was established through a prior SB 9 lot split A lot cannot be split if the lot owner or anyone acting in concert with the lot owner previously subdivided an adjacent parcel through the SB 9 lot split process Restraints on Local Regulations for Urban Lot Splits Local agencies may only impose objective subdivision standards on lot splits Objective subdivision standards must allow the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet per lot 29 Local agencies must prohibit non-residential use of the new lots No right-of-way dedications or offsite improvements may be required No correction of any existing non-conforming zoning conditions may be required The applicant must sign an affidavit stating that the owner intends to occupy one of the housing units as the owner’s principal residence for at least three years following the lot split Local agencies must report the number of SB 9 lot-split applications to the state on an annual basis Local agencies may only deny an otherwise qualifying SB 9 lot split if the City’s Building Official finds that the resulting housing development project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment and there is no feasible, satisfactory mitigation Regulations for Two-Unit Projects on Urban Lot Splits The project must be located with an urbanized area or urban cluster. This includes most cities in the state including Rolling Hills. The project cannot involve the demolition or alteration of a) affordable housing, b) rent controlled housing, c) housing that was withdrawn from rent within the last 15 years or d) housing occupied by a tenant in the past three years The project site cannot be a historic landmark or within a designated historic district The project cannot involve the demolition of more than 25% of the exterior walls of an existing dwelling unless allowed to do so by the local jurisdiction or the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years Restraints on Local Standards for Two-Unit Projects on Urban Lot Splits Local agencies may only impose objective zoning standards and objective design standards on proposed projects Objective standards must allow the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet per lot Local agencies may require only one off-street parking space per unit and must allow no off street parking if the site is one-half mile walking distance of either a “high-quality transit corridor” or “major transit stop” or one block of a car share vehicle location Local agencies may apply the existing setbacks of the underlying zoning district except for existing and replacement structures, and to allow for at least two 800 square foot units. Local agencies must allow side and rear setbacks of four feet. Local agencies must prohibit short-term rentals of units created under SB 9 When a lot is both created by an SB 9 lot split and developed with an SB 9 two-unit development, a local agency may prohibit Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs) and Junior ADUs on that lot Because the approval of SB 9 two-unit projects is a ministerial action, CEQA does not apply Areas where SB 9 Lot Splits/Two-Unit Projects Are Prohibited Prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wetlands as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone unless the lot complies with fire-safety mitigation measures A hazardous waste site Within a delineated earthquake fault zone Within a flood plain or floodway 30 Within Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) lands Within federally or state protected habitat Within land protected by a conservation easement SB 9 and ADUs A lot that is not split and developed with two detached SB 9 primary units is allowed one ADU and one Junior ADU within only one of the primary units for a total of four units on the lot. A lot that is not split and developed with two attached SB 9 primary units is allowed one converted ADU and two detached ADUs for a total of five units on the lot. A lot that is split is allowed to have two “units” of any kind on each of the resulting lots. “Units”include the original main house, new primary unit(s) under SB 9, an ADU, or a JADU. A total of four units can be built from the original lot. SB 9 and HOAs SB 9 only applies to local agencies. There are no provisions in SB 9 that would affect an HOA’s private CC&Rs or private restrictive covenants. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. ATTACHMENTS: 372_SB9_Ordinance.pdf 373_SB9_FireCode_Ordinance.pdf 31 Ordinance No. 372 1 ORDINANCE NO. 372 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING CHAPTERS 16.50 (SB 9 URBAN LOT SPLITS) AND 17.45 (SB 9 TWO-UNIT PROJECTS) TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE; AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA RECITALS A. The City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and B. In 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law , Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), which among other things, adds Government Code section 65852.21 and 66411.7 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate urban lot splits and two-unit projects; and C. SB 9 allows local agencies to adopt objective design, development, and subdivision standards for urban lot splits and two-unit projects and, among other things, exempts property located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zo ne unless the site complies with fire-safety mitigation measures; and D. The City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme to comply with Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 and to appropriately regulate projects under SB 9; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the City of Rolling Hill’s Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 16.50 (SB 9 Urban Lot Splits) to read as follows: CHAPTER 16.50 SB 9 URBAN LOT SPLITS Section 16.50.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to allow and appropriately regulate urban lot splits in accordance with Government Code section 66411.7. Section 16.50.020 Definition An “urban lot split” means a subdivision of an existing, legally subdivided lot into two lots in accordance with the requirements of this section. 32 Ordinance No. 372 2 Section 16.50.030 Application (1) Only individual property owners may apply for an urban lot split. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by Rev. & Tax Code § 402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonprofit corporation (as defined by § 214.15). (2) An application for an urban lot split must be submitted on the city’s approved form. Such application shall include, but not be limited to, the following documents: a certificate of compliance with all applicable fire-hazard mitigation measures in accordance with this Chapter; copies of the unrecorded easement agreements for public utilities in accordance with this C hapter; a survey from a qualified biologist showing that there are no protected species on site; and an affidavit certifying compliance with all requirements of this Chapter. Only a complete application will be considered. The city will inform the applicant in writing of any incompleteness within 30 days after the application is submitted. (3) The city may establish a fee to recover its costs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing this section of the code, in accordance with applicable law. The city council may establish and change the fee by resolution. The fee must be paid with the application. Section 16.50.040 Approval (1) An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split is approved or denied ministerially, by the planning director or his or her designee, without discretionary review. (2) A tentative parcel map for an urban lot split is approved ministerially if it complies with all the requirements of this section. The tentative parcel map may not be recorded. A final parcel map is approved ministerially as well, but not until the owner demonstrates that the required documents have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements. The tentative parcel map expires three months after approval. (3) The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter. (4) The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code. Section 16.50.050 Requirements (a) An urban lot split must satisfy each of the following requirements: 33 Ordinance No. 372 3 (1) Map Act Compliance. (A) The urban lot split must conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code § 66410 et. seq., “SMA”), including implementing requirements in this code, except as otherwise expressly provided in this section. (B) If an urban lot split violates any part of the SMA, the city’s subdivision regulations, including this section, or any other legal requirement: (i) The buyer or grantee of a lot that is created by the urban lot split has all the remedies available under the SMA, including but not limited to an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract. (ii) The city has all the remedies available to it under the SMA, including but not limited to the following: (I) An action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property. (II) An action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief. (III) Criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor. (IV) Record a notice of violation. (V) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals. (C) Notwithstanding section 66411.1 of the SMA, no dedication of rights-of- way or construction of offsite improvements is required for an urban lot split. (2) Zone. The lot to be split is in a single-family residential zone. (3) Lot Location. The lot is not located on a site that is any of the following: (A) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agricultur e land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservat ion by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction. 34 Ordinance No. 372 4 (B) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993). (C) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178 of the Government Code, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 o f the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179 of the Government Code, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (D) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. (E) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building St andards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (F) Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has been issued a flood plain development permit pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchap ter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (G) Within a floodway as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no -rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (H) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan. 35 Ordinance No. 372 5 (I) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, o r species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). (J) Lands under conservation easement. (4) Not Historic. The lot to be split must not be a hist oric property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district. (5) No Prior Urban Lot Split. (A) The lot to be split was not established through a prior urban lot split. (B) The lot to be split is not adjacent to any lot that was established through a prior urban lot split by the owner of the lot to be split or by any person acting in concert with the owner. (6) No Impact on Protected Housing. The urban lot split must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (A) Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income. (B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. (C) Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov. Code §§ 7060–7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application. (D) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. The applicant and the owner of a property for which an urban lot split is sought must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement, including but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement. (7) Lot Size. (A) The lot to be split must be at least 2,400 square feet. 36 Ordinance No. 372 6 (B) The resulting lots must each be at least 1,200 square feet. (C) Each of the resulting lots must be between 60 percent and 40 percent of the original lot area. (8) Easements. (A) The owner must enter into an easement agreement with each public- service provider to establish easements that are sufficient for the provision of public services and facilities to each of the resulting lots. (B) Each easement must be shown on the tentative parcel map. (C) Copies of the unrecorded easement agreements must be submitted with the application. The easement agreements must be recorded against the property before the final map may be approved, in accordance with Section 16.50.040 (D) If an easement is recorded and the project is not completed, making the easement moot, the property owner may request, and the city will provide, a notice of termination of the easement, which the owner may record. (9) Lot Access. (A) Each resulting lot must adjoin the right of way. (B) Each resulting lot must have frontage on the right of way of at least 50 feet. (10) Unit Standards. (A) Quantity. No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results from an urban lot split. For purposes of this paragraph, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit created under Chapter 17.45 of this code, an ADU, or a JADU (B) Unit Size. (i) The total floor area of each primary dwelling that is developed on a resulting lot must be (I) less than or equal to 800 and (II) more than 500 square feet. (ii) A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the 37 Ordinance No. 372 7 lawful floor area at the time of the urban lot split. It may not be expanded. (iii) A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the urban lot split and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after the urban lot split. (C) Height Restrictions. (i) No new primary dwelling unit may exceed a single story or 16 feet in height, measured from grade to peak of the structure. (ii) No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling or structure on a lot resulting from an urban lot split. (D) Proximity to Stable and Corral Site. A primary dwelling unit is a residential structure that shall be located a minimum of thirty-five feet from any stable, corral, and related animal keeping uses and structures as required in Chapter 17.18. This standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square fee t each. (E) Lot Coverage. All structures as defined in Section 17.16.070 on a lot shall not cover more than twenty percent of the net lot area. All structures and all other impervious surfaces as defined in Section 17.16.070 on a lot shall not cover more than thirty-five percent of the net lot area. These lot coverage standards are only enforced to the extent that they do not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each. (F) Open Space. No development pursuant to this Chapter may cause the total percentage of open space of the lot fall below fifty percent. This open space standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each. (G) Setbacks. (i) Generally. All setbacks must confo rm to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone. (ii) Exceptions. Notwithstanding subpart (10)(G) above: (I) Existing Structures. No setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure. (II) 800 sf; four-foot side and rear. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to 38 Ordinance No. 372 8 avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line. (iii) Front Setback Area. Notwithstanding any other part of this code, dwellings that are constructed after an urban lot split must be at least 30 feet from the front property lines. The front setback ar eas must: (I) be kept free from all structures greater than three feet high; (II) be at least 50 percent landscaped with drought -tolerant plants, with vegetation and irrigation plans approved by a licensed landscape architect; (III) allow for vehicular and fire-safety access. (H) Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit that is built on a lot after an urban lot split must have at least one off-street parking space per unit unless one of the following applies: (i) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either (I) a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours or (II) a site that contains (ia) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, (ib) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or (ic) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (ii) The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. (I) Architecture. (i) Architecture is limited to white California ranch style homes rambling in character with low profile silhouette and exterior three-rail fences. 39 Ordinance No. 372 9 (ii) If there is a legal primary dwelling on the lot that was established before the urban lot split, any new primary dwelling unit must match the existing primary dwelling unit in exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof. (iii) If there is no legal primary dwelling on the lot before the urban lot split, and if two primary dwellings are developed on the lot, the dwellings must match each other in exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof. (iv) All exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights. (v) No window or door of a dwelling that is constructed on the lot after the urban lot split may have a direct line of sight to an adjoining residential property. Landscaping, or privacy glass may be used to provide screening and prevent a direct line of sight. (J) Landscaping. Evergreen landscape screening must be planted and maintained between each dwelling and adjacent lots (but not within rights of way and bridle trails) as follows: (i) At least one 15-gallon size plant shall be provided for every five linear feet of exterior wall. Alternatively, at least one 24” box size plant shall be provided for every ten linear feet of exterior wall. (ii) Plant specimens must be at least eight feet tall when installed. (iii) All landscaping must be drought-tolerant. (iv) All landscaping must be from the city’s approved plant list. (K) Nonconforming Conditions. An urban lot split is approved without requiring a legal nonconforming zoning condit ion to be corrected. (L) Utilities. (i) Each primary dwelling unit on the lot must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider. Each primary dwelling unit shall have its own water, electrical, and gas meters. (ii) Each primary dwelling unit must have its own separate direct utility connection to an onsite wastewater treatment system or sewer in accordance with this paragraph and the City’s code. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot that is or that is proposed to be 40 Ordinance No. 372 10 connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (iii) All utilities must be undergrounded. (M) Building & Safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. An urban lot split is a change of use. (11) Fire-Hazard Mitigation Measures. (A) A lot in a very high fire hazard severity zone must comply with each of the following fire-hazard mitigation measures: (i) Water Sources (I) Fire Hydrants. (ia) Public fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than 600 feet (182.88 m) apart. For properties with more than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of lot frontage should be more than 360 feet away, via fire apparatus access, from a hydrant. For properties less than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of a fire apparatus access road shall be farther than 600 feet away, via fire apparatus access, from a properly spaced hydrant that meets the required fire-flow. (ib) When any portion of a proposed structure exceeds the allowable distances from a public hydrant, via fire apparatus access, on-site hydrants shall be provided. The spacing distance between on-site hydrants shall be 300 to 400 feet (91.44 to 121.92 m). All on-site fire hydrants shall have, at a minimum, a fire-flow of 1,250 gallons per minute (4,732 L/min) at 20 psi (137.895 kPa) for a duration of two hours. If more than one on-site fire hydrant is required, the fire flow shall be 2,500 gallons per minute (9,463.53 L/min) at 20 psi (137.895 kPa) for a duration of two hours. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet (7,620 mm) from a structure or protected by a two -hour firewall. (II) Sprinklers. All enclosed structures on site must have automatic sprinkler systems installed. 41 Ordinance No. 372 11 (ii) Access (I) A lot must have direct access through its own paved driveway with a width of at least 30 feet connecting with direct access to a paved right of way or fire apparatus access road with a width of at least 40 feet, exclusive of shoulders. A lot must access such paved right of way or fire apparatus access road with at least two independent paved points of access for fire and life safety to access and for residents to evacuate. (II) No dwelling unit shall be within 30 feet of any other dwelling unit or any other enclosed structure on such lot. (iii) All dwellings on the site must comply with current fire code requirements for dwellings in a very high fire hazard severity zone. (B) Prior to submitting an application for an urban lot split, the applicant must obtain a certificate of compliance with all applicable fire-hazard mitigation measures in accordance with this subpart. The city or its authorized agent must inspect the site, including all structures on the site, and certify as to its compliance. The certificate must be included with the application. The applicant must pay the city’s costs for inspection. Failure to pay is grounds for denying the application. (12) Separate Conveyance. (A) Within a resulting lot. (i) Primary dwelling units on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may not be owned or conveyed separately from each other. (ii) Condominium airspace divisions and common interest developments are not permitted on a lot that is created by an urban lot split. (iii) All fee interest in a lot and all dwellings on the lot must be held equally and undivided by all individual property owners. (iv) No timeshare, as defined by state law or this code, is permitted. This includes any co-ownership arrangement that gives an owner the right to exclusive use of the property for a defined period or periods of time (B) Between resulting lots. Separate conveyance of the resulting lots is permitted. If dwellings or other structures (such as garages) on different lots are adjacent or attached to each other, the urban lot split boundary may separate them for conveyance purposes if the structures meet building 42 Ordinance No. 372 12 code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. If any attached structures span or will span the new lot line, the owner must record appropriate CC&Rs, easements, or other documentation that is necessary to allocate rights and responsibility between the owners of the two lots. (13) Regulation of Uses. (A) Residential-only. No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban lot split. (B) No STRs. No dwelling unit on a lot that is created by an urban lot split may be rented for a period of less than 30 days. (C) Owner Occupancy. The applicant for an urban lot split must sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the dwelling units on one of the resulting lots as the applicant's principal residence for a minimum of three years after the urban lot split is approved. (14) Notice of Construction. (A) At least 30 business days before starting any construction of a structure on a lot created by an urban lot split, the property owner must give written notice to all the owners of record of each of the adjacent residential parcels, which notice must include the following information: (i) Notice that construction has been authorized, (ii) The anticipated start and end dates for construction, (iii) The hours of construction, (iv) Contact information for the project manager (for construction- related complaints), and (v) Contact information for the Building & Safety Department. (B) This notice requirement does not confer a right on the noticed persons or on anyone else to comment on the project before permits are issued. Approval is ministerial. Under state law, the City has no discretion in approving or denying a particular project under this section. This notice requirement is purely to promote neighborhood awareness and expectation. (15) Deed Restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction, on each lot that results from the urban lot split, on a form approved by the city, that does each of the following: 43 Ordinance No. 372 13 (A) Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days. (B) Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lots created by the urban lot split. (C) Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot. (D) States that: (i) The lot is formed by an urban lot split and is therefore subject and limited to the city’s urban lot split regulations under this Chapter, including all applicable limits on dwelling size and development pursuant to this Chapter. (ii) Development on the lot is limited to development of residential units under Chapter 17.45 of this Code, except as required by state law. (b) Specific Adverse Impacts. (1) Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the city may deny an application for an urban lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on either public health and safety or on the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. (2) “Specific adverse impact” has the same meaning as in Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2): “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (1) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g). (3) The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific, adverse impact. (c) Remedies. If an urban lot split project violates any part of this code or any other legal requirement: (1) The buyer, grantee, or lessee of any part of the property has an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract. (2) The city may: 44 Ordinance No. 372 14 (A) Bring an action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property. (B) Bring an action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief. (C) Pursue criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor. (D) Record a notice of violation. (E) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals. (F) Pursue all other administrative, legal, or equitable remedies that are allowed by law or the city’s code. Section 2. Title 17 (Land Use) of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 17.45 (SB 9 Two -Unit Projects) to read as follows: CHAPTER 17.45 (SB 9 TWO-UNIT PROJECTS) 17.45.010 Purpose The purpose of this section is to allow and appropriately regulate two -unit projects in accordance with Government Code section 65852.21. 17.45.020 Definition A “two-unit project” means the development of two primary dwelling units or, if there is already a primary dwelling unit on the lot, the development of a second primary dwelling unit on a legally subdivided lot in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17.45.030 Application (1) Only individual property owners may apply for a two -unit project. “Individual property owner” means a natural person holding fee title individually or jointly in the person’s own name or a beneficiary of a trust that holds fee title. “Individual property owner” does not include any corporation or corporate person of any kind (partnership, LP, LLC, C corp, S corp, etc.) except for a community land trust (as defined by Rev. & Tax Code § 402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii)) or a qualified nonpro fit corporation (as defined by Rev. & Tax Code § 214.15). (2) An application for a two-unit project must be submitted on the city’s approved form. The application must include, but not be limited to, the following: a certificate of compliance with the Subdivis ion Map Act for the lot; a certificate of compliance with all applicable fire-hazard mitigation measures in accordance with this Chapter; a survey from a qualified biologist showing that there are no 45 Ordinance No. 372 15 protected species on site; and an affidavit certifying compliance with all requirements of this Chapter. (3) Only a complete application will be considered. The city will inform the applicant in writing of any incompleteness within 30 days after the application is submitted. (4) The city may establish a fee to recover its costs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing this section of the code, in accordance with applicable law. The city council may establish and change the fee by resolution. The fee must be paid with the application. 17.45.040 Approval (1) An application for a two-unit project is approved or denied ministerially, by the planning director or his or her designee, without discretionary review. (2) The ministerial approval of a two-unit project does not take effect until the city has confirmed that the required do cuments have been recorded, such as the deed restriction and easements. (3) The approval must require the owner and applicant to hold the city harmless from all claims and damages related to the approval and its subject matter. (4) The approval must require the owner and applicant to reimburse the city for all costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the requirements of this code. 17.45.050 Requirements (a) A two-unit project must satisfy each of the following requirements: (1) Map Act Compliance. The lot must have been legally subdivided. (2) Zone. The lot is in a single-family residential zone. (3) Lot Location. The lot is not located on a site that is any of the following: (A) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zo ned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction. (B) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993). 46 Ordinance No. 372 16 (C) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178 of the Government Code, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179 of the Government Code, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (D) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code o r a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. (E) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Divisio n 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (F) Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has been issued a flood plain development permit pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (G) Within a floodway as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no -rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (H) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan. (I) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 47 Ordinance No. 372 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). (J) Lands under conservation ease ment. (4) Not Historic. The lot must not be a historic property or within a historic district that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory. Nor may the lot be or be within a site that is designated by ordinance as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district. (5) No Impact on Protected Housing. The two-unit project must not require or include the demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (A) Housing that is income-restricted for households of moderate, low, or very low income. (B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. (C) Housing, or a lot that used to have housing, that has been withdrawn from rental or lease under the Ellis Act (Gov. Code §§ 7060–7060.7) at any time in the 15 years prior to submission of the urban lot split application. (D) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. Optional: The applicant and the owner of a property for which a two-unit project is sought must provide a sworn statement as to this fact with the application for the parcel map. The city may conduct its own inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of the sworn statement, including but not limited to, surveying owners of nearby properties; and the city may require additional evidence of the applicant and owner as necessary to determine compliance with this requirement. (6) Unit Standards. (A) Quantity. (i) No more than two dwelling units of any kind may be built on a lot that results fro m an urban lot split. For purposes of this paragraph, “unit” means any dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a primary dwelling unit, a unit created under this section of this code, an ADU, or a JADU. (ii) A lot that is not created by an urban lot split may have a two-unit project under this section, plus any ADU or JADU that must be allowed under state law and the city’s ADU ordinance. 48 Ordinance No. 372 18 (B) Unit Size. (i) The total floor area of each primary dwelling built that is developed under this section must be (I) less than or equal to 800 and (II) more than 500 square feet. (ii) A primary dwelling that was legally established on the lot prior to the two-unit project and that is larger than 800 square feet is limited to the lawful floor area at the time of the two -unit project. The unit may not be expanded. (iii) A primary dwelling that was legally established prior to the two - unit project and that is smaller than 800 square feet may be expanded to 800 square feet after or as part of the two -unit project. (C) Height Restrictions. (i) No new primary dwelling unit may exceed a single story or 16 feet in height, measured from grade to peak of the structure. (ii) No rooftop deck is permitted on any new or remodeled dwelling or structure on a lot resulting from an urban lot split. (D) Demo Cap. The two-unit project may not involve the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (E) Lot Coverage. All structures as defined in Section 17.16.070 on a lot shall not cover more than twenty percent of the net lot area. All structures and all other impervious surfaces as defined in Section 17.16.070 on a lot shall not cover more than thirty-five percent of the net lot area. This lot coverage standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each. (F) Open Space. No development pursuant to this Chapter may cause the total percentage of open space of the lot fall below fifty percent. T his open space standard is only enforced to the extent that it does not prevent two primary dwelling units on the lot at 800 square feet each. (G) Setbacks. (i) Generally. All setbacks must conform to those objective setbacks that are imposed through the underlying zone. (ii) Exceptions. Notwithstanding subpart (a)(6)(G) above: 49 Ordinance No. 372 19 (I) Existing Structures. No setback is required for an existing legally established structure or for a new structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing legally established structure. (II) 800 sf; four-foot side and rear. The setbacks imposed by the underlying zone must yield to the degree necessary to avoid physically precluding the construction of up to two units on the lot or either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area; but in no event may any structure be less than four feet from a side or rear property line. (iii) Front Setback Area. Notwithstanding any other part of this code, dwellings that are constructed under this section must be at least 30 feet from the front property lines. The front setback area must: (I) be kept free from all structures greater than three feet high; (II) be at least 50 percent landscaped with drought -tolerant plants, with vegetation and irrigation plans approved by a licensed landscape architect; (III) allow for vehicular and fire-safety access. (H) Parking. Each new primary dwelling unit must have at least one off-street parking space per unit unless one of the following applies: (i) The lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either (I) a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours or (II) a site that contains (ia) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, (ib) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or (ic) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (ii) The site is located within one block of a car-share vehicle location. 50 Ordinance No. 372 20 (I) Architecture. (i) Architecture is limited to white California ranch style homes rambling in character with low profile silhouette and exterior three-rail fences. (ii) If there is a legal primary dwelling on the lot that was established before the two-unit project, any new primary dwelling unit must match the existing primary dwelling unit in exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof. (iii) If there is no legal primary dwelling on the lot before the two -unit project, and if two primary dwellings are developed on the lot, the dwellings must match each other in exterior materials, color, and dominant roof pitch. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof. (iv) All exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights. (v) No window or door of a dwelling that is constructed on the lot may have a direct line of sight to an adjoining residential property. Landscaping, or privacy glass may be used to provide screening and prevent a direct line of sight. (J) Landscaping. Evergreen landscape screening must be planted and maintained between each dwelling and adjacent lots (but not within rights of way and bridle trails) as follows: (i) At least one 15-gallon size plant shall be provided for every five linear feet of exterior wall. Alternatively, at least one 24” box size plant shall be provided for every ten linear feet of exterior wall. (ii) Plant specimens must be at least eight feet tall when installed. (iii) All landscaping must be drought-tolerant. (iv) All landscaping must be from the city’s approved plant list. (K) Nonconforming Conditions. A two-unit project may only be approved if all nonconforming zoning conditions are corrected. (L) Utilities. (i) Each primary dwelling unit on the lot must have its own direct utility connection to the utility service provider. 51 Ordinance No. 372 21 (ii) Each primary dwelling unit must have its own separate direct utility connection to an onsite wastewater treatment system or sewer in accordance with this paragraph and the City’s code. Each primary dwelling unit on the lot that is or that is proposed to be connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system must first have a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (iii) All utilities must be underground. (M) Building & Safety. All structures built on the lot must comply with all current local building standards. A project under this section is a change of use and subjects the whole of the lot, and all structures, to the city’s current code. (7) Fire-Hazard Mitigation Measures. (A) A lot in a very high fire hazard severity zone must comply with each of the following fire-hazard mitigation measures: (i) Water Sources (I) Fire Hydrants (ia) Public fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than 600 feet (182.88 m) apart. For properties with more than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of lot frontage should be more than 360 feet away, via fire apparatus access, from a hydrant. For properties less than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of a fire apparatus access road shall be farther than 600 feet away, via fire apparatus access, from a properly spaced hydrant that meets the required fire-flow. (ib) When any portion of a proposed structure exceeds the allowable distances from a public hydrant, via fire apparatus access, on-site hydrants shall be provided. The spacing distance between on-site hydrants shall be 300 to 400 feet (91.44 to 121.92 m). All on-site fire hydrants shall have, at a minimum, a fire-flow of 1,250 gallons per minute (4,732 L/min) at 20 psi (137.895 kPa) for a duration of two hours. If more than one on-site fire hydrant is required, the fire flow shall be 2,500 gallons per minute (9,463.53 L/min) at 20 psi (137.895 kPa) for a duration of two hours. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet (7,620 mm) from a structure or protected by a two-hour firewall. 52 Ordinance No. 372 22 (II) Sprinklers. All enclosed structures on site must have automatic sprinkler systems installed. (ii) Access (I) A lot must have direct access through its own paved driveway with a width of at least 30 feet connecting with direct access to a paved right of way or fire apparatus access road with a width of at least 40 feet, exclusive of shoulders. A lot must access such paved right of way or fire apparatus access road with at least two independent paved points of access for fire and life safety to access and for residents to evacuate. (II) No dwelling unit shall be within 30 feet of any other dwelling unit or any other enclosed structure on such lot. (iii) All dwellings on the site must comply with current fire code requirements for dwellings in a very high fire hazard severity zone. (B) Prior to submitting an application for development under this Chapter, the applicant must obtain a certificate of compliance with all applicable fire- hazard mitigation measures in accordance with this Chapter. The City or its authorized agent must inspect the site, including all structures on the site, and certify as to its compliance. The certificate must be included with the application. The applicant must pay the City’s costs for inspection. Failure to pay is grounds for denying the application. (8) Separate Conveyance. (A) Primary dwelling units on the lot may not be owned or conveyed separately from each other. (B) Condominium airspace divisions and common interest developments are not permitted within the lot. (C) All fee interest in the lot and all the dwellings must be held equally and undivided by all individual property owners. (D) No timeshare, as defined by state law or this code, is permitted. This includes any co-ownership arrangement that gives an owner the right to exclusive use of the property for a defined period or periods of time. (9) Regulation of Uses. (A) Residential-only. No non-residential use is permitted on the lot. 53 Ordinance No. 372 23 (B) No STRs. No dwelling unit on the lot may be rented for a period of less than 30 days. (C) Owner Occupancy. Unless the lot was formed by an urban lot split, the individual property owners of a lot with a two -unit project must occupy one of the dwellings on the lot as the owners’ principal residence and legal domicile. (10) Notice of Construction. (A) At least 30 business days before starting any construction of a two -unit project, the property owner must give written notice to all the owners of record of each of the adjacent residential parcels, which notice must include the following information: (i) Notice that construction has been authorized, (ii) The anticipated start and end dates for construction, (iii) The hours of construction, (iv) Contact information for the project manager (for construction- related complaints), and (v) Contact information for the Building & Safety Departme nt. (B) This notice requirement does not confer a right on the noticed persons or on anyone else to comment on the project before permits are issued. Approval is ministerial. Under state law, the City has no discretion in approving or denying a particular project under this section. This notice requirement is purely to promote neighborhood awareness and expectation. (11) Deed Restriction. The owner must record a deed restriction, on a form approved by the City, that does each of the following: (A) Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a period of less than 30 days. (B) Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lot. (C) Expressly prohibits any separate conveyance of a primary dwelling on the property, any separate fee interest, and any common interest development within the lot. (D) If the lot does not undergo an urban lot split: Expressly requires the individual property owners to live in one of the dwelling units on the lot as the owners’ primary residence and legal domicile. 54 Ordinance No. 372 24 (E) Limits development of the lot to residential units that comply with the requirements of this section, except as required by state law. (b) Specific Adverse Impacts. (1) Notwithstanding anything else in this section, the city may deny an application for a two-unit project if the building official makes a written finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact” on either public health and safety or on the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. (2) “Specific adverse impact” has the same meaning as in Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2): “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health o r safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and does not include (1) inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation or (2) the eligibility to claim a welfare exe mption under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214(g). (3) The building official may consult with and be assisted by planning staff and others as necessary in making a finding of specific, adverse impact. (c) Remedies. If a two-unit project violates any part of t his code or any other legal requirement: (1) The buyer, grantee, or lessee of any part of the property has an action for damages or to void the deed, sale, or contract. (2) The city may: (A) Bring an action to enjoin any attempt to sell, lease, or finance the property. (B) Bring an action for other legal, equitable, or summary remedy, such as declaratory and injunctive relief. (C) Pursue criminal prosecution, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison for up to one year, by a fine of up to $10,000, or both; or a misdemeanor. (D) Record a notice of violation. (E) Withhold any or all future permits and approvals. (F) Pursue all other administrative, legal, or equitable remedies that are allowed by law or the city’s code. 55 Ordinance No. 372 25 Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937. Section 4. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this resolution are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof. Section 5. Under California Government Code sections 65852.21, subd. (j), and 66411.7, subd. (n), the adoption of an ordinance by a city implementing the provisions of Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 and regulating urban lot splits and two -unit projects is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Therefore, City Council finds the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements these new laws enacted by SB 9. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this ordinance and post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Rolling Hills, California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 10th day of January, 2022. ______________________________ BEA DIERINGER MAYOR ATTEST: ______________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH CITY CLERK 56 Ordinance No. 373 1 ORDINANCE NO. 373 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 (BUILDING CODE) TO ADOPT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE CODE BY REFERENCE AND MAKE LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO; AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA RECITALS A. The California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Cod e of Regulations, establishes the minimum regulations for the design and construction of building s and structures in California; and B. California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7, 18941.5, and 13143.5 authorize cities to adopt the California Building Standards Code with modifications determined to be reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and C. The City Council desires to adopt by reference Title 32, of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on January 1, 2020, adopting the California Fire Code, 2019 Edition (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the International Fire Code, 2018 Edition (“California Fire Code with Local Amendments”); this adoption with such local amendments is reasonably necessary to assure the fire code is tailored to the particular safety needs of the City as required by its unique climatic, geological, and topographical conditions ; and D. The City Council also desires to adopt additional local amendments to the California Fire Code with Local Amendments to specifically address the threats of wildfire by establishing more restrictive fire-safety mitigation measures on lots and structures with projects proceeding under Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), which adds Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to allow up to five units on a lot that previously allowed one primary dwelling; such local amendments are reasonably necessary to assure the fire code is tailored to the particular safety needs o f the City as required by its unique climatic, geological, and topographical conditions . NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: 57 Ordinance No. 373 2 Section 1. Chapter 15.04 (Building Code) of Title 15 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 15.20.010 – Adoption of Fire Code Except as hereinafter provided in this chapter, Title 32 Fire Code of the Los Angeles County Codes, as amended and in effect on February 24, 2017January 1, 2020, which constitutes an amended version of the California Fire Code, 20162019 Edition and an amended version of the International Fire Code, 20152018 Edition is hereby adopted by reference and shall constit ute and may be cited as the Fire Code of the City of Rolling Hills. In the event of any conflict between provisions of the California Fire Code, 20162019Edition, Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code, or any amendment to the Fire Code contained in the Ro lling Hills Municipal Code, the provision contained in the later listed document shall control. A copy of Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code, along with a copy of the California Fire Code, 20162019 Edition has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be at all times maintained by the Clerk for use and examination by the public. 15.20.020 Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "Fire Code of the City of Rolling Hills" and may be cited as such. 15.20.025 Very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). The entire City of Rolling Hills is designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone, as prescribed by the Director of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and as designated on a map titled City of Rolling Hills VHFHSZ dated July 1, 2008 and which shall be retained on file in the City Clerk's office at the Rolling Hills City Hall. 15.20.030 Permits. Any permit heretofore issued by the County of Los Angeles pursuant to the Fire Code of said County, for work within the territorial boundaries of the City of Rolling Hills, shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms. 15.20.040 Local Amendments The following provisions of the Los Angeles County Fire Code are hereby amended as follows: 1. Section C105.2 (One- and two-family dwellings, and Group R-2 buildings) is amended to read as follows: Section C105.2 (One- and two-family dwellings, and Group R-2 buildings) 58 Ordinance No. 373 3 A. For one- and two-family dwellings, and Group R-3 buildings, fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than 600 feet (182.88 m) apart. For properties with more than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of lot frontage should be more than 450 feet (137.16 m) away, via fire apparatus access, from a public hydrant. For properties less than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of a fire apparatus access roadway shall be farther than 750 feet (228.6 m) away, via fire apparatus access, from a properly spaced public hydrant that meets the required fire-flow. B. Notwithstanding paragraph A above, for projects under Chapters 16.50 (SB 9 Urban Lot Splits) and 17.45 (SB 9 Two -Unit Projects), fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than 600 feet (182.88 m) apart. For properties with more than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of lot frontage should be more than 360 feet away, via fire apparatus access, from a hydrant. For properties less than one dwelling unit per acre, no portion of a fire apparatus access road shall be farther than 600 feet away, via fire apparatus access, from a properly spaced hydrant that meets the required fire-flow. 2. Section C106.1 (Required on-site hydrants) is set forth below without amendments for purposes of reference only: C106.1 - Required on-site hydrants. When any portion of a proposed structure exceeds the allowable distances from a public hydrant, via fire apparatus access, on-site hydrants shall be provided. The spacing distance between on-site hydrants shall be 300 to 400 feet (91.44 to 121.92 m). All on- site fire hydrants shall have, at a minimum, a fire-flow of 1,250 gallons per minute (4,732 L/min) at 20 psi (137.895 kPa) for a duration of two hours. If more than one on-site fire hydrant is required, the fire flow shall be 2,500 gallons per minute (9,463.53 L/min) at 20 psi (137.895 kPa) for a duration of two hours. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet (7,620 mm) from a structure or protected by a two-hour firewall. Exception: For fully sprinklered multifamily residential structures, on-site hydrants may be installed a minimum of 10 feet (3.05 m) from the structure. 3. Section 503.1.1 (Buildings and facilities) is amended to read as follows: 503.1.1 - Buildings and facilities. A. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall ext end to within 150 feet (45,720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions: 1. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45,720 mm) where any of the following conditions occur: 59 Ordinance No. 373 4 1.1. The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. 1.2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided. 1.3. There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group U occupancies. 2. Where approved by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be permitted to be exempted or modified for solar photovoltaic power generation facilities and a stand-alone battery energy storage structure.3.Exterior walls of interior courts that are enclosed on all sides. B. Notwithstanding paragraph A above, for projects under Chapters 16.50 (SB 9 Urban Lot Splits) and 17.45 (SB 9 Two-Unit Projects), a lot must have its own paved driveway with a width of at least 30 feet connecting with direct access to a paved right of way or fire apparatus access road with a width of at least 40 feet, exclusive of shoulders. No dwelling unit shall be within 30 feet of any other dwelling unit or any other enclosed structure on such lot. 4. Section 503.1.2 (Additional access) is amended to read as follows: 503.1.2 – Additional access. A. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. Such additional access must also comply with Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code. B. Notwithstanding paragraph A above, fo r projects under Chapters 16.50 (SB 9 Urban Lot Splits) and 17.45 (SB 9 Two-Unit Projects), a lot must access a paved right of way or fire apparatus access road with at least two independent paved points of access for fire and life safety to access and for residents to evacuate. 5. Section 503.2.1 (Dimensions) is amended to read as follows: Section 503.2.1 Dimensions A. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6,096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except as specif ied in Sections 503.2.1.1 through 503.2.1.2.2.2, and for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance clear to the sky. Exception: A minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (4,114.8 mm) may be allowed for protected tree species adjacent to access roads. Any applicable tree-trimming permit from the appropriate agency is required. 60 Ordinance No. 373 5 B. Notwithstanding paragraph A above, for projects under Chapters 16.50 (SB 9 Urban Lot Splits) and 17.45 (SB 9 Two-Unit Projects), a lot must have direct access through its own paved driveway with a width of at least 30 feet connecting with direct access to a paved right of way or fire apparatus access road with a width of at least 40 feet, exclusive of shoulders. 6. Section 903.3.1.3 (NFPA 13D sprinkler systems) is amended to read as follows: Section 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. A. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in one- and two family dwellings, Group R- 3, and townhouses shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D as amended in Chapter 35 B. For all projects under Chapters 16.50 (SB 9 Urban Lot Splits) and 17.45 (SB 9 Two-Unit Projects), all enclosed structures on site must have automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13D as amended in Chapter 35. 15.20.050 Violations. Every person violating any provision of the Fire Code or of any permit or license granted hereunder, or any rule, regulation or policy promulgated pursuant hereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor unless such violation is declared to be an infraction by Section 5101.1 of the Fire Code. Each such violation is a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which such violation is committed, continued or permitted, and conviction of any such violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 15.20.060 Responsibility. Any person who personally or through another willfully, negligently, or in violation of law sets a fire, allows a fire to be set, or allows a fire kindled or attended by such person to escape from his or her control, allows any hazardous material to be handled, stored or transported in a manner not in accordance with nationally recognized standards, allows any hazardous material to escape from his or her control, neglects to properly comply with any written notice of the Chief, or willfully or negligently allows the continuation of a violation of the Fire Code and amendments thereto is liable for the expense of fighting the fire or for the expenses incurred during a hazardous materials incident, and such expense shall be a charge against that person. Such charge shall constitute a debt of such person and is collectible by the public agency incurring such expense in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied. Section 2. Justification for Modification. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7, 18941.5, and 13143.5, the City Council hereby finds that the changes and modifications to the California Building Standards Code adopted herein through amendments are reasonably necessary because of following specified local climatic, geological or topographical conditions: 61 Ordinance No. 373 6 1. Climate. The City is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Southern California where the local climate is characterized by hot, dry summers, often resulting in drought conditions, followed by strong Santa Ana winds, often resulting in hazardous fire conditions, as well as heavy winter rains, often resulting in expansive soil conditions. This climate predisposes the area to large destructive fires (conflagration). 2. Topography / Geology. The City is comprised of an almost entirely residential community built on hills, with narrow and winding roadways which tend to slow response times for fire apparatus and complicates firefighter access to buildings. This same terrain tends to slow resident evacuation time. The City is heavily treed with thick veget ative undergrowth, creating increased fuel loading during the summer months. The City contains canyons and steep slopes, which influence how fires behave. Canyons provide narrow openings that accelerate winds, making fires spread more quickly and easily. Further, when a fire ignites at the bottom of a steep slope, it spreads more quickly upwards because it can preheat the upcoming fuels with rising hot air. Lastly, the hilly topography is characterized by geological instability. These topographical/geolog ical conditions combine to create a situation, which places fire department response time and resident evacuation time at risk, and makes it necessary to provide increased fire safety measures to protect occupants and property especially when considering the increased density of persons and structures afforded by SB 9. Section 3. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Ordinance does not qualify as a project because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a).) In the alternative, the City Council finds that the Ordinance falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15061, subdivision (b)(3), which exempts activity from CEQA where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the env ironment.” The City Council also finds that the Ordinance is exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308 as an action taken to protect the environment and natural resources. Here, the amendments are more restrictive than the California Building Standards Code and are necessary to address the particular safety needs of the City, including the need to facilitate the necessary and proper evacuation of persons and their animals in the event of a uncontrolled wildfire and to significantly reduce the r isk of flame or heat transmission sufficient to ignite structures and buildings in the event of a uncontrolled wildfire within the City. 62 Ordinance No. 373 7 Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937. Section 5. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this resolution are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof. Section 6. Notice and Filing. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this ordinance and post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 and shall file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Rolling Hills, California, at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on the 10th day of January, 2022. ______________________________ BEA DIERINGER MAYOR ATTEST: ______________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH CITY CLERK 63 Agenda Item No.: 5.J Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE TO THE DESIGN OF THE 8" SEWER MAIN ALONG ROLLING HILLS ROAD. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: The City Council engaged the services of NV5 to provide engineering design for the 8" sewer main along Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road. Since the commencement of the design work, NV5 has met the 65% design, 90% design, and the 100% design milestones. This proposed sewer main crosses several jurisdictions and approval from each jurisdiction is necessary before the project is deemed approved. The approval of 100% plans by all agencies involved in this project is anticipated by mid-February 2022. Final plan and specification submittals were made to City of Rolling Hills Estates on November 29, 2021 and to City of Torrance on December 14, 2021. At each design milestone and plan update, the engineering cost estimate is refined with additional details. The current estimate for construction cost is $1,833,852 and is attached for reference. The cost estimate includes the upsizing of the existing 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road to 10" and 12" sewer required by the Los Angeles County Sanitation and the City of Torrance, at three different locations and the construction of 1,653 linear feet of a new 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road into the City of Rolling Hills. This cost estimate includes all the other components required for a sewer main construction project (manholes, traffic control, sewer bypass for construction, etc.) and a 20% contingency cost. DISCUSSION: Upon approval of the plans and specifications from all necessary jurisdictions, the project will be presented to City Council for funding allocation, and approval to release for bid for construction. FISCAL IMPACT: Budget for engineering design of the 8" Sewer Improvement Plans was included in the Utility Fund Budget. The project is also eligible for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation. The City received an allocation of approximately $441,000. RECOMMENDATION: 64 Receive and file. ATTACHMENTS: Portuguese Bend Sewer Main_Cost Estimate_11222021.pdf 65 Description Unit Cost Quantity Amount Item No. Sewer Main - Portuguese Bend Road/ Rolling Hills Road 1 Mobilization and Demobilization (approx. 7%) 80,000 1 LS $80,000 2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Implementation 50,000 1 LS $50,000 3 Traffic Striping, Legends, and Pavement Markers Restoration 15,000 1 LS $15,000 4 Best Management Practices BMP 25,000 1 LS $25,000 5 Furnish, Install and Remove Temporary Bypass Pumping System with Pipes and all Appurtenances 50,000 1 LS $50,000 6 Remove Existing 8" VCP Sewer 20 578 LF $11,560 7 Construct 8” VCP Sewer 350 1,653 LF $578,550 8 Construct 10” VCP Sewer 500 351 LF $175,500 9 Construct 12” VCP Sewer 600 281 LF $168,600 10 Connect 12" VCP Sewer Main to existing Manhole and Modify Base 15,000 2 EA $30,000 11 Connect 10" VCP Sewer Main to existing Manhole and Modify Base 15,000 2 EA $30,000 12 Connect 8” VCP Sewer Main to existing Manhole and Modify Base 15,000 1 EA $15,000 13 Construct New 48” Precast Concrete Sewer Manhole 25,000 4 EA $100,000 14 Remove Existing Manhole at Station 12+93.11 10,000 0 EA $0 15 Reconnect Existing Sewer Laterals to New Sewer Main 5,000 4 EA $20,000 16 Construct a New 4" Sewer Lateral to City Hall, Tennis Courts & Gate House Restroom and Cap End for Future Use 2,500 3 EA $7,500 17 CCTV New Sewer Main 10,000 1 LS $10,000 18 Remove interfering portion of Abandoned Utility and plug ends 1,500 1 EA $1,500 19 Pressure Wash/Clean existing Manhole and apply Epoxy/Polyurethane Lining System (including the base)10,000 6 EA $60,000 20 Remove and Replace, in kind, Existing Improvements including but not limited to Curb and Gutter, PCC Sidewalk landscaping and Irrigation, protect existing wood fencing 500 200 SF $100,000 Subtotal $1,528,210 Contingency $305,642 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL 1,833,852$ Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 20% CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 22-Nov-21 Portuguese Bend Sewer Main_Cost Estimate_11222021.xlsx 66 Agenda Item No.: 5.K Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON THE CREST ROAD EAST UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING GRANT PROJECT. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: In order to preserve the rural character of Rolling Hills and to eliminate risk of wildfires, the City applied for grant funds through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program (HMP). On September 14, 2020, the City was awarded $1,145,457 of Federal funds to underground utility infrastructure along Crest Road East. The project will underground existing overhead utilities lines and remove associated wooden utility poles along Crest Road East within the southeastern portion of the city. This ranges from the eastern city limits to the frontage of 67 Crest Road East. For Rule 20A projects, Southern California Edison (SCE) handles the design, joint trench bidding and assists in the coordination with the other utility companies (Crown Castle, Cox, and Frontier). City staff held a kick-off meeting with SCE on January 13, 2021. SCE commenced their work by performing a site visit and taking measurements to confirm scope and limits of work in preparation of a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate for the project submitted to the City on February 25, 2021. The City sent SCE an email of concurrence for this ROM on March 3, 2021. The city approved intent to form an Undergrounding Utility District on May 10, 2021. On June 14, 2021 the city conducted a public hearing and approved Resolution No. 1276 authorizing SCE to begin designing the undergrounding system. On 7/28/2021 the City sent out a second letter to residents who would be affected by the approval of the Utility District. The grant requires project completion by May 7, 2023. 67 DISCUSSION: On September 16, 2021, SCE conducted their field meeting to walk with the planners and assess any potential issues. The evaluation resulted in the same scope of work, and timeline of 2023. SCE requested expediting the project to meet the May 2023 deadline. The use of 20A and grant funds required the project to be divided into two design packages. In November 2021, new SCE planners were assigned to the project, delaying progress. The preliminary plans are projected to be completed by early February 2022. Staff anticipates presenting the preliminary design plans to the City Council in late February 2022. All utility companies have agreed to cover their portion of the cost at no expense to the City or the residents with the exception of Frontier. Frontier believes the City's proposed undergrounding does not meet criteria outlined in Frontier's Tariff Rule 33 Facilities to Provide Replacement of Aerial with Underground Facilities. Specifically, A.1.a. according to this the project must meet the following criteria to exempt payment: A.1.a(1)(a) – Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities. Frontier does not believe we have an unusually heavy concentration of aerial facilities. A.1.a(1)(b) - Said street, or road or right-of-way is in an area extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Frontier believes the limits of the undergrounding on Crest Road are within a private road not open to the public. They also claimed that Crest Road ends approximately 600’ East of Eastfield Drive with only a few driveways entering separate properties. They believe traffic volume cannot be considered “extensively used by the general public and carry a high volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic”. A.1.a(1)(c) –Said street, road or right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public Frontier believes this segment of Crest Rd does not pass “through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public”. Additionally they believe because the entire undergrounding project is within private streets, not available to the public, this serves as access 68 to very small number of residents and is rarely used for through traffic due to an unattended locked gate. Lastly, they conveyed that Rule 20A is a Southern California Edison Tariff which may or may not have the same requirements/provisions as Frontier’s Rule 33. However, Resolution No. 929 was approved for a Utility Undergrounding on Crest Road West on 1/13/2003 which is the same project on the same street upon which Frontier and all utility companies involved paid their portion. Legal counsel has been engaged about the concern and are working to resolve the issue. If it is not resolved the city would be responsible for payment. FISCAL IMPACT: Under Rule 20A, SCE does not send an invoice until the design is complete. The City will be reimbursed from the grant funds. The City's work credit will be used to meet the required grant match of $381,819 or 25% of the total project amount $1,527,276. Allocation of this work credit is included in the adopted budget for FY2021-2022. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Underground Utility District Limits Exhibit_Parcels_V1.pdf Crest Road Underground Utility District Letter No.2.pdf Frontier- Rule 33 Tariff A.1.a..pdf 69 Overhead Lines to be RemovedLimits of Utility Underground DistrictEast City LimitsABCDEFGHIJKMLExhibit "A"70 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 July 28, 2021 Resident Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Rolling Hills CREST ROAD Underground Utility District UPDATE Dear Resident of the City of Rolling Hills: At the City Council meeting on June 14, 2021 City Council considered Resolution 1276 to create an assessment district for the Crest Road East Utilit y Undergrounding Project. The formation of the Underground Utility District provides Southern California Edison (SCE) the authorization needed to remove existing overhead facilities and install the underground facilities as replacement. On Monday June 14th the City Council voted to approve Resolution 1276 providing SCE authorization to begin the designing phase of the project. This is the second letter the City has sent out to communicate with residents who will be effected regarding this project. This letter serves as an update on current activities the City is engaged in regarding the undergrounding project. Please take note of the attached Exhibit A with this letter to identify what portion of your property lies within the proposed Underground Utility Di strict this map also shows approximate limits of the project. The limits of the proposed Underground Utility are approximately 100 feet in all directions beyond the location of the existing overhead facilities. Easements for new underground facilities that will be located on privately owned property will be required. Once SCE completes the design, we will know where easements will be required. SCE has begun the process of design for the underground facilities. The estimated timeframe is 18 months for design and 18 months for construction. The City plans to keep a consistent update on all project related activities. Your feedback and questions are important to City Staff and the Council. We encourage all residents to attend our City Council meetings hosted on the 2nd and 4th Monday of every month in-person at City Hall in the City Chambers at 7:00PM. Please contact Senior Management Analyst, Ashford Ball if you should have questions. Ashford can be reached at 310-377-1521 or by email at aball@cityofrh.net. Sincerely, Ashford Ball Senior Management Analyst enc: Exhibit A 71 Page 2 of 2 72 73 74 Agenda Item No.: 5.L Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:FILING OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS GRANT PROJECT. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: On November 18, 2020 The City was awarded funds by CalOES/FEMA for Phase 1 of the Vegetative Management Mitigation Project. Thirty-seven parcels were identified by the Los Angeles County Fire Department as a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) due to the vegetation, winds, and topography in the area and was recommended for mitigation. In order to meet the grant requirements for Phase 1 the City needed to perform an environmental assessment to evaluate any impediments on the environment, certain plant species, and animals. The City put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit environmental consultant services on 7/01/2021 and again on 8/04/2021. After two failed attempts to gather proposals, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Land Conservancy) introduced GPA Consulting to city staff. On 8/23/2021 City Council approved services from GPA Consulting to conduct an environmental assessment. In preparation for the environmental assessment on 9/15/2021 the City sent out the first iteration of letters to residents and requested participation and consent to perform the environmental assessments on their properties. In addition, the city provided a two-hour informational workshop on Wednesday 9/22/2021 at City Hall in the Council Chambers about the environmental assessment process. This included information on federal/state protocols and regulations, the purpose of the assessment, and the benefits for city residents who chose to participate. By 10/05/2021 the city received 30 out of 37 consent signatures from residents continued forward with the assessment. On 10/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/12/2021, and 10/13/2021 the environmental assessments were performed at the residencies. 75 DISCUSSION: After performing the assessments, the consultant drafted technical studies and concluded that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA requirements. A Class 1 exemption is defined as the operation, repair maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Since the project is minimally altering and includes the maintenance of existing landscaping, the project would qualify for a Class 1 Existing Facility exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: The filing of the environmental assessment is included in GPA contract with the City. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: Environmental Assessment Process Flow Chart.pdf Categorical Exemption Memo.pdf Notice Of Exemption Form.pdf 76 City Council Environmental Approval Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15301: Existing Facilities Notice to Proceed Determine Technical Studies Draft Technical Studies Submit Technical Studies to City Prepare Draft Categorical Exemption Memo (CE) Final Technical Studies Categorical Exemption (CE) Determination Lead Agency (City of Rolling Hills) initiates Approval Process City Signs Notice of Exemption (NOE) Project Approval obtained File NOE w/ County Clerk (within 5 days of Project Approval) File NOE w/ State Clearinghouse City Council Meeting Approval of CE Determination 1 77 Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 1 Memorandum Date: January 05, 2022 For: Ashford Ball, Senior Management Analyst 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 From: Catherine Saint, Senior Environmental Planner Subject: Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project, Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act Introduction This memorandum is provided as confirmation that the Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project (Project) is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Existing Facilities (Class 1)(h) maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs. The Project consists of the minor alteration of topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing. As specified in CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15300.2, the exemption is negated by an exception under any of the following circumstances: a)Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment, be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. b)Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant. c)Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. d)Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. e)Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. 78 Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 2 f)Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Project Description The City of Rolling Hills (City) is required to satisfy the environmental requirements for the Vegetative Management Mitigation Project funded by the Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The City of Rolling Hills (Rolling Hills) is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designated by Cal Fire and considered at-risk for wildfire events. Rolling Hills has historically been subject to fires/wildfires, threatening loss of life and property. The City applied for funding through the HMGP to create defensible space/fuel breaks to protect homeowners from wildfires. The City was awarded funds for Phase 1 of the Project, which includes design, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) assessment, and legal services. The Project would limit fire spread and intensity of fire in the steep canyons by strategically removing vegetation, trimming and liming trees, and creating proper spacing for less fuel continuity. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services will consider releasing additional grant funds for Phase 2 for implementation based on satisfactory work on completing Phase 1. The Project area is located within approximately 106 acres of Rolling Hills on the north and south side of Crest Road West at Quail Ridge Road. The site is located in an unsectioned portion of Township 5 South, Ranch 14 West in what would be Sections 9 and 16, as shown on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Pedro and Torrance, California. 7.5-minute quadrangles (see Attachment A, Regional Location Map and Attachment B, Project Location Map). The Project area is along the following roads: Quail Ridge Road North, Crest Road West, Quail Ridge Road South, Cinchring Road, Wrangler Road, Running Brand Road, Portuguese Bend Road, and Ranchero Road. The Project area is bounded by residential properties to the north and west, Hesse’s Gap (open space) and residential properties to the east, and Portuguese Bend Reserved (open space) to the south and west. The proposed treatment area within the Project area would be approximately 20 to 25 acres and would focus on the area 100 feet to 200 feet from structures, extending into the canyon where necessary. The focus of work for the Project would take place within the four treatment areas, Project Area 1 through Project Area 4 (see Attachment C, Vegetation Communities and Cover Classes). Methodology The methodology of the Project was prepared in close consult with representatives from the LA County Fire Department, City of Rolling Hills, and GPA Consulting (see Attachment D, Methodology). Each canyon and property would be looked at as its own prescription for vegetation management. Prescription would include the thinning, trimming, and/or the removal of up to 50 percent vegetation within the proposed treatment areas. The following treatment areas are ranked in order of focus: Disturbed areas; Non-native trees; Ornamental/Landscapes; and Lemonade berry and Toyon Alliance (see Attachment C, Vegetation Communities and Cover Classes). The Project would focus primarily on the removal of invasive species and dead, dying trees and/or shrubs. Construction duration is anticipated to be approximately one to three months depending on the contractor’s work force and crew availability. Construction equipment would include chain saws, woodchippers, weed whips, mowers, hand tools, and possibly diesel engine machinery to enhance fuel spacing. Duke Cultural Resources Management (CRM) prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment to assess the Project area for the presence of and impacts to historical or archaeological resources according to CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Duke CRM, 2021). The assessment did not identify any cultural resources within the Project area. The assessment concluded that there is a low sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources and a low sensitivity for historic cultural resources. 79 Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 3 GPA Consulting has prepared a Biological Technical Memorandum to describe the existing biological resources in the Project area and assess the potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project (GPA Consulting, 2021). The memorandum concluded that the project would not result in impacts on jurisdictional resources. Impacts on special-status natural communities, special-status plants, and special-status wildlife species, including nesting birds, roosting bats, small mammals, and protected trees would be less than significant with adherence to the County of Los Angeles Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) Ordinance, and implementation of regulatory compliance measures and avoidance and minimization measures (see Attachment E, Avoidance & Minimization Measures). Environmental sensitive areas will be avoided to the extent feasible (see Attachment F, Environmental Sensitive Areas). Findings and Conclusions a.Location. A Class 1 exemption is defined as the operation, repair maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The Project is a vegetation management project that would create defensible space/fuel breaks to protect homeowners from wildfires. Since the Project is minimally altering and includes the maintenance of existing landscaping, the project would qualify for a Class 1 Existing Facility exemption (CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301). This exception would not be applicable because the project is not a Class 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11 exemption. b.Cumulative Impact. This exception applies when, although a particular project may not have a significant impact, the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. In this case, the Project would not result in any impacts that are cumulatively considerable; therefore, this exception would not apply. c.Significant Effect. This exception applies when, although the project may otherwise be exempt, there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. The Project would not include any permanent right of way (ROW) acquisition, require full road closures, create excessive noise, encroach on wetlands or waterways, significantly alter the views from the adjacent roadways or the existing visual setting, or encroach on tribal land. There is not a reasonable possibility that the activity could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, this exception would not apply. d.Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The Project is not located within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The nearest scenic highway is State Route 1, located approximately 13 miles east of the Project area (California Department of Transportation, 2021). Therefore, this exception would not apply. 80 Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 4 e.Hazardous Waste Sites. This exception applies when a project is located on a site listed as a hazardous waste site under Government Code Section 65962.5. According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), there are four hazardous waste/materials sites located within a one-mile radius of the Project area: four Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites (State Water Resources Control Board, 2021) (see Attachment G, Hazardous Waste Sites Map). The four LUST cleanup sites have received a Case Closed status. According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor, there is a DTSC cleanup site within a one-mile radius of the Project area, located near Vanderlip Drive and Narcissa Drive (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022). The DTSC cleanup site has a status of Inactive –Needs Evaluation as of July 01, 2005 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022). The Project would not require the acquisition of ROW from any parcels adjacent to the Project area containing hazardous waste/materials sites or permitted underground storage tank sites. Since the Project is not located on a site listed as a hazardous waste site under Government Code Section 65962.5, this exception would not apply. f.Historical Resources. This exception applies when a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The Cultural Resources Assessment included a records search for cultural resources at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), an inquiry to the National American Heritage Commissions (NAHC), and other published resources. The Cultural Resources Assessment did not identify cultural resources within the Project area; however, six cultural resources were identified within a half-mile of the Project area (Duke CRM, 2021). The assessment concluded that there is a low sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources and a low sensitivity for historic cultural resources (Duke CRM, 2021). The Project would not have the potential to impact any known historical resources and would not require any ROW acquisition. Therefore, this exception would not apply. 81 References Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project References California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2022). EnviroStor. Retrieved from https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=80000246 California Department of Transportation. (2021). California State Scenic Highways. Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i- scenic-highways Duke CRM. (2021). Cultural Resources Assessment - Vegetation Management Mitigation Project. GPA Consulting. (2021). Biological Technical Memorandum for the Vegetation Management Mitigation Project. State Water Resources Control Board. (2021). Geotracker. Retrieved from http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov. 82 Attachments Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Attachment A Regional Location 83 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap,INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea,Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the ATTACHMENT A. REGIONAL LOCATIONCity of Rolling Hills - Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Project Location Los Angeles County Location in California 0 5 Miles Z Source: ESRI 2021 ^_ 84 Attachments Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Attachment B Project Location 85 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap,INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea,Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the ATTACHMENT B. PROJECT LOCATIONCity of Rolling Hills - Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Project Location 0 0.5 Miles Z Source: ESRI 2021 86 Attachments Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Attachment C Vegetation Communities and Cover Classes 87 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributorsSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus ATTACHMENT C. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND COVER CLASSES OVERVIEWCity of Rolling Hills - Vegetation Management Plan 0 200 400 600 Feet Z Source: ESRI 2021 Project Parcels Lemonade Berry and Toyon Alliance California Sage Scrub Planted Non-native Trees Ornamental/Landscaped Developed Disturbed Area Not Surveyed Vegetation Classification 88 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND COVER CLASSES (PROJECT AREA 1) City of Rolling Hills - Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 0 200 400 Feet Z Source: ESRI 2021 Vegetation Survey - Region 4 Lemonade Berry and Toyon Alliance Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Non-native trees Ornamental Developed Disturbed Area Not Surveyed 89 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND COVER CLASSES (PROJECT AREA 2) City of Rolling Hills - Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 0 200 Feet Z Source: ESRI 2021 Vegetation Survey Area - Region 3 Lemonade Berry and Toyon Alliance Non-native trees Ornamental Developed Disturbed 90 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND COVER CLASSES (PROJECT AREA 3) City of Rolling Hills - Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 0 200 Feet Z Source: ESRI 2021 Vegetation Survey Area - Region 2 Lemonade Berry and Toyon Alliance Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Native trees Non-native trees Ornamental Developed Disturbed 91 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND COVER CLASSES (PROJECT AREA 4) City of Rolling Hills - Vegetative Management Mitigation Project 0 200 400 Feet Z Source: ESRI 2021 Vegetation Survey Area - Region 1 Lemonade Berry and Toyon Alliance Non-native trees Ornamental Developed Disturbed 92 Attachments Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Attachment D Methodology 93 Methodology: Treatments identified for specific vegetation categories The methodology was prepared in close consult with representatives from the LA County Fire Department. The following treatment areas are ranked in order of focus: Disturbed areas; Non-native trees; Ornamental/Landscapes; and Lemonade berry and Toyon Alliance. The Project would not result in any impacts to native trees. Disturbed Areas The main focus would be the Disturbed Areas with the Project area. Targets would include invasive species removal and removal of dead or dying trees/shrubs. In this treatment, work would include the thinning of shrubs and trees with the use of chain saws and clippers. Plants and shrubs would be removed using a spacing method with a 2 to 1 ratio (e.g., 5 ‘shrub with 10’ space to the next shrub). This spacing of vegetation would be focused near developed areas such as structures or roads and would be accomplished by hand with the use of chain saws. The spacing would prevent the branches from touching other branches and/or vegetation around it. Chipped material would be removed and some of the vegetation would be left as mulch or lop and scatted for erosion control. There is a possibility of mechanical treatment at the south end of Project Area 4 – Ranchero; however, this would be dependent on vendor equipment and bid. Disturbed Areas can vary from property to property. The Disturbed areas would make up 50-70 percent of all the area to be treated within the project area. Each property is unique and would have its own prescription based on the vegetation type and location of structures. Non-Native Trees and Ornamental/Landscape Areas The second focus would be Non-native trees and Ornamental / landscape vegetation within the Project area. Many of the non-native trees were planted to enhance the ornamental landscape for aesthetic beauty, shade, and privacy. These two categories are the closest to developed areas of the parcels and most have been maintained by property owners. This area of focus would include the removal of any dead and dying trees/ shrubs and the thinning of any dead/dying limbs. Palms, eucalyptus, and other non-native species produce large amounts of dead material and have to be maintained to keep clean of ignitable material. Several non-native trees would be removed to create good crown separation and spacing. The project would include thinning and/or removing lower branches and cleaning the base of trees in order to prevent issues of ladder fires (Fire climbs from ground up into tree tops). This work would involve the use of chain saws and chippers. Lemonade Berry and Toyon Alliance The third focus would Lemonade berry and toyon alliance within the Project area. In this area, vegetation management would be conservative, and removal of vegetation would only occur if shrubs are dead. This would prevent any type conversion with less desirable species. Lemonade berry and toyon alliance are not protected species but they serve as a great drought tolerant fire-adapted species. These species provide great wildlife habitat, cooler ground temperatures, and stabilizes erosion. In this focus, work would include thinning branches to create more space with the use of chain saws and chippers. The 94 species, Lemonade berry and toyon alliance, can be cut back quite a bit and still remain healthy. Thinning would start at the base and move towards the main branches from there. Construction Duration, Equipment, and Phasing Construction duration is anticipated to be approximately one to three months. The southern portion, Project Area 1, would be prioritized first. All areas of focus would be completed in Project Area 1 before moving north to the next geographic area. The majority of access points would come off the roads and through disturbed areas. A portion of access points would be from developed areas. Based on the contractor’s work force and crew availability, Project Area 1 through Project Area 4 could be worked on at the same time (see Attachment C, Vegetation Communities and Cover Classes). Construction equipment would include chain saws, woodchippers, weed whips, mowers, and hand tools. Construction equipment could include diesel engine machinery such as a brush hog or masticator that are typically attachments that go on skid steers or small excavators. Project Area 1 For the southern portion of Project Area 1, Burma Road would be the access point to target the invasive species in the disturbed area. Burma Road is an unimproved road up and around the knoll and would be a good access point throughout the disturbed area. In addition, the southern portion of Project Area 1 would be a potential location to stage a chipper since it is more cost effective. This area is one of the areas where some machinery could be used, Brush hog, masticator, off of the dozer line and disturbed area, vegetation type is mustard and could be good candidate for mechanical removal. Running Brand Road would be the access point to target the middle portion of Project Area 1. The middle section would be mostly hand work with the use of chain saws and weed whips. Removal of dead and/or dying trees and the thinning of toyon and lemonade berry deeper would take place near the bottom of the canyon. The end of Wrangler Road would be a potential access point since the canyon gets steep at the bottom. Some material may be easier removed down to Running Brand road residence and station. The Project could include chipping there upon homeowner’s approval. Project Area 2 In Project Area 2, the end of Ranchero Road and Cinchring Road would be potential access points to target the disturbed area. The Contractor’s crew could utilize the disturbed area gain access through the canyon. Work would include removal of vegetation and/or trees for spacing and limbing of larger trees with the use of chain saws and chippers. Project Area 3 In Project Area 3, work would target non-native species and disturbed areas in the lower canyon. Crest Road would be a potential access point for the Contractor’s crew and equipment. Project Area 3 would include limbing of larger trees and bucking to create spacing with the use of hand tools and chain saws. 95 Project Area 4 On the east side of Project Area 4, the Contractor’s crew would use hand treatments to thin lemonade berry and toyon alliance in order to create spacing. In the northern portion, the main focus would be the disturbed areas. On the west side of Project Area 4, the Contractor’s crew would focus on nonnatives near developed areas and would implement thinning and spacing (2:1 ratio and 1:1 ratio on disturbed areas) as defined in methodology and treatments. There would be minimal thinning of toyon and lemonade on the western side of canyon (1:1 ratio or 1:1/2 ratio with little to no full removal). The Contractor’s crew would not permitted to disturb the bottom of the canyon on the western side of the canyon and a buffer of 50’ to the bottom of the canyon would be implemented to avoid any possible blue line conflicts. 96 Attachments Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Attachment E Avoidance & Minimization Measures 97 Rolling Hills Vegetation Management Avoidance & Minimization Measures Jurisdictional Resources To avoid/minimize impacts on jurisdictional areas, the following measures would be implemented: •Prior to the initiation of any work, including installation of Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing or clearing and grubbing activities, a qualified biologist would conduct an environmental worker awareness training for all project personnel. The training would discuss the sensitive habitats and special-status species with the potential to be within the construction site and would review the project’s avoidance and minimization measures, and permitting conditions associated with biological resources. •Work areas would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and staging areas would be located away from the creeks. •Best management practices (BMP), such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, straw bales, or other measures would be implemented during construction to minimize dust, dirt, and construction debris from entering the creeks and/or leaving the construction area. •Appropriate hazardous material BMPs would be implemented to reduce the potential for chemical spills or contaminant releases into the creeks including any non-stormwater discharge. •All equipment refueling and maintenance would be conducted in the staging area away from the creeks. In addition, vehicles and equipment would be checked daily for fluid and fuel leaks, and drip pans would be placed under all equipment that is parked and not in operation. •Access routes would be limited to pre-existing trails or deer paths to the extent feasible to avoid further disturbance of the hillside. •Work areas, access routes, and vegetation removal would be minimized to the maximum extent feasible to prevent further erosion of the hillsides and further disturbance of the jurisdictional areas. Special-Status Natural Resource Communities To avoid/minimize impacts on the lemonade berry scrubland alliance community and the California sagebrush – black sage scrubland community, the following measures would be implemented: •Removal of the lemonade berry scrubland alliance community and the California sagebrush – black sage scrub community would be avoided to the maximum extent possible. •Prior to vegetation management activities, high visibility Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA) protective fencing would be installed at the limits of work to prevent staff or equipment from further encroaching on the lemonade berry scrubland alliance community and the California sagebrush – black sage scrubland community. 98 Special-Status Plant Species To avoid/minimize impacts on special-status plants, the following measures would be implemented: •Prior to construction, a qualified botanist would conduct focused surveys for Catalina mariposa lily, suffrutescent wallflower, California box-thorn, and lyon’s pentachaeta within the construction area. Surveys would be conducted during the appropriate blooming period, as feasible, for these species. •In the event that a special-status plant species is found during surveys, the plants would be avoided. If the plants are within or near the active vegetation removal area, they would be protected in place, if feasible, and monitored by a qualified biologist during removal activities to ensure they would not be directly or indirectly impacted. •ESA fencing would be installed around the southern California black walnut trees to be preserved. The ESA fencing would be placed as far from the base of the trees as possible, at least 0.75 foot per inch of trunk diameter for trees less than eight inches diameter breast height (DBH), one foot per inch of trunk diameter for trees eight to 18 inches DBH, and 1.25 feet per inch of trunk diameter for trees over 18 inches DBH, beyond the drip-line. The fencing would be maintained in good repair throughout the duration of the project and would not be removed, relocated, or encroached upon without permission from a qualified biologist. SEA Protected Trees and Shrubs To avoid/minimize impacts on SEA Protected Trees and Shrubs, the following measures would be implemented: •If the SEA protected tree or shrub is within or near the active vegetation removal area, they would be protected in place, if feasible, and monitored by a qualified biologist during removal activities to ensure they would not be directly or indirectly impacted. Special-Status Wildlife Species Migratory Birds and Raptors To avoid/minimize impacts on migratory birds and raptors the following measures would be implemented: •Trimming and removal of trees and vegetation would be minimized and performed outside of the bird nesting season (typically February 1 to September 15), to the extent feasible. •In the event trimming or removal of trees and vegetation must be conducted during the bird nesting season, nesting bird surveys would be completed within 300 feet (for song birds) and 500 feet (for raptors) of the project area by a qualified biologist no more than 48 hours prior to trimming or removal activities to determine if nesting birds are within the affected vegetation. In the event nesting birds/raptors are found within 500 feet of the project area during the nesting bird survey, appropriate buffers (typically 300 feet for songbirds and 500 feet for raptors) as determined by a qualified biologist, would be implemented, to ensure that nesting birds and active nests are not harmed. Buffers shall include fencing or other barriers around the nests to prevent any access to these areas 99 and shall remain in place until birds have fledged and/or the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. Nesting bird surveys would be repeated if trimming or removal activities are suspended for five days or more. •A qualified biologist will complete coastal California gnatcatcher focused surveys no more than 48 hours prior trimming or removal of trees and vegetation within the critical habitat of coastal California gnatcatcher to determine presence or absence in the work area. Surveys would be repeated if vegetation activities are suspended for five days or more. If coastal California gnatcatcher is identified, a no-work buffer will be installed around the species. The size of the buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist. Work will be suspended until the species leaves the site on their own or is relocated by a qualified biologist to an area of suitable habitat at least 100 feet outside of the construction area. Work will be resumed only once it has been determined that coastal California gnatcatcher has left the site, as determined by the qualified biologist. •A qualified biologist will complete coastal cactus wren focused surveys no more than 48 hours prior trimming or removal of trees and vegetation within the potential habitat containing prickly pear cactus to determine presence or absence in the work area. Surveys would be repeated if vegetation activities are suspended for five days or more. If coastal cactus wren is identified, a no-work buffer will be installed around the species. The size of the buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist. Work will be suspended until the species leaves the site on their own or is relocated by a qualified biologist to an area of suitable habitat at least 100 feet outside of the construction area. Work will be resumed only once it has been determined that coastal cactus wren has left the site, as determined by the qualified biologist. Mammals To avoid and/or minimize impacts on bats, the following measures would be implemented: •Where feasible, tree removal would be conducted in October, which is outside of the maternal and non-active seasons for bats. •Prior to vegetation management activities, a thorough bat roosting habitat assessment would be conducted of all proposed trees and within 500 feet of the proposed removal or vegetation maintenance location. Visual surveys would be conducted five days prior to tree removal or maintenance. If presence is detected, a count and species analysis would be completed to help assess the type of colony and usage. •All removal of trees with potential bat habitat would be conducted using a 2-step process over two consecutive days under the supervision of a qualified biologist. On the first day, any trees that do not contain crevice or cavity roosting habitat, as determined by a qualified biologist, will be trimmed or removed (only if necessary). In addition, limited trimming of trees (branches and small limbs with no potential roosting features) would be completed. Construction crews would only use hand tools (i.e. chainsaws or similar). On the calendar day immediately following the trimming, all trees that were previously trimmed would be removed (only if necessary). 100 •If the presence or absence of bats cannot be confirmed in potential roosting habitat, a qualified biologist would be onsite during habitat removal or disturbance of this area. If the biologist determines that bats are being disturbed during this work, work would be suspended until bats have left the vicinity on their own or can be safely excluded under direction of the biologist. Work would resume only once all bats have left the site and/or approval to resume work is given by a qualified biologist. •A qualified biologist will complete pre-construction surveys no more than 48 hours prior to vegetation activities within the BSA to determine presence or absence of wildlife in the work area. Surveys will be repeated if vegetation activities are suspended for five days or more. If sensitive wildlife species are identified, a no-work buffer will be installed around the species. The size of the buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist and will be species specific. Work will be suspended until the species leaves the site on their own or is relocated by a qualified biologist to an area of suitable habitat at least 100 feet outside of the construction area. Work will be resumed only once it has been determined that all sensitive wildlife species have left the site, as determined by the qualified biologist. Cultural Resources If cultural resources are discovered during project development no further disturbance shall occur until an archaeologist is retained to assess the nature and significance of the discovery. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 101 Attachments Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Attachment F Environmental Sensitive Areas 102 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 7569-010-007 7569-010-010 7569-009-002 7569-010-005 7569-009-0047569-010-006 7567-017-0377569-009-010 7569-009-011 Environmental Sensitive Areas (Sheet 1 of 3)City of Rolling Hills 0 200 400 FeetZ Source: ESRI 2021 Biological Study Area Drainages Environmental Sensitive Areas Project Parcels 103 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 7567-012-031 7567-017-0177567-017-0407567-017-0377 5 6 7 -0 1 2 -0 2 3 7567-012-032 7569-009-010 7567-012-0167 5 6 7 -0 1 2 -0 2 5 7567-012-027 7 5 6 7 -0 1 3 -0 1 0 756 7-01 7-0 39 7567-017-043 7 5 6 9 -0 0 9 -0 0 4 7567-017-012 7 5 6 7 -0 1 3 -0 0 6 7567-012-026 7567-012-030756 7-01 7-0 42 7 5 6 7- 0 1 7 - 0 1 6 7 5 6 7- 0 1 7-0 2 8 7567-012-0297567-017-0467567-017-013 7569-00 9-0 11 7 5 6 7 -0 1 3 -0 0 9 Environmental Sensitive Areas (Sheet 2 of 3)City of Rolling Hills 0 200 400 FeetZ Source: ESRI 2021 Biological Study Area Drainages Environmental Sensitive Areas Project Parcels 104 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 7567-013-007 7567-012-031 7567-017-017 7 5 6 7 -0 1 2 -0 2 3 7567-012-032 7567-013-0087567-012-0167567-013-0067 5 6 7 -0 1 2 -0 2 5 7567-012-027 7567-013-0097 5 6 7 -0 1 3 -0 1 0 7567-017-043 7567-012-026 7567-012-0307 5 6 7- 0 1 7 - 0 1 6 7567-012-0297567-017-0467567-017-013 7 5 6 7 - 0 1 7 - 0 2 8 7567-017-042 Environmental Sensitive Areas (Sheet 3 of 3)City of Rolling Hills 0 200 400 FeetZ Source: ESRI 2021 Biological Study Area Drainages Environmental Sensitive Areas Project Parcels 105 Attachments Rolling Hills Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Attachment G Hazardous Waste Sites Map 106 ATTACHMENT G. HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESCity of Rolling Hills - Vegetative Management Mitigation Project Source: ESRI 2019. Project Location Sources: CA State Water Resources Control Board 2021. Project Location 107 Statutory Exemptions. State code number: _______________________________________________ Print Form Notice of Exemption Appendix E From: (Public Agency): ____________________________To: Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk (Address) ___________________________ ___________________________ County of: __________________ Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific: Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County: Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: _____________________ Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one): Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); Reasons why project is exempt: Lead Agency Contact Person: ____________________________ Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________ If filed by applicant: 1.Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2.Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ____________________________ Date: Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR: Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________ Title: _______________________ Revised 2011 Approximately 25 acres of Rolling Hills on the north and south side of Crest Road West at Quail Ridge Road. The proposed treatment area would focus on the area 100 feet to 200 feet from structures, extending into the canyon up to 1,000 feet where necessary. 108 Agenda Item No.: 8.A Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:6TH CYCLE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: State law requires all cities and counties in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of their General Plans. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years and certified by the State. Through the Housing Element, each jurisdiction must demonstrate that it is accommodating its fair share of the region’s housing needs and taking proactive measures to accommodate housing of all types for persons of all incomes. All cities and counties are subject to this requirement, regardless of their size, physical constraints, or real estate market characteristics. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established an adoption process for the Housing Element that requires the following: City prepares a “Draft” Element City circulates the Draft for 30 days and then submits it to HCD, incorporating any changes that occur during the review HCD has 90 days to review the Draft and then issues a comment letter to the City City revises the Element in response to HCD comments City adopts the Housing Element (Planning Commission hearing and City Council hearing, and CEQA compliance as needed) with the revisions City resubmits the adopted Draft to HCD for a formal compliance determination HCD has 60 days to make their final determination If the City is found non-compliant after the final step, it must amend the adopted document and resubmit it with the necessary changes. This requires additional public hearings. The City has completed the first of these steps and is now in the second step. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was published on December 3, 2021. The City provided notice of the document in its Blue Newsletter, meaning that every Rolling Hills household was advised of the document’s availability for review. It also sent notices, including a link to the document and an explanation of its 109 purpose, to several dozen housing and supportive service organizations in the South Bay/Peninsula area. A Planning Commission hearing was convened on December 16, 2021 to provide an opportunity for public comments and request feedback from Commissioners. As required by State law, the City accepted public comments for 30 days, ending January 3, 2022. No public comments were received. The next step in the process is to hold a City Council hearing and submit the document to HCD for their review. If the City Council approves transmittal of the Draft to the State at its January 10th hearing, the Draft will be submitted to HCD on January 11. The City will request an “expedited review” by HCD in order to meet a statutory deadline of February 12, 2022 for adoption. If HCD can provide comments on the Rolling Hills Draft by the of end of January, the City will revise its Element and bring it forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption immediately thereafter. If HCD does not provide comments by the end of January, the City will revise the Element when it receives the comments and return to the Planning Commission in Spring 2022. It should be noted that as of January 4, 2021, none of the 89 cities in Los Angeles County had submitted a Housing Element that was deemed compliant with the 6th Cycle requirements. According to HCD’s website as of January 4, the status of Elements in the County was as follows: 12 cities have adopted their 6th Cycle Elements and are awaiting a determination from HCD 68 cities have submitted their Drafts but have not adopted their Elements. In most cases, HCD has issued comment letters to these cities laying out the steps needed to become compliant and the cities are working with HCD to address objections. In some cases (cities submitting drafts in November and December), the comment letters have not yet been issued. 9 cities, including Rolling Hills, have not submitted their Elements. Rolling Hills faced a delay in its 6th Cycle Housing Element, as it was only just deemed compliant for the 5th Cycle in July 2021. Work on the 6 th Cycle began in August 2021 and was completed at the end of November. DISCUSSION: The Housing Element must demonstrate that Rolling Hills has the capacity to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigned by the Southern California Association of Governments. It must further demonstrate that the City is planning to meet the housing needs of its existing and potential future residents and is “affirmatively furthering fair housing” as required by State law. The housing allocation for Rolling Hills for 2021-2029 is 45 units, including: 20 very low-income units 9 low-income units 11 moderate-income units 5 above moderate-income units Each city must plan for the type of housing it has been assigned. In the case of very low- and low- income units, this typically requires sites that are zoned for multi-family housing. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) may be counted as low- and moderate-income units if the City has sufficient data on rents and construction trends to support its conclusions. 110 The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes the following contents: An Introduction that describes the purpose of the document and the update process An Evaluation of the last Housing Element (certified by HCD in July 2021) Housing Needs Assessment Housing Opportunities and Resources, which includes an analysis of potential housing sites and the potential for ADUs Constraints to Housing Production, including zoning, standards for different housing types, permitting processes, fees, and code requirements---as well as land and construction costs, CC&Rs, infrastructure, and environmental constraints Housing goals, policies, objectives, and programs Three appendices, one of which is new (Appendix A) and two of which are carried over from the prior Housing Element (Appendices B and C) Appendix A is the State-mandated fair housing evaluation Appendix B is an analysis of the Rancho Del Mar School site Appendix C presents the results of the November 2020 ADU survey The Housing Element concludes that the City can meet its RHNA as follows: 3 single family homes (on vacant lots) that have been approved but not yet built 9 ADUs that were approved in 2021 but are not yet finished or occupied 16 units of lower income housing on the Rancho Del Mar site (previously rezoned) 5 ADUs per year over eight years (2022-2029) The Element provides data supporting the finding that at least 13 of the future ADUs will be affordable to lower income households based on data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City’s 2020 ADU resident survey, and local real estate ads. The forecast of 5 ADUs per year is based on the City’s track record of approving nine ADUs in 2021 alone. Much of the program focus of the Housing Element is on ADU production. No rezoning is proposed. The Element recommends an ADU roster, a list of potential ADUs, an annual ADU survey, coordination with RHCA on the review of ADUs, potential grant funding for “pre-approved” ADU plans and septic tank improvements, additional outreach to residents on ADU opportunities, and an update to the RHCA design guidelines to acknowledge ADUs. The Element also proposes monitoring opportunities on the Rancho Del Mar site and coordinating with the Palos Verdes Peninsula School District and non-profit development community on the potential for housing there. It further proposes minor zoning amendments to comply with state laws regarding supportive housing, transitional housing, and employee housing. The Element also proposes retaining a third-party fair housing services provider to handle fair housing outreach and case management in the City. Most of the other programs are carried forward from the prior Housing Element, including ongoing code enforcement and energy conservation programs, and sewer feasibility studies. NEXT STEPS: Assembly Bill 215, which was adopted in September 2021, gives HCD 90 days to review the Draft Housing Element prior to issuing its comment letter. Assuming the City submits its Draft on January 11, HCD must issue its letter by April 11, 2022. The City intends to request an expedited review of its Element, asking that HCD comments be provided by January 31. The expedited review would facilitate adoption of the Element by February 12, 2022, which is the statutory deadline for the Sixth Cycle. However, there are a number of challenges to making this deadline, including review times associated 111 with required CEQA documents and the ability to respond to HCD comments and publish a revised document prior to adoption. There are also many other cities requesting expedited review. When the HCD comment letter is received, staff anticipates that revisions will be required prior to certification. Not one of the 191 cities in the SCAG region has received a letter from HCD indicating their Element was “ready for adoption” upon HCD’s first review. Revision is typically an iterative process and often requires multiple meetings with State reviewers. The initial HCD comment letter will be provided to the City Council when it is received, and possible revisions will be discussed at that time. Certification is important to avoid potential fines, penalties, and litigation. Ultimately, the City’s goal is to have a certified Element that meets State requirements while responding to Rolling Hills’ land use pattern, community character, natural hazards, and infrastructure constraints. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): A CEQA document is being prepared to consider the impacts of updating both the Housing Element and Safety Element. These updates are policy documents that would not result in direct development or construction. As such, a Negative Declaration is being prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines since no significant impacts to the environment will occur with adoption of these updates. The Negative Declaration will be issued and circulated when the updates are being considered for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT: The Housing Element is a planning document that establishes policies for the City and will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City once implemented. The City will be reimbursed $65,000 from the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to partially cover costs of preparing the 5th and 6th Cycle Housing Elements. Remaining costs will come from the General Fund. Certification of the Housing Element provides an indirect positive fiscal impact by reducing legal risks and qualifying the City for State planning grants. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to forward the “HCD Draft” 6th Cycle Housing Element to HCD for review and comment. ATTACHMENTS: RollingHillsHCDDraftHousingElement-120321.pdf HousingElementPresentation-011022.pdf 112 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT Draft for HCD Review Published December 3,2021 113 As required by State law, this document is being circulated for public comment and review for 30 days, beginning on December 3, 2021. In the event comments are received, another 10 days will be provided to incorporate edits and recirculate the document. The Draft will be considered at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. It will then be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), who will issue a comment letter identifying necessary revisions. Once revisions are made,the document will be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. It will then be resubmitted to HCD for formal certification. 114 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029 Draft for HCD Review CONTACT: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Contact: John Signo, AICP jsigno@cityofrh.net Published December 3, 2021 115 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Rolling Hills City Council Bea Dieringer, Mayor James Black, M.D., Mayor Pro-Tem Leah Mirsch, Councilmember Jeff Pieper, Mayor Patrick Wilson, Councilmember Rolling Hills Planning Commission Brad Chelf, Chair Greg Kirkpatrick, Vice-Chair Sean Cardenas, Commissioner Jana Cooley, Commissioner Abby Douglass, Commissioner City Staff Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager John Signo, Planning and Community Services Director Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Stephanie Grant, Code Enforcement Officer/ Planner Consultants Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting 116 i FOREWORD This document has been prepared to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65580-65589, which mandate that all California cities and counties adopt a Housing Element to address local and regional housing needs. The Housing Element is part of the Rolling Hills General Plan and covers the time period 2021-2029. State law requires that the Housing Element is updated every eight years and submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for certification. Certification of the Housing Element is based on a determination that the City has complied with a variety of State laws addressing regional issues such as affordability, fair housing, density, housing type, overcrowding, and homelessness. These laws apply universally to all cities, including those with limited services and land capacity. As a community within the Greater Los Angeles region, the City of Rolling Hills is obligated to provide for its “fair share” of regional housing needs as determined by the Southern California Association of Governments. Cities without certified Housing Elements are subject to legal and financial penalties, the loss of eligibility for grants which help fund City operations, and even the potential loss of local control over building and land use decisions. For these reasons, it is in the City’s best interest to strive for a compliant element. In adopting this Element, the City has endeavored to balance State mandates with the overarching goal of preserving the semi-rural, equestrian character of Rolling Hills. The Housing Element responds to local as well as regional needs, including the need to preserve the community’s environment, minimize further exposure to wildfire and landslide hazards, and recognize infrastructure and public facility constraints. 117 ii Rolling Hills Housing Element 2021-2029 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FOREWORD .................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. ii 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Community Overview ............................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Legislative Requirements ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.................................................... 1-5 1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions ................................................... 1-6 1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline ........................................................... 1-6 1.7 Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 1-8 2. EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT ............................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 2014-2021 RHNA and Actual Housing Production ........................................... 2-1 2.3 Review of Prior Housing Element Goals and Policies ....................................... 2-2 2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs ........................... 2-4 3. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Population Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Household Characteristics ................................................................................... 3-9 3.4 Populations with Special Needs......................................................................... 3-17 3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................................................... 3-26 3.6 Future Housing Needs ........................................................................................ 3-32 118 iii Section Page 4. HOUSING SITES .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Approved or Pending Development .................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Vacant Sites ............................................................................................................ 4-2 4.4 Lot Splits ................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.5 Non-Vacant Sites ................................................................................................... 4-6 4.6 Accessory Dwellings ........................................................................................... 4-12 4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA .................................................................... 4-14 4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ............................................................ 4-15 4.9 Financial Resources ............................................................................................ 4-17 5 CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION ................................................ 5-1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Governmental Constraints .................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints ......................................................................... 5-19 6 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES, AND PROGRAMS ................... 6-1 6.1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029 ......................................................... 6-4 6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives ................................................. 6-2 APPENDIX A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Analysis ........................................................ A-1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ A-1 Duty of All Agencies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing .................................... A-3 Integration and Segregation ....................................................................................... A-4 Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................... A-14 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................. A-20 Local Data and Knowledge ....................................................................................... A-27 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors ........................................ A-28 Summary of Fair Housing Issues and Additional Fair Housing Concerns .......... A-30 APPENDIX B: Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site ......................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Findings ............................................................................. C-1 119 iv Figures Page 1.1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 1-1 4.1 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites ............................................................................... 4-5 4.2 Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated ....................................................................................... 4-7 5.1 Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site ................................................................................. 5-9 5.2 Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills ................................................................... 5-27 5.3 Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity ......................................................... 5-28 5.4 CalFIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ....................................................... 5-29 A-1 AFFH Percentage of Residents who are Non-White ............................................... A-6 A-2 AFFH Diversity Index ................................................................................................... A-7 A-3 AFFH Percentage of Residents with a Disability ...................................................... A-8 A-4 Low Moderate Income (LMI) Areas ......................................................................... A-10 A-5 Median Income by Census Tract Block Group ...................................................... A-11 A-6 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ...................... A-12 A-7 Environmental Outcomes .......................................................................................... A-16 A-8 Economic Outcomes .................................................................................................. A-17 A-9 Education Outcomes .................................................................................................. A-18 A-10 Composite Opportunity Map..................................................................................... A-19 A-11 Cost-Burdened Homeowners ................................................................................... A-22 A-12 Cost-Burdened Renters ............................................................................................. A-23 A-13 Incidence of Overcrowding ....................................................................................... A-24 A-14 Percent of Households with One or More Severe Housing Problems ............... A-25 A-15 Sensitive Communities .............................................................................................. A-26 Tables 2.1 Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs .......................... 2-4 3.1 Rolling Hills Population, 1970-2021 .............................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Comparison of Rolling Hills Growth with Nearby Cities and Region ........................ 3-3 3.3 Race and Ethnicity in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, LA County, and State .......... 3-5 3.4 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Occupation ....................................................... 3-8 3.5 Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Industry.............................................................. 3-8 3.6 Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 2021 ............................................................ 3-13 3.7 Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits ........................ 3-13 3.8 Rolling Hills Households by HUD Income Category ................................................. 3-14 3.9 Household Income in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County .................... 3-15 3.10 Percent of Income Spent on Housing in Rolling Hills and LA County .................... 3-16 3.11 Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions ............................................. 3-17 3.12 Percent of Rolling Hills Residents with a Disability ................................................... 3-20 3.13 Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Household ...................................... 3-23 3.14 Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021 .................................................................. 3-31 3.15 RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle ........................................................... 3-32 3.16 Comparison of 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category ............................................... 3-33 4.1 Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA Period ....................................... 4-1 4.2 Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites .................................................................................. 4-3 4.3 Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029 ...................................................... 4-14 5.1 Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards ................................................................ 5-4 5.2 City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees ............................................................ 5-17 6.1 Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills, 2021-2029 .................... 6-20 6.2 Housing Element Action Plan Summary..................................................................... 6-20 120 v Charts 3.1 Age Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020....................................... 3-4 3.2 Racial Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020 ................................... 3-4 3.3 Household Type in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County, 2021 ............................ 3-10 3.4 Household Size in Rolling Hills and Other Jurisdictions, 2010 and 2021 .............. 3-11 3.5 Total Number of Housing Units in Rolling Hills, 1990-2020 ..................................... 3-26 3.6 Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes ............................................................ 3-27 3.7 Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and LA County 3-28 3.8 Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and LA County ............................... 3-30 A-1 Summary of AB 686 Requirements .............................................................................. A-1 121 vi 122 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Housing Element is to ensure that a safe, decent supply of housing is provided for current and future Rolling Hills residents. The Element strives to conserve existing housing while providing opportunities for new housing serving a variety of income levels. State law mandates that all municipal governments prepare and maintain a Housing Element as a component of their General Plans. The following five sections are required: 1. Evaluation of the previous Housing Element 2. Assessment of local housing needs based on demographics, economic, and housing conditions 3. Inventory of potential sites for housing development 4. Analysis of City regulatory framework related to housing development 5. Goals and policies for housing, coupled with specific action programs to be implemented in the coming years. In addition, the Element must demonstrate the steps the City is taking to promote fair housing practices, and to proactively develop housing for all income groups. The Housing Element describes how the City will provide for its fair share of the region’s housing needs over the eight- year planning period (2021 to 2029). It identifies new programs to be implemented, along with on-going programs that create housing opportunities in Rolling Hills. The Housing Element is the only part of the General Plan that is subject to review and certification by a State agency. Adopted Elements must be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD determines if the Element meets the requirements of the California Government Code, which apply equally to all cities and counties of the state regardless of the community’s size, physical constraints, or resources. A compliance determination is important to maintain eligibility for State grants, avoid costly lawsuits, and maintain local control over local land use and building decisions. 123 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-2 Figure 1.1: Vicinity Map 1.2 Community Overview The city of Rolling Hills is a rural, equestrian residential community, consisting entirely of large lot residential parcels of one acre or more. The community encompasses 2.99 square miles of land (approximately 1,910 acres) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the County of Los Angeles (Refer to Figure 1.1, Vicinity Map). The 2020 Census indicates a citywide population of 1,739 residents, making Rolling Hills the fifth smallest of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. The land use pattern in Rolling Hills was established in 1936 with the original subdivision and sale of parcels. American landscape architect A.E. Hanson designed the community in the 1930s, establishing an historic Southern California design aesthetic that remains today, 85 years later. Well-known architects like Cliff May and Wallace Neff designed some of the early homes, contributing to the community’s historic context. The entire city is characterized by single-story California ranch-style homes on large lots with three-rail fences and equestrian facilities. There are three points of ingress and egress to the city, each of which has a controlled entry gate. Rolling Hills was planned and conceived to balance development with nature and respect the area’s rugged topography. The community was laid out on hilly terrain, with narrow, winding roads traversing steep, wooded canyons. Minimum lot size requirements were established to recognize the area’s many natural constraints, including geologic hazards, wildfire, and sensitive biological resources. Source: Google Maps, 2021 124 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-3 The natural landscape is characterized by steep slopes of 25 to 50 percent. Underlying this terrain are ancient landslides, occasionally causing damage or even destroying property, roads, and infrastructure. The City carefully regulates grading and earth movement to protect public safety and minimize the potential for property damage. Geologic studies and grading requirements also add to housing costs. The entire city lies within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. This is the most constrained designation used by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and requires restrictive construction standards such as the boxing in of eave projections and use of construction materials approved by the California Fire Marshal. Professionally designed landscaping meeting Fire Department fuel reduction standards (i.e., fire-resistant plants around structures) also is required. Fire hazards are complicated by an aging water distribution system, and the high cost of water system improvements on steep terrain. Rolling Hills is also home to a number of sensitive plant and animal species, several of which are listed or being considered for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and Brackishwater Snail. The community is also underlain with blue-line streams that are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The City’s infrastructure is scaled to meet the needs of a mature, rural community with severe natural hazards. Its water distribution system is designed for very low-density residential land uses. Wastewater treatment generally occurs through private septic tanks. Only a few parcels on the western periphery of the city have access to sanitary sewer. All roads in the community are private and many were built 60 to 80 years ago before modern emergency vehicle standards were in place. Housing policies and programs in Rolling Hills reflect the city’s natural hazards, lack of developable land, and infrastructure limitations. In the past, the City has complied with Government Code housing requirements in ways that respond to these inherent physical constraints. For example, Rolling Hills has adopted provisions for accessory dwelling units in all of its zoning districts, permitted manufactured housing units, and created an affordable housing overlay zone on its most developable land. Its policies also emphasize conservation and maintenance of the existing housing stock, much of which is over 60 years old. 1.3 Legislative Requirements The provision of adequate housing for families and individuals of all economic levels is an important public goal and has been a focus for state and local governments for more than five decades. Local governments have been required to prepare Housing Elements since 1969. The required contents of the Element have expanded significantly over this time, in response to rising housing costs, increasing competition for resources, and a growing population of individuals with special needs that cannot be met by the private sector alone. 125 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-4 1.3.1 Government Code Requirements State law requires each municipality to perform the following tasks: • Identify and analyze the current and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. • Evaluate current and potential constraints to meeting those needs, including constraints due to the marketplace and those imposed by the government. • Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. • Inventory and assess the availability of land suitable for residential use. • Establish goals, objectives, policies and programs aimed at responding to identified housing needs, market and governmental constraints, and housing opportunities. 1.3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation As part of the Housing Element process, the State of California determines the total need for housing in each region of California. For the 2021-2029 period, the State determined that the need for the six county Southern California region was 1,341,827 housing units. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for allocating this total to each of the six counties and 191 cities in the SCAG area. This process is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and occurs every eight years. SCAG calculates each city and county’s “fair share” of the regional need using a computer model that weighs factors such as existing population and employment, growth potential, proximity to transit, and social equity. For each jurisdiction, SCAG distributes the RHNA among four different income groups. This ensures that each city or county is planning for housing that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, including lower income households. Each city in California is required to plan for its RHNA. This does not mean the cities must acquire land or construct housing. Rather, it means that they must identify sites where the RHNA can be accommodated and adopt policies and regulations which facilitate housing construction on those sites. Ultimately, the responsibility for constructing housing falls to the private market and non-profit housing developers. Cities are expected to assist by adopting “The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order. The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels.” California Government Code, Section 65580 126 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-5 development standards that support housing at a variety of densities, providing technical assistance and infrastructure, and adopting policies that encourage housing production, conservation, and assistance to persons with special needs. In Rolling Hills, the RHNA for 2021-2029 is 45 units. This includes 20 very low income units, 9 low income units, 11 moderate income units, and 5 above moderate income units.1 The 2021- 2029 Housing Element demonstrates that the City has the capacity to accommodate this assignment. 1.3.3 HCD Review Authority and Compliance Requirements Once the Housing Element is adopted, it is submitted to HCD to determine whether, in HCD’s view, the Housing Element “substantially complies” with state Housing Element Law. HCD’s compliance determination is based in part on a detailed checklist corresponding to specific requirements set forth by the Government Code. Once certified, HCD still has the authority to find a city out of compliance if it finds that city is taking actions that are inconsistent with its Housing Element or failing to implement the programs listed in its Element. Localities without an HCD-certified Housing Element are subject to a growing number of penalties and potential risks. This includes litigation from housing organizations, developers, and HCD itself. In addition to legal costs, potential consequences include suspension of local control of building matters and court approval of housing development. Courts can also levy costly fines on local governments and mandate streamlined and less rigorous approvals. Cities also become ineligible for numerous state local funding programs, including those supporting infrastructure and roads, as well as housing and planning. 1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements The Government Code requires internal consistency among the various elements of a General Plan. Section 65300.5 of the Government Code states that “the General Plan and the parts and elements thereof shall comprise an integrated and an internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” The Rolling Hills General Plan contains the following six elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Housing; 3) Circulation; 4) Open Space and Conservation; 5) Safety; and 6) Noise. The General Plan is internally consistent, meaning that the policies in different elements complement and support one another. The Housing Element reflects the policy direction provided by the other General Plan elements. For example, it references the residential densities established in the Land Use Element and the natural constraints identified in the Safety Element. The City amended its Land Use Element in early 2021 to maintain consistency with its new Housing Plan. It is also revising its Safety Element to comply with new provisions of the Government Code that are triggered by amendments to the General Plan, including adoption of a new Housing Element. 1 See Section 3.2.5 of this document for a definition of these income categories 127 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-6 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the City will annually review its progress in implementing this Housing Element. This review will help ensure consistency between this Element and the other General Plan Elements. 1.5 Relationship to Private Land Use Restrictions Most of the developable property in Rolling Hills is subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a non-profit California Corporation and homeowners association. RHCA is governed by elected Rolling Hills residents and oversees and enforces implementation of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs run with each property in perpetuity and cover all properties in the City except those listed below: 1. City Hall Complex 2. Tennis Court Facility 3. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District property 4. Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center CC&Rs represent private contractual obligations between homeowners and are usually established at the time a subdivision or community is built. Development in Rolling Hills has been governed by CC&Rs since the community was planned in the 1930s. The RHCA and the CC&Rs were in force prior to the City’s incorporation, which occurred in 1957. The City of Rolling Hills has no jurisdiction over the RHCA or the content or implementation of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs limit the density on most parcels in Rolling Hills to one residence per one-acre or two-acre lot. In addition, any construction, remodel, or grading for a building, fence or structure is required under the CC&Rs to adhere to traditional or California ranch and equestrian architectural styles and aesthetics. The uses and purposes of all perimeter easements around each property are required to be dedicated to the RHCA and maintained for the purposes of ingress, egress, construction, and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed as roadways, bridle trials, storm drains, utility access and drainage. In some instances, State law may supersede the authority of CC&Rs. For example, AB 670 (Cal Civil Code 4751—effective January 1, 2020) limits CC&Rs from placing unreasonable limitations on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). To the greatest extent feasible, the programs in this Housing Element reflect the requirements of State law while maintaining the integrity of the CC&Rs. CC&Rs that directly conflict with State or Federal law are not enforceable. 1.6 Public Participation and Project Timeline The City of Rolling Hills has made a diligent effort to engage the community in the Housing Element update. The process was structured as a continuation of the previous (2014-2021) Housing Element update, which included an initial phase in 2013-14 when the Element was adopted and a second phase in 2020-2021 when the adopted Element was amended and resubmitted to the State for a compliance determination. The 2020-2021 amendments coincided with the Sixth Cycle engagement processes that were underway throughout Southern 128 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-7 California cities at that time. Although the focus of the 2020-2021 effort was on Fifth Cycle compliance, the process provided an opportunity to engage the community in a broader conversation about housing, the RHNA process, and new State requirements. SCAG began the RHNA process for the Sixth Cycle in Fall 2019, exploring different methodologies for allocating the regional need to individual cities and counties. As other cities began work on their Sixth Cycle Elements, Rolling Hills was required to first amend its Fifth Cycle Element to accommodate both the current (Fifth) cycle and the prior (Fourth) cycle RHNA allocations due to its non-compliant status. The combined RHNA for the two cycles was 28 units. Accommodating this need meant that Rolling Hills was also required to amend its General Plan and zoning to create additional housing capacity. The City held a public hearing on the Housing Element on November 25, 2019. The meeting focused on potential sites for rezoning and related development impacts. The meeting was widely noticed through advertisements in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, an announcement in the City newsletter, posting at City Hall, and an email to the City’s interested parties list. The Draft RHNA numbers were published in March 2020. Rolling Hills did not appeal its allocation, instead focusing its efforts on continued outreach and engagement to certify the Fifth Cycle Element and lay the groundwork for the Sixth Cycle. This outreach included nine public hearings related to the Housing Element on the following dates: • October 20, 2020 (Planning Commission) • November 9, 2020 (City Council) • December 22, 2020 (Planning Commission) • January 25, 2021 (City Council) • February 5, 2021 (Planning Commission) • February 8, 2021 (City Council) • February 22, 2021 (City Council) • March 8, 2021 (City Council) • March 16, 2021 (Planning Commission) The outcome of these meetings included adoption of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, new provisions for by-right affordable multi-family housing and emergency shelter, amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and various changes to the Municipal Code to facilitate housing production. On June 1, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the amended Fifth Cycle Housing Element. The Council took action on June 14, 2021. The Element was submitted to HCD and found to be in compliance on July 7, 2021. As a result of the compliance determination, the City does not have to carry over its prior allocation and may plan only for the 45 units identified in the Sixth Cycle RHNA. In addition to the public hearings described above, staff conducted direct outreach to Rolling Hills residents in 2020 and 2021 through newsletters, including a survey on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) administered to every household in the city. More than 30 percent of the city’s households completed the survey, and a report on the findings was prepared (it is included as Appendix C to this Element). The City continued its public outreach efforts after adoption of the revised Element in July 2021. 129 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Introduction Page 1-8 A special session of the Planning Commission was convened on October 19, 2021 to provide an overview of the Sixth Cycle Element and solicit input from the entire community. In addition, public hearings on the HCD Draft Element were convened by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2021 and by the City Council on January 10, 2022. Additional public hearings will be held after the document is revised and presented for adoption. The City has endeavored to solicit input from all economic segments of the community, including local renters as well as homeowners. City staff has also engaged service providers, the development community, and partner agencies such as the School District in the process. As a small community, most residents rely on the City newsletter for information on local government affairs. The City has featured the Housing Element in newsletter articles and encouraged residents to share their views on proposed housing policies. Publication of the “HCD Review Draft” was announced in the City’s newsletter during the first week of December 2021. More than 30 stakeholder organizations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and in the South Bay, Los Angeles, and Long Beach regions were notified of the document’s availability for 30- day review and comment. 1.7 Data Sources The Housing Element is a data-driven document, with policies and programs that are based on analyses of demographics, housing conditions, resource constraints, and forecasts. The primary data sources consulted were: • Rolling Hills General Plan, as amended • Rolling Hills Municipal Code • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, adopted March 4, 2021 • SCAG “pre-approved” Housing Element data set for Rolling Hills, 2020 • City of Rolling Hills Planning Department records (building permits, etc.) • American Community Survey, 2015-2019 • US Census (1990, 2000, 2010) • US Census August 12, 2021 data release from the 2020 Census • Department of Finance Table E-5, population and housing estimates, 2010-2021 • California Economic Development Department (EDD) Labor Force Data • Rolling Hills Local Hazard Mitigation Plan • County of Los Angeles (data on homelessness) 130 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-1 2.0 Evaluation of Prior Housing Element 2.1 Purpose Government Code Section 65588 requires each local government to periodically review its housing element to: (1) Evaluate the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal, which is to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian. (2) Evaluate the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. (3) Discuss the progress of the city or county in implementation of the housing element. 2.2 2014-2021 RHNA and Actual Housing Production The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the prior (2014-2021) period was six units. This included two very low income units, one low income unit, one moderate income unit, and two above moderate income units. Rolling Hills also had a “carry-over” requirement of 22 units from the prior (2006-2013) planning period, including six very low, four low, four moderate, and eight above moderate income units. The 2014-2021 Housing Element identified the capacity to meet the combined two-cycle (2006-2021) need. Actual housing construction during 2014-2021 was five units. There were four new market rate (e.g., “above-moderate income”) single-family homes completed on previously vacant lots over the 2014-2021 period.1 Another three single family homes were approved on vacant lots but have not yet been constructed. There was one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) completed. It is estimated to be a moderate-income unit based on its size (720 square feet). Another six ADUs were approved between September 2020 and September 2021.2 Three more were pending as of October 15, 2021. All of these units will become available for occupancy during the Sixth Cycle. There were no new low or very low-income units recorded during the Fifth Cycle, although lower income households may have secured housing in the city through room rentals, on-site employment (caregivers, etc,), or housing provided at nominal or no charge (family members, domestic staff, etc.). Production of deed-restricted lower-income housing units during the 2014- 2021 planning period was constrained by the high cost of land and construction, limited opportunities for multi-family housing, and limits to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development during the first half of the planning period. The latter two constraints were removed over the course of the planning period, placing the City in a better position to meet its targets during the upcoming 2021-2029 period. 1 There were also 12 new homes built on sites that previously included single family homes, with no net gain in units (e.g., “tear downs”) 2 The six ADUs approved in 2020-2021 were in various states of completion in October 2021 and are all counted toward the Sixth Cycle RHNA rather than the Fifth Cycle. 131 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-2 2.3 Review of Prior Housing Element Goals and Policies The next section of this chapter systematically evaluates the policies and actions of the previous Housing Element and reports on implementation progress. The 2014-2021 Element included four goals, each of which included related policies. The goals and policies are evaluated below. 2.3.1 Progress on Goal 1: Housing that Meets the Needs of Rolling Hills Residents This goal expresses one of the main purposes of the Housing Element. It remains relevant and should be carried forward. The City worked to accomplish this goal throughout the 2014-2021 planning period through its planning, zoning, building, code enforcement, and fire safety programs. Policy 1.1 called for evaluating ways to assist special needs populations. The largest population with special needs in Rolling Hills consists of seniors, including those with disabilities. The City continues to implement programs to assist seniors with housing, transportation, emergency preparedness, and access to social services. The policy should be carried forward. Policy 1.2 called for working with other governmental entities to explore providing affordable housing in the South Bay region. This occurs on an ongoing basis through the city’s participation in SCAG, communication and liaison with developers, and meetings with planners and housing organizations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and throughout Los Angeles County. Policy 1.3 called for encouraging energy conservation and weatherization. The City implements this policy through its planning and building regulations, including Title 24. It also works with residents interested in solar installation and weatherization. Policy 1.4 expresses the City’s commitment to facilitating a variety of housing types. The City made significant progress through its creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay zone, permitting of accessory dwelling units by right, and allowance of emergency shelter and single room occupancy dwellings. Given community context, constraints, and development costs, ADUs and home sharing provide the best solution for meeting the needs of all income groups. Policy 1.5 recommends effective community participation. The City produces a twice-monthly newsletter which is delivered to all households and uses its website to keep the community informed. It has used a variety of methods, such as surveys and workshops, to involve the public. Given the community’s small size and engaged population, there is a very high level of awareness of housing issues and requirements. Policy 1.6 calls for the City to participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents. This continues on an ongoing basis. 2.3.2 Progress on Goal 2: Maintain and Enhance the Quality of Residential Neighborhoods Maintaining the city’s neighborhoods as great places to live is the fundamental purpose of the City’s General Plan. As a built out community with extreme natural hazards and constraints, this goal is primarily covered by the Land Use and Safety Elements. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to include policies in the Housing Element addressing conservation of the existing housing stock, as well as management of home alterations and additions. There are five policies in the 2013- 2021 Element, and they all remain relevant. 132 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-3 Policy 2.1 is to encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of existing homes. The City does this through its planning and building processes, and works closely with homeowners to support home improvements. Policy 2.2 requires housing that complies with building code requirements. This could be restated in the updated Element, since compliance with the building code is required under State law. Policy 2.3 requires “compatible design” that minimizes impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. This remains valid, but should reference the zoning ordinance as the source of objective design standards that clarify the meaning of “compatible design.” Policy 2.4 calls for code enforcement to maintain housing, which is still relevant. Policy 2.5 allows for ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) in all residential zones. Consistent with State law, the City implemented regulations allowing ADUs in all zones in 2018 and amended those regulations in 2020. The policy should be retained, as it provides the foundation for related regulations in the Municipal Code. 2.3.3 Progress on Goal 3: Provide Housing Services to Address the Needs of the City’s Seniors Seniors/older adults are the predominant special needs group in Rolling Hills. The Housing Element Needs Assessment confirms that a significant number of the city’s seniors have disabilities, are living alone, and may have difficulty covering their housing expenses. Policy 3.1 calls for housing reference and referral services for seniors, which is still relevant and implemented on an ongoing basis. The Rolling Hills Community Association formed a committee in 2014 to specifically focus on the needs of seniors. Policy 3.2 calls for more information on shared housing, which remains valid. Policy 3.3 recommends reverse mortgage loans for seniors with limited incomes. Given the mixed success of reverse mortgage programs, the City should consider replacing this policy with others relating to the needs of seniors. For instance, it could indicate that affordable senior housing be considered on the Rancho Del Mar site. Policy 3.4 promotes opportunities for live-in care or family members who can assist mobility-impaired or elderly residents. This remains relevant and should be carried forward. Other policies addressing the housing needs of seniors could be considered. 2.3.4 Progress on Goal 4: Fair Housing Goal 4 directs the city to “Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national origin.” The importance of this goal has been elevated by AB 686, and it should be retained. There are four policies listed in the Fifth Cycle Element to implement this goal. Policy 4.1 indicates the City should “affirm a positive action posture” and enforce all applicable laws and policies. This policy could potentially be simplified to focus on enforcement. Policy 4.2 specifically covers the needs of persons with disabilities. It should be carried forward. Policy 4.3 relates to making information on housing laws available to the community at City Hall. It is implemented on an ongoing basis but should be clarified to include information on the City’s website as well as City Hall. Policy 4.4 expresses a commitment to investigate alleged violations of fair housing laws. This should be carried forward, with reference to the partner entities the 133 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-4 City works with on such investigations. Additional policies on fair housing related to economic inclusion and opportunities for lower income households should be considered. 2.4 Implementation Status of Prior Housing Element Programs The 2014-2021 Housing Element included 24 implementation programs. Table 2-1 below indicates the status of each program as of October 2021. The table indicates whether the program has been accomplished or should be carried forward, revised, or deleted. Table 2-1: Implementation Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs Prog. Description Status 1 Prepare an annual housing progress report CARRY FORWARD. The City filed a Housing Progress Report in 2020 and should continue to do so in future years. 2 Amend the Land Use Element to permit a variety of housing types ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from the Housing Element, as it was accomplished in March 2021. The City amended its General Plan to permit by right multi-family development, emergency shelter, and single room occupancy housing in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. 3 Create an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) ACCOMPLISHED. This program may be removed from the Housing Element or merged with the program to periodically evaluate the Overlay Zone and determine if changes are needed (See Program 13). The City adopted a 31-acre Overlay in February 2021 (known as the Rancho Del Mar Overlay zone), allowing for by-right development of up to 16 units of affordable multi-family housing (20 units per acre) on the Rancho Del Mar site on Crest Road West. 4 Determine next steps for PVUSD housing opportunity CARRY FORWARD. The City Manager meets with the PVUSD Superintendent regularly to discuss issues of concern, including the future of the PVUSD property. Other aspects of Program 4, including meeting with developers and providing input to parties interested in this site, should be retained and implemented on an ongoing basis. 5 Adopt zoning for emergency shelter. ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in February 2021. The City permits emergency shelter up to 12 beds by right in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zoning district. A replacement program should be included, identifying ongoing measures the City will take to address the needs of unhoused residents. 134 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-5 Prog. Description Status 6 Adopt zoning for single room occupancy (SRO) units. ACCOMPLISHED. This action was completed in February 2021. The City permits SROs of 6-8 units as a conditional use in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zoning district, subject to objective operational and performance standards. 7 Adopt a Reasonable Accommodation Policy ACCOMPLISHED. The City of Rolling Hills adopted a Reasonable Accommodation policy in October 2020. The policy establishes a formal procedure through a which a person with disabilities may request reasonable accommodation in order to have equal access to housing. This program may be replaced with other actions to assist residents with disabilities . 8 Add definitions of Transitional/ Supportive Housing and Employee Housing to Municipal Code CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been implemented. The 2014-2021 Housing Element clarifies that supportive and transitional housing may not be subject to requirements or standards other than those that apply to similar dwelling unit types in the same zones. However, the program must still be codified through a Municipal Code amendment. 9 Adopt density bonus requirements CARRY FORWARD. This program has not yet been implemented. Any project including units eligible for a density bonus would be subject to State density bonus rules. The City should amend its Municipal Code for consistency with these rules, and expressly identify opportunities and rules for density bonuses. 10 Adopt and periodically update accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations REVISE. The City adopted ADU regulations in 2018 and amended these regulations in January 2020 to incorporate new State laws. This action should be replaced with one or more new actions related to ADUs, including incentives to promote their use as affordable housing. 11 Implement ADU education, outreach, and community engagement measures REVISE. The City has provided information on ADUs to the community since 2018 and should continue to do so in the future. Newsletter articles and web-based information have been provided and a citywide survey on ADUs was administered in 2020. Potential outreach measures are listed in the 2014-2021 Element and should be carried forward. Staff time should be allocated to these activities to ensure they are implemented. This includes coordination with Rolling Hills Community Association to ensure that design review practices do not constrain ADU production or add to their cost. Future activities could include proto- type floor plans and designs, FAQs, community workshops, and tenant matching services. 135 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-6 Prog. Description Status 12 Develop incentives to encourage ADU production REVISE. This program suggested reaching out to at least five cities and two non-profits to develop a suite of best practices for incentivizing ADUs. Based on the findings, the program recommended incentives such as fee reductions, streamlined permitting, and funding for septic system expansion to make it easier and more affordable to add ADUs. The program has not yet been implemented due to lack of staff but it remains relevant. 13 Monitor the effectiveness of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) and consider future multi- family housing opportunities REVISE. There are two parts to this program. The first is monitoring the effectiveness of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone to determine if it is achieving its intended purpose. This should be retained. The second part of the program is to evaluate other multi-family housing opportunities. This is occurring through preparation of the Sixth Cycle Element and should continue through 2029. 14 Assist Extremely Low Income (ELI) households CARRY FORWARD. This program is implemented by facilitating housing for family members, caregivers and domestic employees, and by assisting elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance, home sharing, ADU construction, and other actions that reduce housing cost burdens. The program should be carried forward. 15 Facilitate communication with affordable housing service providers, developers, and advocates CARRY FORWARD. The program recommends coordinating with affordable housing organizations to facilitate housing assistance and production for lower income households. The City implements this program on an on-going basis and should continue to do so in the future. 16 Provide public information on home sharing programs CARRY FORWARD. This program references a number of home sharing programs in Los Angeles County and suggests that Rolling Hills provide information about these programs on its website and at City Hall. This is a relatively low-cost measure that can help seniors, young adults, and local employees find housing options in the city. It should be retained. 17 Provide information about reverse mortgages DELETE. While reverse mortgages may be helpful for some households, there may also be downsides associated with high closing costs, fees, and unfavorable repayment terms. There is also a risk of fraud. The City may not wish to take an advocacy position promoting reverse mortgages due to the risks involved. Local homeowners may still consider this option should they choose to do so. The program could also be revised to focus on consumer protection issues related to reverse mortgages. 136 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-7 Prog. Description Status 18 Undertake sewer feasibility and design studies REVISE. This program should be updated to reflect the current status of sewer feasibility and design studies. A feasibility study was initiated in 2020 and design plans are nearing completion. The updated Housing Element program should reflect the findings of these studies, as well as Council direction. 19 Implement Best Management Practices to improve stormwater REVISE. The City has continued to implement municipal storm water management measures to reduce urban runoff pollution. It will continue to do so in the future as conditions and requirements change. This program could potentially be deleted or combined with Program 18. 20 Maintain code enforcement procedures REVISE. This program called for hiring a full-time Code Enforcement Officer, which was accomplished in 2019. There is an ongoing need for enforcement of planning and building codes in order to conserve housing quality and correct structural deficiencies. Violations have been consistently abated in order to maintain public safety and community standards. The program should be updated and retained. 21 Encourage energy conservation CARRY FORWARD. This program continues to be relevant and informs City actions relating to weatherization, solar installations, and other steps to reduce home energy costs and promote clean energy. The program references various links on the City’s website to energy conservation programs, and financial assistance for home energy costs. It should be carried forward. 22 Facilitate new construction and remodels CARRY FORWARD. This is a general program that encourages the City to work with applicants, builders, property owners, and others to produce new market rate housing and to facilitate permits for home improvements. It supports permit streamlining and efficiency, and transparency in the planning and building processes. It should be carried forward. 23 Explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems CARRY FORWARD. The City implements this program on an ongoing basis through requirements for soils and geology reports, as well as grading standards and grading permit requirements. It continues to allow and support repair work on landslide damaged homes and unstable hillsides. Given past damage caused by landslides and the vulnerability of parts of the city to future damage, this program should be retained. Reference could also be made to programs that reduce wildfire risk and promote defensible space. 137 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Page 2-8 Prog. Description Status 24 Make Fair Housing information available to the public REVISE. This program reflects the City’s ongoing commitment to making fair housing information available to the public. Given HCD’s guidelines for implementing AB 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), additional fair housing programs should be developed. 138 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-1 3.0 Housing Needs Assessment 3.1 Introduction Each community’s housing plan must be based on an analysis of local housing needs. This analysis is expressly required by the State Government Code (Section 65583(a)), and includes a comprehensive evaluation of local demographics, housing conditions, and market conditions. The analysis includes an assessment of household characteristics in the city, including household type, tenure (rent vs own), overcrowding, and percent of income spent on housing. It also evaluates the special housing needs of older adults, persons with disabilities, large families, and persons in need of emergency shelter. The needs assessment helps ensure that the city is not only planning for its “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, but also responding to its own local needs. Where appropriate, local conditions are compared to regional conditions or conditions in nearby cities to provide appropriate context. Rolling Hills is a very unique community and it is important to recognize that when planning for housing conservation and production. Most of the data presented in this chapter is from the American Community Survey (ACS), an ongoing survey performed by the US Census to gauge population and housing conditions in between the decennial censuses. Because most 2020 Census data was not available at the time this report was prepared, the ACS data provides the most accurate information on local demographics. ACS data for Rolling Hills in 2021 is based a five-year average covering 2015- 2019. However, the ACS is based on a sample of the population, so there is a margin of error in some of the tables. Other data sources include the California Department of Finance, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Rolling Hills. In addition, SCAG provided a “pre-HCD certified” data profile for each city in the Los Angeles region in 2019. This is referenced as appropriate throughout this chapter. The Needs Assessment is broken into five sections as follows: • Section 3.2 covers population characteristics, such as age, race, and total rate of growth • Section 3.3 covers household characteristics, such as presence of children and home ownership • Section 3.4 addresses special housing needs • Section 3.5 covers housing stock characteristics • Section 3.6 covers growth forecasts and the RHNA for the 2021-2029 period The Needs Assessment is supplemented by Appendix “A”, which looks specifically at the recent State mandate to “affirmatively further fair housing” through the Housing Element. Appendix A focuses on regional patterns of segregation and inequity in order to inform local fair housing policies. 139 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-2 3.2 Population Characteristics 3.2.1 Total Population Table 3.1 shows population data for Rolling Hills over a 50-year period. The City’s population was 2,050 in 1970 and has declined by more than 300 residents since then. Between 1980 and 1990, Rolling Hills lost nearly 9 percent of its population. The decline was the result of several factors, including smaller households, fewer children, and the loss of homes due to wildfire and landslides. Change between 1990 and 2010 was minimal. There were 1,871 residents in 1990 and 1,860 residents in 2010. The August 12, 2021 US Census data release reported a population of 1,739 residents, a 6.5 percent drop relative to 2010. The Census figure is substantially lower than the Department of Finance estimate of 1,866, which was made on January 1, 2021. Table 3.1: Rolling Hills Population, 1970-20211 Population Percent Change 1970 2,050 -- 1980 2,049 0 1990 1,871 -8.7% 2000 1,871 0 2010 1,860 -0.6% 2021 (DOF) 1,866 0.3% 2020 (Census) 1,739 -6.5% Sources: US Decennial Census, 1970-2010. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate, 2020 Census (8/12/21 release) Table 3.2 compares population change in Rolling Hills with the region, the County, and the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula using data from the California Department of Finance. The six-county Los Angeles region grew 14.4 percent between 2000 and 2021, from 16.5 million residents to nearly 19 million residents. Los Angeles County grew by 5.2 percent, reflecting its more urbanized character and larger population base. By contrast, the rate of growth on the Palos Verdes Peninsula during this 21-year period was just 1.1 percent. While Rolling Hills Estates grew by 5.5 percent, the other three cities have roughly the same number of residents today as they did 20 years ago. The Peninsula communities are mature, with limited vacant and re-developable land, high land costs, and environmental constraints that limit population growth. 1 The ACS data sets for Rolling Hills for 2015-2019 show a citywide population of 1,513 residents. This is 15 percent below the actual population, which was reported to be 1,739 residents in the 2020 Census data released on August 12, 2021. In addition, SCAG reported the population at 1,939 residents (in 2018), while the State Department of Finance reported 1,866 residents. These discrepancies are due to sampling errors resulting from the small size of Rolling Hills’ population. As a result, charts are used (rather than tables) for some of the variables discussed below. This allows the analysis to focus on change over time rather than total values. 140 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-3 Table 3.2: Comparison of Rolling Hills Growth with Nearby Cities and Region, 2000-2021 Population Percent Change 2000 2021 Rolling Hills 1,871 1,866(*) -0.3 Rolling Hills Estates 7,676 8,098 5.5 Rancho Palos Verdes 41,145 41,541 0.9 Palos Verdes Estates 13,340 13,286 -0.4 Los Angeles County 9,542,000 10,044,458 5.3 SCAG Region 16,547,000 18,954,083 14.4 Sources: US Decennial Census, 2000. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate (*) August 12, 2021 Census data release shows 1,739 residents, which is a 7.1 decrease since 2000 3.2.2 Age The age structure of the population has a strong influence on housing needs. For example, if a city is experiencing an outmigration of young adults (ages 25-34), it often indicates a shortage of rental housing or entry-level housing opportunities. If a city has a high percentage of residents over 75, it often indicates a need for special housing types, such as assisted living or single- story homes---or programs to assist with home rehabilitation. Chart 3.1 shows the age distribution of Rolling Hills residents in 2000 and 2020. The chart illustrates significant shifts, including a decrease in the number of children (from 28% of the population in 2000 to 20% in 2020) and an increase in the number of persons over 65 (from 22% of the population in 2000 to 33% in 2020). The percentage of residents aged 20-34 nearly doubled over the 20-year period, likely as a result of adult children moving back home or delaying entry into the housing market due to high housing costs. The percent of residents 35- 44 dropped significantly, likely because of limited local housing options for young families and mid-career adults. The median age in Rolling Hills has steadily increased over the last 40 years. In 1980, it was 38.2. It increased to 45.5 in 1990, 48 in 2000, and in 52 in 2010. By 2020, the median age was 55.3, meaning that half of all residents are older than 55 and half are 55 or younger. By contrast, the median age in Los Angeles County is 36.5. Rolling Hills also has a higher median age than the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling Hills Estates: 50.1; Palos Verdes Estates: 52.2; Rancho Palos Verdes: 50.0). Census data indicates that one-third of Rolling Hills’ residents over 65 are 80 or older. This cohort represents more than 10 percent of the City’s population, a substantially higher share than in most communities in California. 141 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-4 Chart 3.1: Age Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020 Source: US Census, 2000. ACS, 2021 (for 2015-2019 sample period) Chart 3.2: Racial Distribution of Rolling Hills Residents, 2000 and 2020 Source: US Census, 2000 and ACS, 2021 (for 2015-2019 sample period) 0-19 20% 20-34 9% 35-44 4%45-54 16% 55-64 18% 65+ 33% 0-19 28% 20-34 5%35-44 12% 45-54 18% 55-64 15% 65+ 22% Hispanic (any race) 6% White Non- Hispanic 70% Multi- racial 6% Black 2% Asian 15% Other 1% 2020 2000 2020 Hispanic (any race) 3% White Non- Hispanic 80% Multi- racial 2% Black 2% Asian 13% 2000 142 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-5 3.2.3 Race and Ethnicity Racial and ethnic composition may affect housing needs due to the cultural preferences of certain groups (including extended families, multi-generational families, etc). In addition, certain groups have historically faced discrimination due to the lending policies of financial institutions, former covenants and ownership restrictions, and past racial bias. Chart 3.2 shows the racial distribution of Rolling Hills residents in 2000 and 2020. The city has become more diverse over time, with the Non-Hispanic White population declining from 80 percent to 70 percent of the total. The Hispanic population (any race) roughly doubled over the 20-year period, although relative to the total population, the numbers are still small. Approximately 6 percent of the City’s residents are Hispanic. The percentage of African-American residents remained at about 2 percent of the population between 2000 and 2020. During this same period, the number of residents of Asian or Pacific Island descent increased from 13 percent to 16 percent of the city’s total. According to the Census, the largest Asian ethnic groups in the city are Chinese (6.5 percent) and Korean (5.1 percent). The number of residents indicating they were more than one race more than doubled between 2000 and 2020, with multi-racial residents representing about 6 percent of the 2020 population. Relative to the County of Los Angeles and the State of California, Rolling Hills and the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have a substantially higher White Non-Hispanic population. Table 3.3 compares race and ethnicity in Rolling Hills, the Peninsula cities, Los Angeles County, and the State as a whole. Nearly half of the County’s residents, and more than one-third of the State’s residents, are Hispanic. By contrast, less than 10 percent of the residents in the Peninsula cities are Hispanic. The Peninsula cities tend to have higher percentages of Asian and Pacific Islander residents, and more multi-racial residents. Table 3.3: Race and Ethnicity in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, Los Angeles County, and State, 2020 Percent of Total Rolling Hills Palos Verdes Peninsula* Los Angeles County State of California Non-Hispanic White 71.3% 54.4% 26.2% 37.2% Hispanic (all races) 5.8% 9.7% 48.5% 39.0% Black/ African American 1.5% 1.6% 7.8% 5.5% Native American/Alaskan N/A 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% Asian 15.6% 28.8% 14.4% 14.3% Pacific Islander/Hawaiian N/A 0.6% 0.2% 0.4% Other N/A 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% Multi-Racial 5.8% 4.7% 2.3% 3.0% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Sources: US Decennial Census, 2020. (*) Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates 143 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-6 The August 2021 release of 2020 Census data shows that the ACS may have underestimated the diversity of Rolling Hills’ population. The 2020 Census indicated that 66 percent of the city’s residents are White, 20.5 percent are Asian, 10.4 percent are more than one race, 1.3 percent are Black, and 1.9 percent are Other. The Census further indicated that 7.0 percent of the city’s residents were Hispanic (includes all races). 3.2.4 Language Based on ACS data for 2015-2019, 79 percent of the City’s residents speak only English at home.2 Of the roughly 300 Rolling Hills residents speaking a language other than English at home, 18 percent speak Spanish, 56 percent speak an Asian language, and 26 percent speak another Indo-European language. Most of these residents are bilingual and are fluent in English. About 66 percent of those speaking a foreign language at home indicated they also spoke English “very well.” Of the remaining 34 percent, about half spoke an Asian language. Korean and Chinese were the most commonly spoken languages in those households. Relative to other cities in Los Angeles County and the region, the percentage of “linguistically isolated” persons (i.e., those with limited English) is very low in Rolling Hills. Whereas about 6 percent of Rolling Hills’ population is linguistically isolated, the percentage in Los Angeles County is about 24 percent. 3.2.5 Educational Attainment Rolling Hills residents are highly educated. Among residents 25 or older, 97.6 percent have a high school degree. More than 70 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 39 percent have a graduate or professional degree. These percentages are substantially higher than in the County as a whole. 3.2.6 Health Indicators Health can impact housing needs both by limiting the income earning potential of residents and by creating the need for supportive services or special housing design. Based on data provided to the City by the Southern California Association of Governments, Rolling Hills health indicators are consistently better than the County as a whole. The City’s obesity rate is 16.5 percent, compared to a countywide average of 28.2 percent. Its asthma rate is 10.1 percent, compared to the countywide average of 15.1 percent and its diabetes rate is 8.3 percent, compared to 12.1 percent countywide. On the other hand, Rolling Hills has a higher rate of heart disease than the County as a whole, with 9.7 percent of the population diagnosed with a heart ailment compared to 6.6 percent countywide. This is likely due to the higher percentage of older residents in the city. 2 American Community Survey 2015-2019, based on residents 5 years of age or older. 144 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-7 3.2.7 Employment Employment affects the demand for housing and the dynamics of the housing market. In most cities, the types of jobs that are present affect the wages paid and the ability of the local workforce to pay for housing in the city. Rolling Hills is unique in this regard, as it has no major employers or land zoned for employment uses. In 2018, the Southern California Association of Governments estimated that there were only 110 jobs in the city.3 Employers include the City, the School District, Rolling Hills Community Association, the County Fire Department, and the Palos Verdes Transit Authority. The figure excludes construction workers, landscapers, housekeepers, child care providers, care givers, delivery workers, and others who travel to the city intermittently for work. Data from SCAG collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic indicates that a majority of employed residents in Rolling Hills commuted to jobs elsewhere in Los Angeles County. The largest percentages of residents commuted to Los Angeles (28.2%), Torrance (8.3%), and Long Beach (5.0%). Beyond Los Angeles County, the next largest commute destination was Orange County, including Anaheim (1.5%) and Huntington Beach (1.5%). A relatively large percentage of Rolling Hills residents work from home. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, census data reported that about 18 percent of the city’s employed residents worked from their homes. While data after March 2020 is not available, the percentage likely increased dramatically during the second quarter of 2020 and remained high for the rest of the year. The long-term effects of the pandemic on commute patterns are still unknown. However, the relatively large home sizes in Rolling Hills and the high percentage of the workforce in professional-sector jobs suggests that a substantial number of workers will continue to work remotely in the future. Recent data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) indicates there are 600 Rolling Hills residents in the labor force. EDD indicates an unemployment rate of 9.3 percent in June 2021, compared to a countywide average of 10.5 percent. The average annual unemployment rate in Rolling Hills was reported as 4.0 percent in 2019, when the countywide average was 4.4 percent. 4 Tables 3.4 and 3.5 provides an overview of the Rolling Hills labor force, based on census data. The first table identifies the occupation of residents in the city by category, and the second classifies employed residents by industry. A majority of the city’s residents are in higher-wage professional and management occupations. Approximately 18 percent work in health care. About 13 percent work in education, legal services, arts, and media. Only a small percentage work in the service sector, and even smaller percentages work in the construction, maintenance, and transportation sectors. The largest economic sectors associated with the Rolling Hills workforce are finance, insurance, real estate, health care, and professional, scientific, and management services. The percentage of residents employed in retail sales, wholesaling, and manufacturing is much smaller than in the county as a whole. 3 Based on data from the California Employment Development Department 4 California EDD “Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places” accessed July 2021 145 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-8 Table 3.4: Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Occupation Number of Residents Employed Percent of Total Management, business, and financial services occupations 185 32.9% Computer, engineering, and science occupations 39 6.9% Education, legal, community service, arts, and media occupations 72 12.8% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 104 18.5% Service occupations 24 4.3% Sales and office occupations 115 20.4% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 22 3.9% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 2 0.4% TOTAL 563 100.0% Sources: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 characteristics) Table 3.5: Rolling Hills Employed Residents by Industry Number of Residents Employed Percent of Total Construction 24 4.3% Manufacturing 29 5.2% Wholesale trade 43 7.6% Retail trade 30 5.3% Transport/ warehousing/ utilities 4 0.7% Information 12 2.1% Finance/ insurance/ real estate 132 23.4% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 85 15.1% Educational services, and health care and social assistance 146 25.9% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 39 6.9% Other services, except public administration 12 2.1% Public Administration 7 1.2% TOTAL 563 100.0% Sources: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 characteristics) 146 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-9 There are approximately six times more employed residents in Rolling Hills than jobs in Rolling Hills. The City is not expected to become an employment center in the future. Rolling Hills is currently a housing “reservoir” in that it provides far more housing than employment relative to other cities in Los Angeles County. Nearby communities with large employment bases rely on Rolling Hills to some extent to meet their housing needs, particularly at the upper range of the housing market. 3.3 Household Characteristics The Bureau of the Census defines a "household" as “all persons who occupy a housing unit. This may include persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are classified as living in “group quarters” and are not considered households. On the other hand, a property with an occupied accessory dwelling unit may be considered to consist of two households. Household characteristics provide important indicators of housing needs. These characteristics include household structure (families with and without children, single persons, persons sharing homes, etc.), household size (number of persons per household), tenure (renter vs owner), and household income and poverty status. Again, the US Census 2021 American Community Survey (providing sample data for 2015-2019) is regarded as the definitive source for household data and is referenced in the tables and narrative below. At the time this report was prepared, 2020 Census data for households (other than total number of households) was not yet available. 3.3.1 Household Type Census data for Rolling Hills indicates that there is no group quarters population in the city and that all residents reside in households. Data from the California Department of Finance for January 1, 2021 indicates that there were 667 households in Rolling Hills, an increase of four households from the 2010 Census. The August 2021 release of US 2020 Census data indicates that there are 639 households in the city, which is a decrease of 24 households from 2010. The US Census data is considered more accurate, as it is based on an actual count and not an estimate. Just over 81 percent of all households in Rolling Hills are classified as families. This percentage remained constant between 2010 and 2020. Non-family households include persons living alone and unrelated persons living in shared homes. Chart 3.3 shows the distribution of households by category for Rolling Hills and the County of Los Angeles. Relative to the County, Rolling Hills has a much higher percentage of married couple families (74% of all households compared to 45% countywide). The City has smaller percentages of single parent households and non-married couple households than the County and the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. A much smaller share of Rolling Hills’ residents live alone than in the County as a whole. 147 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-10 Chart 3.3: Household Type in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County, 2021 Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (2015-2019 data) The data for Rolling Hills reflects the community’s single family housing stock. For decades, the city has attracted families with children. Couples tend to keep their homes when their children are grown, resulting in a significant number of homes (more than half) occupied by older couples with adult children and empty nesters. In fact, the Census indicates that 60 percent of the married couple households in Rolling Hills include at one person over 60 years old, compared to 38 percent in the county as a whole. Household type in Rolling Hills has changed over the last 20 years. The percentage of people living alone has been increasing, growing from 12 percent of the population in 2000 to 16 percent in 2020. The percentage of households with children living at home has been decreasing. It was 33 percent in 2000 and 23 percent in 2020. 3.3.2 Household Size In 2020, the State Department of Finance reported the average household size in Rolling Hills as 2.80 persons. This is almost the same as it was in 2010, when average household size was reported at 2.81 persons. In general, average household size has been falling over time. It was 2.90 in 2000 and was reported as being 3.2 in the Rolling Hills General Plan (1989). Preliminary releases from the US Census (August 2021) show actual household size has fallen even further, and is now 2.72. ACS data indicates that 16 percent of all households in the City are comprised of one person, 52 percent have two people, 10 percent have three people, and 21 percent have four or more people. By contrast, in Los Angeles County as a whole, 26 percent are comprised of one person, 28 percent of two persons, 17 percent of three persons, and 29 percent of four or more Married w/ children under 18 at home 22% Married, no children <18 at home 52% Single parent, w/ children < 18 at home 1% Non- married couples 2% Living alone 16% Other 7% Married w/ children under 18 at home 19% Married, no children <18 at home 26% Single parent, w/ children < 18 at home 6% Non- married couples 7% Living alone 26% Other 16% City of Rolling Hills County of Los Angeles 148 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-11 persons. Rolling Hills has a much higher share of two-person households and smaller shares of one-person households and large households. Chart 3.4 compares average household size in Rolling Hills, the County, the State and the other three cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Data is shown for 2010 and 2021 for each city, based on California Department of Finance statistics. Chart 3.4: Household Size in Rolling Hills and Other Jurisdictions, 2010 and 2021 Source: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2021 3.3.3 Overcrowding Overcrowding may result when high housing costs prevent households from buying or renting homes that provide sufficient space for their needs. The Census defines overcrowded households as those with more than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, hallways, and porches. Households are considered to be “severely” overcrowded if they have more than 1.51 persons per room. Although Rolling Hills has a higher number of persons per household than the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, it does not experience overcrowding. ACS data for 2015-2019 indicate that 98.9 percent of the homes in the city have 1.0 persons per room of less. There are no households with more than 1.51 persons per room. By contrast, in the county at large, 11.3 percent of the households have more than 1.01 persons per room and 4.7 percent have more than 1.51 persons per room. Homes in Rolling Hills are generally large and owner-occupied, reducing the likelihood of future overcrowding. 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 Rolling Hills LA County California Rolling Hills Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Palos Verdes Estates 2010 2021 149 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-12 3.3.4 Tenure Tenure refers to a household’s status as an owner or renter. ACS data for 2015-2019 indicate that 95.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ households are homeowners and 4.7 percent are renters. This percentage has remained relatively constant over the last two decades. The 2010 Census indicated that 95.7 percent of the city’s households were homeowners and that 4.3 percent were renters. This equated to 28 renter households in the entire city. Because there are no multi-family units at this time, these households are presumed to be renting single family homes. Renter households in the city are slightly larger than owner-occupied households. The ACS data for 2015-2019 indicates an average household size of 3.07 for renters and 2.60 for owners. 3.3.5 Household Income Income is the single most important factor in determining housing affordability. While upper income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, lower income households are more constrained in what they can afford. The State and federal government have developed metrics for classifying households into income categories. These metrics are used to quantify what is considered an “affordable” housing unit and to determine eligibility for housing subsidies and assistance programs. All metrics are benchmarked against the areawide median income, or AMI. State-Defined Income Categories The commonly used income categories are as follows: • Extremely low income 0-30% of AMI • Very low income 30% to 50% of AMI • Low income 50% to 80% of AMI • Moderate income 80% to 120% of AMI • Above Moderate income More than 120% of AMI “Affordable housing cost” is defined by State law as being not more than 30 percent of gross household income. “Housing cost” in this context includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities, property taxes, and homeowners (or renters) insurance. The income limits are updated annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. For each income category, a sliding scale is used based on the number of persons per household. This recognizes that larger households must dedicate greater shares of their income for food, health care, transportation, and other expenses. The income categories are calculated by county, resulting in different median incomes from place to place within California. Table 3.6 shows income categories for Los Angeles County that became effective in April 2021. A two-person household earning less than $75,700 a year would be considered low income. The same household would be considered very low income if it earned less than $47,300 a year. For a household of four people, the threshold is $94,600 for low income and $59,100 for very low income. 150 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-13 Table 3.6: Income Limits for Los Angeles County, 20215 Income Category Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely Low Income $24,850 $28,400 $31,950 $35,450 $38,300 $41,150 $44,000 $46800 Very Low Income $41,400 $47,300 $53,200 $59,100 $63,850 $68,600 $73,300 $78,050 Low Income $66,250 $75,700 $85,150 $94,600 $102,200 $109,750 $117,350 $124,900 Moderate Income $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,700 $111,350 $119,050 $126,700 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021 Table 3.7 indicates the monthly housing cost that would be considered “affordable” for households of different sizes in each income category. Using the state’s definition of affordability, a low income household of four would be able to afford a monthly housing cost of $2,365. A very low income household of four could afford a monthly housing cost of $1,478. If these households are pay in excess of this amount, they are considered to be “cost-burdened.” In a high-priced market like the Palos Verdes Peninsula, many low income households pay significantly more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent or mortgages. Those employed in low-wage professions in the area may commute long distances from areas with more affordable housing. Table 3.7: Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Limits Income Category Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely Low Income $621 $710 $799 $886 $958 $1,029 $1,100 $1,170 Very Low Income $1,035 $1,183 $1,330 $1,478 $1,596 $1,715 $1,833 $1,951 Low Income $1,656 $1,893 $2,129 $2,365 $2,555 $2,744 $2,934 $3,123 Moderate Income $1,680 $1,920 $2,160 $2,400 $2,593 $2,784 $2,976 $3,168 Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021. Based on 30% of monthly income for each household Market-rate ownership housing in the Los Angeles area is generally not affordable to households who are moderate income or below. With an income of $100,000, a household of four could potentially spend $2,500 a month on their housing cost without experiencing a cost- burden. Assuming a 10 percent down-payment and 3 percent interest rate, an “affordable” home would be about $360,000. While there are a few condominiums at this price point in the region’s larger cities (Long Beach, Los Angeles, etc.), there is no housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in this range. Consequently, “below market” housing programs typically focus on rental housing for low and very low income households, and a mix of subsidized ownership housing and rental housing for moderate income households. 5 Income limits for low, very low, and extremely low income are set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, income limits for moderate income households are set by HCD based on mathematical averages of County income. Consequently, the moderate income numbers are only marginally different from the low income numbers in Los Angeles County. This is not the case in all counties. 151 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-14 Some market-rate rental units are “affordable by design”—meaning they are not subsidized but have rental prices that fall within the affordability ranges of low and moderate income households. For example, a one-bedroom apartment renting for $1,700 a month would be considered affordable to a two-person low-income household. While the supply of such units is limited on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, there are opportunities for market-rate accessory dwellings and small apartments to fill some of this need. Household Income in Rolling Hills The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of Census data each year to evaluate housing needs for lower income households. The data is referred to as “CHAS” (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data and includes documentation of the current number of owner and renter households in each HUD income category for each jurisdiction. At the time the 2021-2029 Housing Element was prepared the CHAS data set was based on 2013-2017 conditions. Table 3.8 provides CHAS data for the City of Rolling Hills. Table 3.8: Rolling Hills Households by HUD Income Category Income Category Owners Renters Total (*) Extremely Low 25 0 25 Very Low 35 10 45 Low 45 0 45 Moderate 25 0 25 Above Moderate 465 15 480 Total 595 25 620 Source: HUD User Portal CHAS data, based on 2013-2017 ACS. Accessed July 2021 (*) Total number of households does not match Census and DOF totals due to sampling methods. CHAS data is also rounded to the nearest “five” by HUD. Table 3.8 indicates that 77 percent of the households in Rolling Hills are “above moderate” income (more than 120% of Areawide Median Income). There are 25 “extremely low” income households and 45 “very low” income households in the city, representing four percent and seven percent of total households respectively. Another seven percent meet “low” income criteria. Table 3.9 provides additional data on income in Rolling Hills, using 2015-2019 American Community Survey data rather than CHAS data. Rolling Hills is among the most affluent cities in California, with a median income exceeding $250,000 a year, and a mean household income of $434,685. The Census indicates that 57.5 percent of the city’s households have annual incomes exceeding $200,000, compared to 37.8 percent for all of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities and 10.2 percent for Los Angeles County. 152 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-15 Table 3.9: Household Income in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and Los Angeles County Income Category Percent of Households in Income Category Rolling Hills Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities Los Angeles County Less than $10,000 1.2% 3.0% 5.6% $10,000-$14,999 2.6% 1.6% 4.8% $15,000-$24,999 2.6% 3.4% 8.4% $25,000-$34,999 1.2% 3.4% 8.1% $35,000-$49,999 6.1% 4.7% 11.2% $50,000-$74,999 3.8% 9.2% 15.9% $75,000-$99,999 4.2% 9.0% 12.3% $100,000-$149,999 12.7% 15.5% 15.8% $150,000-$199,999 8.1% 12.6% 7.8% $200,000 or more 57.5% 37.8% 10.2% Median Income $250,000+ $154,165 $68,044 Mean Income $434,685 $210,231 $99,133 Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) Data for Palos Verdes Peninsula cities represents weighted average of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Palos Verdes Estates While a majority of households are “above moderate” income, the ACS data indicates that 6.4 percent of Rolling Hills’ households (or approximately 42 households) have annual incomes of less than $25,000 a year. This compares to 8.0 percent for the Palos Verdes Peninsula and 18.8 percent for Los Angeles County. Approximately 7.3 percent of Rolling Hills’ households have incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, compared to 8.1 percent on the Peninsula and 19.3 percent countywide. The Census also disaggregates household income data by family households, married couples, and non-family households. Non-family households include persons living alone and unrelated individuals in shared homes. Family and married couple household incomes in Rolling Hills are higher than non-family households. Census data indicate that 27 percent of the non-family households in the city (or about 30 households) have annual incomes below $35,000 compared to just 3.1 percent for families and married couples. An important qualifier about the Census income data is that it does not account for accumulated wealth or savings and is based only on annual income. Given the high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, the very high rate of owner-occupancy (95 percent), and the large number of retired adults in the city, it is likely that most of the lower income households in the city are seniors on fixed incomes. In fact, 68 of the 108 non-family households in the city are comprised of persons over 65 living alone. Many of these households have no mortgage and their housing costs are primarily associated with property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and utilities. Despite accumulated wealth and home equity, a subset of the population on fixed incomes may lack the resources to meet these expenses without financial hardship. 153 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-16 3.3.6 Overpayment Overpayment refers to the incidence of households spending more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing costs. As noted earlier, this includes monthly utility bills, taxes, HOA dues, and insurance as well as mortgage or rent payments. Overpayment occurs in all income categories but is more challenging for lower income households given the limited resources to pay for other household expenses. As previously indicated, such households are defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as being “cost-burdened.” ACS data indicates that 30.6 percent of all homeowners in Rolling Hills and 32 percent of all renters are paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. About 18 percent of Rolling Hills homeowners are paying more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing. This compares to 16 percent in the county as a whole. Table 3.10 compares rates of overpayment in Rolling Hills with those of Los Angeles County as a whole. At the countywide level, the rate of overpayment is somewhat higher for homeowners and substantially higher for renters. In Los Angeles County, approximately 35.7 percent of all homeowners and 57.6 percent of all renters pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. Table 3.10: Percent of Income Spent on Housing in Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Percent of Income Spent on Housing Homeowners with no Mortgage Homeowners with a Mortgage Renters Rolling Hills LA County Rolling Hills LA County Rolling Hills LA County Less than 20 % 64.3% 73.4% 37.1% 30.0% 54.5% 19.7% 20-24.9 % 10.5% 6.4% 10.1% 14.5% 0 11.5% 25-29.9% 5.0% 4.2% 14.0% 12.1% 13.6% 11.2% 30-34.9% 0.8% 3.0% 7.8% 9.1% 0 9.5% More than 35% 19.3% 12.9% 30.9% 34.4% 31.8% 48.1% Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) Not surprisingly, the incidence of overpayment is much greater for homeowners with a mortgage than for those without a mortgage. In Rolling Hills, approximately 44 percent of all homeowners have paid off their mortgages, while 56 percent have a mortgage. For those without mortgages, 20.1 percent pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. For those with mortgages, the figure is 38.6 percent. Even homeowners without mortgages may still face a cost burden associated with taxes, maintenance, and other home expenses. The ACS reports that 93 percent of Rolling Hills’ homeowners with no mortgage payments still have monthly housing costs exceeding $1,000 a month. The median monthly cost for homeowners without mortgages in the city is over $1,500 a month. The comparable figures for Los Angeles County are just 20.3 percent and $608 a month. The data suggests that Rolling Hills seniors on fixed incomes may be particularly cost- burdened due to limited income, monthly HOA fees, and the high cost of maintaining a home in the city. 154 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-17 For homeowners with mortgages, monthly costs are substantially higher. ACS data shows that 89.9 percent of the city’s homeowners with mortgages spend over $3,000 a month on housing, with a median well above $4,000 a month (the maximum reported by the Census). This compares to 34.2 percent in Los Angeles County, with monthly median of $2,498. Data on the City’s renter households indicates that a majority are above moderate income households spending more than $3,000 a month on housing. However, the ACS indicates seven renter households paying $1,000 to $1,499 a month, which indicates that at least a few renters in the city occupy guest houses or unregistered accessory dwelling units. 3.4 Populations with Special Needs The California Government Code recognizes that some segments of the population have more difficulty finding decent, affordable housing than others due to their circumstances. Populations with special needs include older adults, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and persons experiencing (or at risk of) homelessness. These groups are more likely than the population at large to spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on housing. They are also more likely to face discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances. 3.4.1 Older Adults The special needs of older households result from limited income, higher rates of physical disability and health care costs, and changing life circumstances which may require assistance from others. This is the single largest special needs group in Rolling Hills, and it is growing rapidly as the population ages. Table 3.11 compares the number of older adults in Rolling Hills with the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, along with Los Angeles County. Table 3.11: Older Adults in Rolling Hills and Nearby Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Percent of all Residents over 65 Percent of all Residents over 75 Percent of households with at least one member over 65 Rolling Hills 32.9% 18.4% 56.0% Rolling Hills Estates 25.2% 13.9% 46.5% Palos Verdes Estates 27.0% 13.3% 46.8% Rancho Palos Verdes 15.5% 13.6% 44.7% Los Angeles County 13.3% 5.7% 29.7% California 14.0% 5.9% 30.8% Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) 155 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-18 The percentage of residents over 65 in Rolling Hills was 22 percent in 2000, 28 percent in 2010, and 33 percent in 2020. Moreover, 56 percent of the households in Rolling Hills include at least one person who is 65 years or older. This is almost double the rate for Los Angeles County as a whole. The percentage of Rolling Hills residents over 85 has doubled in the last 20 years, with this cohort representing 4.7 percent of the population in 2020. The percentage of older residents is likely to continue increasing in the next decade. Nearly one in five Rolling Hills residents is in the 55-64 age cohort (compared to one in nine countywide), and most of this cohort will reach retirement age during the timeframe of this Housing Element. Some of these residents, as well as those already over 65, may seek to “downsize” or adapt their homes to meet changing mobility needs and financial resources. Older adults in Rolling Hills are more likely to live alone, have one or more disabilities, and be cost-burned by housing than the population at large. Census data indicates that there are 68 households, representing roughly 10 percent of all households in Rolling Hills, comprised of a person over 65 living alone. About 70 percent are female-headed households and 30 percent are male-headed. There may be opportunities among these households for home sharing and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. This can provide financial benefits, social benefits, and an added sense of security, as well as housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income workers or other retirees in the community. At the same time, the City should anticipate an increase in homeowners seeking to adapt their homes to facilitate aging in place. This would include addition of ramps, handrails, kitchen and bath retrofits, and interior changes that improve access for wheelchairs and walkers. The Rolling Hills housing stock is well suited for these improvements, as it is limited to single story construction. Demand for on-site caregiver quarters, and living space for other domestic employees, will likely increase. At the same time, the substantial cost and demand associated with maintaining a large home and property may compel some residents to seek living arrangements that are not currently available in Rolling Hills, such as condominiums and townhomes. Some of these residents will relocate out of Rolling Hills due to diminished mobility (capacity to drive) or the need for higher levels of care. Because of resource limitations and the city’s small size, the City of Rolling Hills does not provide direct services to seniors. It works with other agencies, non-profits, and the private sector to address the housing needs of local seniors, and to connect residents with service providers. This includes maintaining a comprehensive list of facilities and service providers at City Hall, and a dedicated page on the City’s website listing available services for seniors. Rolling Hills has partnered with other Peninsula cities and local non-profits to produce a Senior Resources Guide for the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Nearby local services include: • Palos Verdes Peninsula Village, located in Rolling Hills Estates, provides social and educational activities, transportation, and advocacy for seniors in the vicinity. They provide trained volunteers to assist with routine home maintenance activities, computer troubleshooting and set-up, and other day to day activities. 156 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-19 • PV Peninsula Transit Authority Dial-A-Ride, which provides services for persons 62 or older on the Peninsula, and free taxis for medical appointments in the South Bay area. • Peninsula Seniors, a non-profit 501(c)(3) that has served the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (including Rolling Hills) since 1982. They primarily provide social activities, health and wellness programs, special events, and educational programs. • Volunteer block captains within Rolling Hills, providing wellness checks for seniors as well as emergency preparedness and response. • Homeshare South Bay matches seniors and others in the community with local housing opportunities. Homeshare South Bay is a project of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, which includes Rolling Hills. • HELP (Health Care and Elder Law Programs) is a Torrance-based organization that provides counseling to area seniors on elder care, finance, law, and consumer protection. The organization is dedicated to empowering older adults and their families. • Palos Verdes Peninsula Library District and the Peninsula Center Library (in Rolling Hills Estates) provides programs and resources for seniors. • There are senior centers in the nearby communities of Torrance, Carson, Wilmington, Harbor City, San Pedro, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, and El Segundo. In addition, the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) created a “Needs of Seniors” Committee in 2014 to address the needs of aging Rolling Hills residents. The Committee collects information and makes recommendations to the RHCA Board. Their recent efforts have focused on transportation, health and wellness, home improvement and maintenance, and social events. 3.4.2 Persons with Disabilities The number of disabled residents is increasing nationwide due to increased longevity and the aging of the population. Physical and mental disabilities can hinder access to housing as well as the income needed to pay for housing. Those with disabilities often have special housing needs related to their limited earning capacity, higher health care costs, mobility or self-care limitations, or need for supportive services. The Census recognizes six disability types in its data tabulation: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. These categories are not mutually exclusive and disabled residents may have more than one of these conditions. Current ACS data (2015-2019) for Rolling Hills indicates that 10.6 percent of the City’s population has one or more disabilities. This compares to 8.1 percent in the 2000 Census, with the increase attributable to the greater number of older adults. Rolling Hills has a slightly higher percentage of disabled residents than the county as a whole, with the ACS reporting that 9.9 percent of Los Angeles County’s residents were disabled in 2020. 157 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-20 The city’s older residents are more likely to be disabled than its younger residents. ACS data shows 23 percent of all residents over 65 have one or more disabilities, whereas only 5.5 percent of those aged 18-64 have one or more disabilities and only 1.4 percent of those under 18 have disabilities. The “over 75” population has the greatest incidence of disability, with 33.8 percent affected. Table 3.12 shows the incidence of disabilities among persons in different age groups in Rolling Hills. The most common disabilities are ambulatory (movement), with older adults most impacted. There were 103 residents reporting an ambulatory difficulty, 66 of whom were over 75. There were 56 residents reporting a hearing difficulty, 46 of whom were over 75. Cognitive difficulties were more likely to affect the younger population (particularly 18-34). This was the only category where rates among older adults were lower than among younger age cohorts. Table 3.12: Percent of Rolling Hills’ Residents with a Disability Disability Type Under 18 18-64 Over 65 Total Hearing Difficulty 0 1.0% 10.0% 3.7% Vision Difficulty 0 1.0% 2.6% 1.3% Cognitive Difficulty 1.5% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1% Ambulatory Difficulty 0 2.9% 16.5% 6.9% Self-care Difficulty 0 0.5% 6.0% 2.3% Independent Living Difficulty N/A 2.3% 8.8% 5.0% Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) There were 61 residents, including 34 residents over 75 and another 11 aged 65-74, who indicated an independent living difficulty. This represents roughly 5 percent of the City’s population and is comparable to the countywide average of 5.4 percent. These residents may require daily assistance from caregivers or family members. There is an ongoing need to adapt housing to meet the needs of those with disabilities, and to design new homes so they are accessible for all people. This may require widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, grab bars, walk-in baths and showers, and other design changes. It is important that planning and building codes support such changes, and accommodate the needs of those who are disabled or become disabled while living in the homes they currently occupy. Barrier free design is particularly important in any multi-family housing that may be constructed in the future. In 2020, the City of Rolling Hills amended its municipal code to provide “reasonable accommodation” for persons with disabilities. This complies with state and federal laws and enables those with disabilities to request modifications from standard practices or codes to meet their housing needs. 158 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-21 3.4.3 Persons with Developmental Disabilities SB 812 requires that each jurisdiction’s housing element include an analysis of housing needs for persons with developmental disabilities. This is defined by federal law as a “severe, chronic disability” that: • Is attributable to a mental of physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments • Is manifested before the individual attains age 18 • Is likely to continue indefinitely • Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: o Self-care o Receptive and expressive language o Learning o Mobility o Self-direction o Capacity of independent living o Economic self-sufficiency • Reflects the need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, of generic services, individualized support, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. Examples of developmental disabilities include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently. More severely disabled individuals may require a group living environment with training and supportive services. The most severely disabled individuals may require an institutional environment where medical services and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist in childhood, the transition from living with one’s family to living independently is an important consideration in meeting local housing needs. Data on the number of persons with developmental disabilities is maintained by the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS). DDS coordinates the efforts of a network of 21 non-profit regional centers around the state and provides funding for a variety of programs and services. Rolling Hills is served by the Harbor Regional Center, which is located in Torrance. The Harbor Center serves over 15,000 people with developmental disabilities, with a service area that includes Long Beach, the South Bay, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and other parts of southern Los Angeles County. About half are children and half are adults. Data from the DDS is provided by ZIP code. Rolling Hills city represents 7.4 percent of the 25,061 residents in ZIP code 90274. The last available report posted by DDS on their website (June 2017) indicates 154 clients served in 90274, including 65 under age 18 and 89 over age 18. If Rolling Hills’ share of the total is pro-rated, this would be equivalent to 12 clients, including five children and seven adults. ZIP code data is also disaggregated by the type of housing occupied by clients. The data indicates that 149 clients in ZIP Code 90274 live with their families or guardians and “fewer than 11” clients live in supported living, care facility, or foster home environments. Overall, about 87 percent of the Harbor Center’s clients live with their families. 159 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-22 The Harbor Regional Center is an important resource for those with developmental disabilities, and their families. It provides health assessments, advocacy, family support and training, individual case management and support, early intervention and prevention services, and assistance in finding stable and secure independent living arrangements. Additional resources in the area include the Disability Community Resource Center in Torrance and Southern California Resources Services for Independent Living. 3.4.4 Female-Headed Households with Children Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater needs for day care, health care, and other facilities. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing affordability for this group. In most communities, female-headed households are considered to be at greater risk of displacement, poverty, and housing overpayment. The 2019 ACS indicates that there were five single parent female households with children in Rolling Hills, representing less than one percent of the City’s households. The comparable figure for Los Angeles County was 5.1 percent, as the composition of households is substantially more diverse at the countywide level. ACS data for the small number of female-headed households with children in Rolling Hills may not be entirely reliable due to the small sample size. Nonetheless, the data indicate that these households were above the poverty level, and did not receive supplemental security income, SNAP/food stamps, or other public assistance income in the past 12 months. Because the very small number of female-headed households in Rolling Hills, as well as their income characteristics, they are not expected to have special housing needs that require City programs. 160 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-23 3.4.5 Large Households Large households are defined as those with five or more members. Such households are identified in State housing law as a group with special housing needs based on the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. In instances where large households have lower incomes, they may be more likely to live in overcrowded dwelling units or in units that are substandard. The problem is more acute for large households who are renters, who may face the added risk of eviction or displacement. Table 3.13 shows data on household size in Rolling Hills. The data is broken down for family and non-family households. About 12.3 percent of all households in Rolling Hills have five or more members, including 2.6 percent with seven or more members. All of these households are families. Countywide, 14.3 precent of all households have five or more members and 2.8 percent have seven or more members. The average number of rooms per unit in a Rolling Hills home is 8.3, compared to 4.6 for Los Angeles County. ACS data indicates the median annual income for large households in Rolling Hills exceeds $250,000. Given the large home sizes in Rolling Hills, the low incidence of overcrowding, and the relatively small percentage of large households, this is not a priority special needs group within the city. Larger households will continue to be housed in the city’s larger single family homes. Table 3.13: Number of Persons in Family and Non-Family Households Household Size Family Percentage Non- Family Percentage Total Percentage 1 N/A N/A 94 87.0% 94 16.3% 2 287 61.2% 14 13.0% 301 52.2% 3 59 12.6% 0 0 59 10.2% 4 52 11.1% 0 0 52 9.0% 5 51 10.9% 0 0 51 8.8% 6 8 1.7% 0 0 8 1.4% 7 or more 12 2.6% 0 0 12 2.1% Total 469 100.0% 108 100.0% 577 100.0% Source: American Community Survey, 2021 (for 2015-2019) 161 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-24 3.4.6 Residents Living in Poverty or With Extremely Low Incomes Census data indicates that 1.7 percent of Rolling Hills’ population—or about 25 residents—are below the federal poverty line. This compares to 14.9 percent for the county as a whole. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Rolling Hills residents living below the poverty include 14 people aged 18-59 and 11 people over 60. There are no children under 18 below the poverty line in the city. The data further indicates that the 25 residents include 12 white non-Hispanic persons, four Asian persons, and nine Latino persons.6 Census data indicates that only five of the residents below the poverty line are in the labor force, suggesting that some of those tallied by the Census have other sources of income not reported here. Census data indicates that a majority of the adults below the poverty level in Rolling Hills are 18-34 year olds—this likely represents adult children not in the labor force who are living at home. This is further supported by the even lower poverty rate for family households in Rolling Hills—reported at 0.4 percent by the ACS, which is equivalent to three households. Although Rolling Hills has a very small number of households in poverty, and some of its extremely low income residents have supplemental sources of income, the city is located in a region with significant very low income housing needs. In February 2021, the City amended its zoning regulations to create the Rancho Del Mar Overlay District. Affordable housing and emergency shelter are both permitted by right in this district, subject to specific development standards. Single room occupancy hotels are conditionally permitted. The City also permits home sharing, room rentals, and accessory dwelling units, all of which are beneficial to meeting extremely low income housing needs. 3.4.7 Farmworkers The special housing needs of farmworkers are a result of low wages and the seasonal nature of agricultural employment. Migrant farmworkers face particular challenges, including severe overcrowding. Farmworker needs are difficult to quantify due to fear of job loss, language barriers, and the documentation status of the farmworker labor force. The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that there are no Rolling Hills residents employed in “Farming, Fishing, and Forestry” occupations. This data further indicates that there are no residents in the city employed in the “Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining” sector. There are also no farmworker jobs in the city, as there is no agricultural land. As a result, the City does not have active programs or policies to address farmworker housing needs. 6 As noted earlier, the ACS is based on a sample of the population (roughly 15% for the five-year period). In a small city such as Rolling Hills, the margin of error is high, particularly for the breakdown of poverty status by age, race and ethnicity. 162 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-25 3.4.8 Homelessness Homelessness has become an increasing problem throughout California and the entire United States. In Southern California, factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include the lack of housing affordable to low- and very low-income persons, loss of employment and benefits— particularly for low wage workers, health care costs and related personal disabilities, reductions in public subsidies, increasing rates of addiction and substance abuse, and a lack of mental health services. State law requires that cities address the special needs of unhoused residents within their jurisdictional boundaries. For this purpose, homelessness is defined as including individuals who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, as well as individuals living in shelters and in places not designed for sleeping. The definition does not include those living in substandard or overcrowded housing or persons who are temporarily staying with family and friends. Such individuals are considered to be “at risk” of homelessness. A “point in time” count of homeless residents in Greater Los Angeles is conducted annually by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). In January 2020, the count identified 54,291 persons experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County. This is an increase of about 10 percent from 2019, when the count was 49,521. It is an increase of 37 percent from 2016, when the count was 39,587. The 2020 figures precede the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on homelessness. Data provided by the LAHSA indicates the 2020 count for the city of Rolling Hills was zero. The count for all prior years in the survey (2016-2019) also counted no unsheltered residents in the city. The nature of homelessness and the method of data reporting make it difficult to evaluate the full extent of the challenge of adequately housing the entire population. While there are no unsheltered residents in Rolling Hills, there may be residents who are temporarily staying with friends or relatives because they lack the resources or have underlying conditions which make it difficult to find permanent housing. There are no emergency shelters in Rolling Hills. The closest facilities are in San Pedro and Wilmington and are less than five miles away. Harbor Rose Lodge (San Pedro) provides homeless support services for individuals and families in Los Angeles County, with no geographic restrictions. It assists with temporary housing and provides support services and referrals. Harbor Interfaith (San Pedro) provides a 90-day emergency shelter and an 18-month transitional housing program. Also in San Pedro, Shawl House and House of Hope provide shelter, transitional housing, counseling specifically for women. The Doors of Hope Shelter in Wilmington also serves single women. The Beacon Light Mission in Wilmington provides a 10- bed men’s shelter, as well as food, clothing, and supportive services to men, women, and children. In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow emergency shelter “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. The 31-acre site overlay zone includes multiple areas of underutilized land that provide opportunities for emergency shelter or supportive service facilities. 163 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-26 The City is committed to coordinating with supportive service providers and meeting the needs of local unhoused residents. A list of nearby social service agencies and shelters is maintained by the City Clerk. 3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics Government Code Section 65583(a) requires the Housing Element to describe the characteristics of the local housing stock, including structural condition. This section of the Element provides an overview of Rolling Hills’ housing stock, including the age of structures, the types of structures, the number of bedrooms, and vacancy characteristics. It also includes information on home values and rents. 3.5.1 Housing Unit Count The US Census reported 674 housing units in the city in 1990, 675 units in 2000, and 693 units in 2010 (see Chart 3.5). The California Department of Finance estimated 719 units in the city as of 2021. However, the August 12, 2021 data release from the 2020 Census indicates the total unit count is 702, which is more consistent with City records. The net number of housing units in the city has increased at a rate of about one unit a year for the last 30 years. While the increase in units has been nominal, additional residential development has been occurring through the replacement and expansion of existing single family homes. Much of Rolling Hills was developed in the 1950s and was typified by 2,000 to 4,000 square-foot ranch style homes. As in many desirable older communities, the original housing stock is gradually being replaced with much larger units. These units average 6,000 to 9,000 square feet in size, according to City building permit records. This trend of residential recycling can be expected to continue and potentially increase as less vacant land is available for development. Chart 3.5: Total Number of Housing Units in Rolling Hills, 1990-2020 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 674 675 693 702 1990 2000 2010 2020 Source: Census 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 164 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-27 Chart 3.6: Year of Construction for Rolling Hills Homes 3.5.2 Age of Housing Stock Chart 3.6 shows the age of the housing stock in Rolling Hills. About half of the housing stock in the community is more than 60 years old. About 35 percent was built in the 1960s and 70s and the remainder has been built in the last 40 years. About 8 percent of the city’s housing stock is less than 20 years old—however, most of these homes are “replacements” and were built on previously developed lots. The older housing stock in the city is in excellent condition. Census data indicates there are no units in the city without plumbing or kitchen facilities. The City strongly encourages reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and homeowners take pride in their homes and properties. Common repairs include new roofs, new siding, plaster and stucco repair, upgraded electrical systems, and plumbing improvements. Home additions, kitchen and bathroom upgrades, and solar energy installations are also common. No significant code enforcement or housing problems have been observed in the city. The city has a Code Enforcement Officer who makes complaint-based site visits. In the event a violation is identified, the City works with the property owner to resolve the issue. 3.5.3 Housing Type Rolling Hills is comprised entirely of single family homes. The 2021 ACS indicates there are no multi-family units in the city. ACS data further indicates seven units that are “single family attached” which presumably are accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or other separate living quarters that are ancillary to a primary residence. Before 1950 11% 1950s 36% 1960s 21% 1970s 14% 1980s 7% 1990s 3%Post 2000 8% Source: American Community Survey 2021 165 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-28 Census data does not typically classify “guest houses” as dwelling units unless they have been legally permitted as separate residences. Rolling Hills classifies guest houses differently than ADUs; the latter are permitted by right to be independent dwellings provided they meet certain adopted zoning standards. By contrast, occupancy of guest houses is limited to persons employed on the premises, the family of the occupants of the main residence, or the temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. Guest houses may not be used as rental housing, but an owner may apply for a permit to convert a guest house to an ADU, which can then be rented. 3.5.4 House Size Homes in Rolling Hills are large. Chart 3.7 below shows the distribution by number of bedrooms. About 74 percent of the homes in the city have four or more bedrooms. Another 21 percent have three bedrooms and only five percent have two bedrooms or fewer. By contrast, among homes in Los Angeles County as a whole, 16 percent of all housing units have four or more bedrooms and 56 percent have two bedrooms or fewer. Data for total house size shows a similar difference between Rolling Hills and the County as a whole. Countywide, the median number of rooms per home is 4.5. It Rolling Hills, it is 8.3. Only 4.7 percent of the homes in Los Angeles County have nine or more rooms. In Rolling Hills, 46 percent of the homes have nine or more rooms. Chart 3.7: Percent of Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Rolling Hills and Los Angeles County Source: American Community Survey 2021 (for 2015-2019) 0.0%0.8% 4.4% 20.7% 39.8% 34.3% 7.1% 19.7% 29.4%28.3% 12.3% 3.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% No bedrooms 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more bedrooms Rolling Hills Los Angeles County 166 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-29 3.5.5 Vacancy Characteristics The August 12, 2021 data release from the US Census indicates that 63 of the city’s 702 homes were vacant at the time of the 2020 Census. This is a nine percent vacancy rate. By contrast, 2020 Census data indicates that the vacancy rate for the Palos Verdes Peninsula as a whole was about five percent. Countywide, ACS data indicates that six percent of the housing stock in Los Angeles County is vacant. ACS data provides an indication of the characteristics of vacant units in Rolling Hills. The ACS reports that 30 percent of the vacant units in the city were for sale, 26 percent were used seasonally (and were not occupied at the time of the census), and five percent were for rent. The remainder were classified as “other.” ACS data further indicates that the vacancy rate among for-rent units was three times higher than the vacancy rate among for-sale units, although the sample size is very small. In 2010, the Census reported that 5 percent of the homes in the city were vacant, indicating a significant increase between 2010 and 2020. The higher vacancy may be a result of changes in the housing market, including significantly higher home prices, and an increase in the number of homes that are used seasonally. The city’s housing market serves a unique market niche. 3.5.6 Home Values and Prices A variety of sources were used to analyze housing market prices and trends in Rolling Hills, including on-line real estate data vendors, current real estate listings, and the US Census. According to on-line real estate service Zillow.com, the median value of a home in Rolling Hills is $3,733,468. Rolling Hills home values have gone up 19.7% over the past year. Chart 3.8 compares the local median home value with values in the three other Palos Verdes Peninsula cities and with Los Angeles County as a whole. Homes in Rolling Hills are valued at 50 percent higher than those in Palos Verdes Estates ($2.45 M), 126 percent higher than those in Rancho Palos Verdes ($1.65M), and over four times higher than the countywide median ($790,000). The ACS 2021 data indicates that 95 percent of all homes in Rolling Hills have a value of over $1,000,000. The Census-reported median is over $2 million, which is the highest interval on the Census scale. The ACS shows the median in Los Angeles County at $583,200. This is substantially lower than the Zillow data, which is only based on homes recently sold. The website realtor.com indicates that the average time on the market for a home in Rolling Hills in July 2021 was 120 days. However, the sample size is small, and similar data for earlier in the year indicates a median sale time of 45 days (December 2020 and January 2021). Realtor.com indicates that homes in the city sold for 4.98 percent below asking price in July 2021. This figure is highly variable depending on market listings at any given time. 167 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-30 In July 2021, there were 14 homes for sale in Rolling Hills (including properties with pending offers). These ranged in size from a 1,467 square foot home to a 13,000 square foot home. Prices ranged from $2,499,000 to $15,975,000. The median price was $5.02 million and the mean was $6.15 million. This is substantially higher than the average for surrounding cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in Los Angeles County. The higher priced homes were typically new construction, while the two lowest priced homes were built in 1954 and 1957. Data on rentals in the city is more difficult to characterize because the number of available properties is so small. In July 2021, there was only one home being advertised for rent in the city. The asking monthly rent was $16,000. The property has five bedrooms, seven bathrooms, and is 5,035 square feet. Zillow also reported a 2-bedroom, 1-bath detached 1,000 square foot accessory dwelling unit for rent for $3,950. In addition, two ADUs were being advertised on Craigslist (listed as Rolling Hills but likely in Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes). One was a 500 square foot studio for $1,250 and the other was a 400 square foot guest house for $1,800. The Census indicates that seven of the renter households in the City pay less than $1,500 a month in rent, and the remainder pay more than $3,000 a month. Chart 3.8: Home Prices in Rolling Hills, Peninsula Cities, and Los Angeles County, 2012-2021 Source: Zillow.com, 2021 168 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-31 Table 3.14: Homes for Sale in Rolling Hills, July 2021 Asking Price Square Footage Cost per Square Foot Year Constructed $15,975,000 7,136 $ 2,239 2016 $11,100,000 13,000 $ 854 2007 $8,765,000 5,100 $ 1,719 1951 $7,750,000 4,000 $ 1,938 1968 $7,499,000 8,000 $ 937 2002 $5,800,000 4,453 $ 1,302 1986 $5,795,000 5,884 $ 985 1956 $4,250,000 4,101 $ 1,036 1941 $4,200,000 3,527 $ 1,191 1940 $3,950,000 5,560 $ 710 1989 $3,495,000 3,414 $ 1,024 1947 $2,630,000 3,444 $ 764 1974 $2,500,000 1,467 $ 1,704 1957 $2,499,000 1,752 $ 1,426 1954 MEAN: $6,150,000 $1,273 MEDIAN: $5,020,000 $1,030 Source: Realtor.com, Trulia, Zillow, 2021 Table 3.14 indicates the cost per square foot of those homes currently for sale in Rolling Hills, along with the asking price, square footage and year of construction. The median cost per square foot is $1,030, which is substantially higher than the statewide median of $438 per square foot. Cost per square foot ranged from $710 to $2,239. 3.5.7 Units at Risk of Conversion from Affordable to Market Rate State law requires the City to identify, analyze and propose programs to preserve any deed- restricted lower-income housing that could be lost as these deed restrictions expire. However, there are presently no low-income or income-restricted units in Rolling Hills. As a result, there is no housing at risk of losing its subsidized status. 169 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-32 3.6 Future Housing Needs 3.6.1 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The eight-year housing need for the six-county Southern California region is calculated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This need was determined to be 1,341,827 units for the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle planning period. The total regional need represents a 225 percent increase over the need calculated for the 2013-2021 Fifth Cycle. The total regional need is disaggregated to the six counties and 191 cities in the region by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). About 60 percent of the regional need was assigned to Los Angeles County, which had 53 percent of the region’s population in 2020. Concentrating the RHNA in Los Angeles County is a response to the greater availability of transit, urban services, and housing need within the core of the region. If the 1.3 million unit need was fully constructed, it would represent a 20 percent increase in the region’s housing unit count in eight years. The City of Rolling Hills was allocated 45 units of the countywide total, or about .006 percent. Allocations for nearby cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula were 191 for Rolling Hills Estates, 199 for Palos Verdes Estates, and 639 for Rancho Palos Verdes. As shown in Table 3.15, these allocations are significantly higher than they were in the Fifth Cycle, particularly when compared to the county and region. This represents a shift in the methodology used to allocate units, with less consideration given to growth potential as defined by local governments and more consideration given to population, proximity to job centers, and equity factors. Despite the large increases compared to the last cycle, the RHNA targets for the four Peninsula cities combined represent one-tenth of one percent of the countywide allocation. The RHNA for each of the four cities is equal to between four and six percent of each city’s existing housing stock, compared to 20 percent for the region. Table 3.15: RHNA by City and Comparison to Fifth Cycle Jurisdiction 5th Cycle RHNA 6th Cycle RHNA Percent Increase, 5th to 6th Cycle Existing (2021) Housing Units 6th cycle RHNA as percentage of existing inventory Rolling Hills 6(*) 45 650% 702 6% Rolling Hills Estates 5 191 3720% 3,157 6% Palos Verdes Estates 16 199 1144% 5,303 4% Rancho Palos Verdes 31 639 1961% 16,340 4% Los Angeles County 179,881 812,060 351% 3,614,809 22% SCAG Region 412,137 1,341,827 226% 6,679,283 20% Source: SCAG 2012 and 2021, plus DOF Table E-5 and US Census 2020 (*) In addition to planning for its 5th Cycle allocation, the 2015-2023 Rolling Hills Housing Element includes the 4th Cycle allocation of 22 units, which was carried over. The 45- unit assignment is a 60 percent increase over the prior 28 unit two-cycle total. 170 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-33 The 6th Cycle allocation by income group is shown in Table 3.16. In Rolling Hills, about 64 percent of the RHNA is for low and very low income households. The figure is comparable to the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (ranging from 62 to 65 percent). In Los Angeles County, only 42 percent of the assigned need is for low and very low income households, and regionally, it is 41 percent. The greater allocation of lower income housing to the Peninsula cities reflects the statewide and regional focus on encouraging fair housing and discouraging economic segregation. Table 3.16: Comparison of 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category Jurisdiction Very Low % of total Low % of total Moderate % of total Above Moderate % of total Rolling Hills 44% 20% 24% 11% Rolling Hills Estates 43% 22% 20% 15% Palos Verdes Estates 41% 22% 24% 13% Rancho Palos Verdes 40% 22% 20% 19% Los Angeles County 27% 15% 16% 42% SCAG Region 26% 15% 17% 42% Source: SCAG, 2020 3.6.2 Growth Forecasts As the regional planning agency for the Los Angeles region, SCAG is responsible for preparing jurisdiction-level forecasts for each city and county in the region. The latest forecasts were adopted in September 2020 and describe conditions in a base year (2016) and forecast year (2045). The six-county region as a whole is expected to grow from 6.012 million households (2016) to 7.633 million households (2045), an increase of over 1.3 million households in the 29- year period. Average household size is projected to decline from 3.1 to 2.9 during this period. SCAG forecasts indicate that Rolling Hills growth will be flat during through 2045. The latest published forecasts (Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, September 2020) show 700 households in 2016 and 700 households in 2045. However, the numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and it is likely that some marginal change will occur. Population over the equivalent period is shown as increasing from 1,900 to 2,000, a growth rate of about 5 percent over 29 years. As noted on page 3.1, the 2020 Census indicates the City lost over 100 residents between 2010 and 2020, so the SCAG forecasts will need to be adjusted in the future. An increase of 100 residents would bring the City closer to its 2010 total of 1,860 residents. 171 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Needs Assessment Page 3-34 3.6.3 Locally Identified Needs While Rolling Hills is obligated by the Government Code to identify capacity for 29 low and very low income units and to develop programs to meet this need, the City also has an opportunity to tailor its housing programs to meet local needs. Based on the Assessment in this chapter, some of the key findings regarding local needs are: • The City has a large and growing population of seniors. Some of these residents are on fixed or limited incomes and face relative high housing costs, including home maintenance, property taxes, HOA dues, utilities, etc. These residents could benefit from more senior housing options, ranging from fully independent to assisted living. • Although there are very few people who list Rolling Hills as their permanent place of employment, the City supports a relatively large population of service workers, including caregivers, domestic employees, child care workers and au pairs, landscapers and gardeners, and others in construction and home maintenance. In addition, there are public sector workers, firefighters, and teachers/counselors (at Rancho Del Mar) employed within the city, with incomes that are far below what would be required to buy a home in Rolling Hills. A limited number of affordable rental units serving these workers could reduce commute lengths and vehicle miles traveled. • Adult children of Rolling Hills residents (particularly those in the 18-30 age range) have limited housing options in the city, other than remaining at home. ADUs could provide additional options. • The City’s housing stock is well suited to ADUs and home sharing. More than two-thirds of the non-vacant housing units in the city have only one or two occupants, despite homes that are substantially larger than the regional average. There are also 300 fewer residents in Rolling Hills today than there were 50 years ago, despite larger homes and more square feet of living space. Additional residents would have a lower impact on infrastructure, services, and the environment if accommodated in the footprint of existing homes as opposed to new construction. • Creating an ADU or deciding to share one’s home is a personal choice and is entirely at the discretion of the homeowner. However, the City can create incentives that make it easier and more affordable for homeowners to consider this option. 172 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-1 4.0 Housing Opportunities and Resources 4.1 Introduction This section of the Housing Element evaluates potential opportunities to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It includes an inventory of potential housing sites in the city and an evaluation of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior ADU potential. The analysis in this section demonstrates that Rolling Hills has the capacity to accommodate its RHNA assignment of 45 additional housing units, including 29 units that are affordable to low and very income households. Two other topic areas are covered in this chapter. As required by State law, this chapter discusses opportunities for energy conservation in the city. Reducing energy costs can reduce overall housing costs, contributing to affordability. This chapter also identifies potential financial resources to support the provision of affordable housing and the maintenance of existing housing in the city. 4.2 Approved or Pending Development There are 12 housing units in the city that are approved or pending and not yet constructed. All of these units are expected to become available for occupancy during the 2021-2029 period and therefore count toward meeting the RHNA. These units include three market-rate single family homes and nine ADUs. These units are listed in Table 4.1 below, including an assignment of each unit by income category. Table 4.1: Committed Development for the 2021-2029 RHNA period ID Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Address Description Income Category A 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate B 7567-001-018 1 Poppy Trail New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate C 7569-020-004 8 Middleridge Ln S. New SF home on vacant lot Above Moderate D 7567-011-020 23 Crest Road E ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate E 7569-001-031 2950 Palos Verdes N ADU (1000 SF) Above Moderate F 7569-026-008 13 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (997 SF) Above Moderate G 7569-023-006 33 Crest Road W ADU (946 SF) Above Moderate H 7569-026-012 27 Buggy Whip Dr. ADU (800 SF) Moderate I 7567-006-036 23 Chuckwagon ADU (800 SF) Moderate J 7567-005-028 79 Eastfield Dr. ADU (799 SF) Moderate K 7567-014-022 23 Georgeff Road ADU (620 SF) Low L 7567-008-009 63 Crest Rd E ADU (580 SF) Low Sources: US Decennial Census, 1970-2010. California Dept. of Finance, 1/1/21 estimate, 2020 Census (8/12/21 release) 173 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-2 The assignment of the ADUs by income category is based on the size of the unit. Units larger than 800 SF are presumed to be “above moderate”; units 650-800 SF are presumed to be “moderate”; units 500-650 SF are presumed to be “low”; and units smaller than 500 SF are presumed to be “very low.” This is based on local rental data for comparably sized ADUs (see Section 4.6).1 4.3 Vacant Sites Table 4.2 identifies vacant residentially zoned sites in Rolling Hills. These sites are shown graphically on Figure 4.1. For each site, the table indicates the theoretical number of units permitted by zoning (based on acreage and minimum lot size requirements) and the “realistic” number of units based on lot configuration, access, and terrain.2 Some of the vacant parcels are characterized by physical constraints that preclude their development, including steep or unstable slopes or landslide hazards. A few are landlocked and have no access. The acreage data for each site is based on assessor parcel maps and subtracts out unbuildable easements such as flood hazard areas and roads. There are 34 parcels identified totaling, 124.8 acres. All of these parcels are in private ownership. Twenty are estimated to be developable and 14 are severely constrained and presumed undevelopable for the 2021-2029 planning period. The constrained parcels include five lots that are landlocked with no street frontage and nine that are in the Flying Triangle Landslide Hazard Overlay area. Several of the lots in the landslide area had homes that were destroyed by earth movement in the 1980s and early 1990s. For the 20 remaining vacant lots, Table 4.2 indicates the “realistic” potential for 20 single family homes. This excludes accessory dwelling units, which are addressed later in this chapter. Several of the sites, such as those on Storm Hill Lane, are quite large and could potentially be subdivided. However, the “realistic” estimates are intended to be conservative and do not presume subdivision of any of the sites. These estimates also reflect the absence of sewer services on these sites, their very steep topography, and the severe risk of wildfire. The vacant lots have the potential to completely meet the regional need for above moderate income units assigned to Rolling Hills. As noted, this need is five units for the 6th Cycle. Since three new single family homes are already in the pipeline (see Sec 4.2), the remaining need is two units. Several of the vacant sites are currently for sale, making it likely that the City will exceed its above moderate income allocation for 2021-2029. Table 4.2 indicates the General Plan and zoning designations for each vacant site. Of the developable parcels, eight are in the RAS-1 zone (one acre minimum) and 12 are in the RAS-2 zone (two-acre minimum). No zoning changes are proposed or required to meet the above moderate income or moderate income allocations. 1 In this case, the assignment of two smaller units as “low” income is further supported by the fact that they are both conversions of existing structures rather than new construction. This facilitates greater affordability. 2 Excludes additional units that could be permitted under SB 9. 174 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-3 Table 4.2: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites (sorted by APN) Site APN Address or Location Zoning General Plan Acres (*) Theoretical Unit Yield Realistic Yield, excl. ADUs Comments 1 7567-006-001 15 Chuckwagon Road RAS-1 LDR 2.27 2 1 2 7567-006-014 Behind 6 Chesterfield RAS-1 LDR 1.22 1 0 Landlocked (no road access) 3 7567-009-007 5 Southfield Drive RAS-1 LDR 1.61 1 1 4 7567-010-013 East of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.24 1 1 5 7567-010-015 North of 3 Packsaddle Rd W RAS-1 LDR 1.49 1 0 Landlocked (no road access) 6 7567-011-017 54 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 2.67 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 7 7567-012-019 SW of 56 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 0.96 1 0 In landslide hazard area 8 7567-012-020 53 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.46 1 0 In landslide hazard area 9 7567-012-026 4 Wrangler Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.82 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 10 7567-012-035 66 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.64 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 11 7567-012-036 64 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.71 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 12 7567-012-038 62 Portuguese Bend Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.84 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 13 7567-013-005 End of Portuguese Bend Rd RAS-2 VLDR 19.81 1 0 Flying Triangle Landslide 14 7567-013-007 2 Running Brand RAS-2 VLDR 7.09 1 0 Severely constrained - slide hazards 15 7567-014-005 West of 5 El Concho Ln RAS-1 LDR 2.12 2 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 16 7567-014-011 West of 24 Georgeff Rd RAS-1 LDR 1.66 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 17 7567-014-013 North of 27 Georgeff Rd RAS-2 VLDR 3.79 1 0 Landlocked (no road access)/ canyon 18 7567-014-031 Access b/w 1 and 3 Poppy Tr. RAS-2 VLDR 6.85 3 1 Rear of 8 Reata Lane 19 7567-015-036 North of 1 Georgeff RAS-2 VLDR 4.56 2 1 20 7567-017-017 Between 4 and 5 Ranchero RAS-2 VLDR 3.52 2 1 Access at end of Ranchero cul-de-sac 21 7567-017-045 17 Cinchring Rd RAS-1 VLDR 1.52 1 1 Driveway access b/w 15 and 20 175 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-4 Table 4.2, continued Site APN Address or Location Zoning General Plan Acres (*) Theoretical Unit Yield Realistic Yield, excl. ADUs Comments 22 7569-001-020 B/w 2954 and 2958 PV Dr N RAS-1 LDR 1.03 1 1 23 7569-001-036 B/w 6 and 14 Roadrunner RAS-1 LDR 1.00 1 1 24 7569-004-026 B/w 35 and 45 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 3.39 3 1 25 7569-005-008 80 Saddleback RAS-1 LDR 6.52 6 1 This parcel is currently for sale 26 7569-012-022 W of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 2.30 1 1 27 7569-012-025 N of 25 Portuguese Bend RAS-2 VLDR 3.51 1 1 28 7569-013-017 North of 10 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.41 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 29 7569-013-018 South of 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.20 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 30 7569-013-020 18 Pine Tree Lane RAS-2 VLDR 2.13 1 1 One of three adj. vacant lots 31 7570-024-019 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 1 RAS-2 VLDR 6.04 3 1 7.6 ac parcel with 1.6 acres of easements 32 7570-024-020 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 2 RAS-2 VLDR 11.64 5 1 34.7 ac parcel with 23 acres of easements 33 7570-024-021 Storm Hill Lane, Parcel 3 RAS-2 VLDR 10.10 5 1 17.3 ac parcel with 7.2 acres of easements 34 7570-025-022 N/ end of Johns Canyon Road RAS-2 VLDR 1.68 1 1 TOTAL 124.8 57 20 Sources: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021; LA County GIS Portal, 2021 (*) Acreages generally exclude unbuildable easements 176 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-5 Figure 4.1: Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites 177 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-6 4.4 Lot Splits There are a number of parcels in Rolling Hills with lot sizes that are more than double the minimum acreage required by zoning. Some of these parcels could theoretically be subdivided into two or more lots. Moreover, SB 9 (effective January 1, 2022) includes provisions to allow single family lots to be divided to allow new homes. The potential for lot splits in Rolling Hills is very limited due to the configuration of the lots as well as environmental hazards, evacuation constraints, and the lack of a sewer system. Many of the city’s larger lots have limited street frontage and irregular dimensions that would make it difficult to divide them. Moreover, the platting pattern responds to topography, and the larger lots are often steep and geologically constrained, making them difficult to subdivide. Their division could result in lots with no buildable area, street frontage, or access. Although a limited number of new homes could conceivably occur as a result of future lot splits, a capacity estimate has not been made due to the constraints inherent in the community’s topography and hazards. In addition, the reliance on septic tanks makes subdivision infeasible from a public health perspective, even on many larger lots. The supply of vacant lots is sufficient to meet the above moderate income RHNA without relying on lot splits. 4.5 Non-Vacant Sites While Rolling Hills’ above moderate income (or “market rate”) RHNA can be met on vacant residentially-zoned land, the City’s moderate, low, and very low income RHNA will need to be accommodated through a combination of development on non-vacant sites and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The text below addresses non-vacant sites. ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) are discussed in Section 4.6. The sites described below provide the potential for 16 units of low- and very low-income housing. This potential is associated with the 31-acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) site, where an overlay zone was created in 2021 to facilitate affordable housing. Other non-vacant properties addressed here are the City Hall complex, the Tennis Court Facilities, the Los Angeles County Fire Station, and the Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center parking lot. These properties have been determined to not be viable as potential housing sites. Non-vacant housing sites are shown in Figure 4.2. 178 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-7 Figure 4.2: Non-Vacant Sites Evaluated 179 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-8 4.5.1 PVPUSD Site/ Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (APN 7569-022-900) In March 2021, the City of Rolling Hills adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31- acre Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) property located at 38 Crest Road. Although the site is technically non-vacant, roughly three-quarters of the property (23 acres) is open space. The remaining areas are underutilized and could be repurposed. Appendix B of this Housing Element provides a detailed evaluation of the site, demonstrating that it is the most suitable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The site also provides the City’s best opportunity to meet its requirements for low- and very low-income units. It is located outside the jurisdiction of the Rolling Hills Community Association, outside the Rolling Hills security gates, and is one of the largest properties in the city. It includes multiple areas that are vacant and underutilized, relatively flat, and well buffered from adjacent uses. The site is also one of the only properties in Rolling Hills that is served by a public sewer system. This substantially reduces multi-family development costs and addresses an infrastructure constraint that makes affordable housing cost-prohibitive in almost all of the city. The site is also ½ mile from the corner of Crenshaw and Crest Roads in Palos Verdes Estates, which is served by four bus lines. Existing uses on the PVPUSD site include Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School and a maintenance facility leased to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA). Each of these activities is discussed below. Rancho Del Mar School was initially developed as an elementary school in 1960. The school closed in 1980 and was repurposed as a continuation school in 1986. The continuation school was initially intended as a temporary use but has been in place for 35 years. The possibility of residential development on the site has been considered in the past. Enrollment at Rancho Del Mar has been steadily declining and was just 32 students in the 2020-2021 school year (California Department of Education, DataQuest). Enrollment has declined every year since 2014 and is now less than half of what it was just five years ago.3 The Beach Cities Learning (BCL) Center uses four classrooms in the school building. BCL serves students aged 11-22 with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities that cannot be addressed in public school settings. Students participate in individual and group counseling run by licensed therapists on-site. Total enrollment in 2019-20 was 17 students, with two teachers on-site (School Accountability Report Card, 2021). The school building is adjoined by a lawn, playing fields, and school parking lot. The complex serves only a fraction of the number of students for which it was designed. Moreover it occupies just 1.9 percent of the 31-acre site. Sale of the school property could generate significant revenue for the School District. The only other active use on the property is the PVPTA maintenance facility, which occupies 4.5 acres. The PVPTA facilities include maintenance buildings and administrative offices and are 3 California Department of Education indicates the following enrollment figures: 2020-21 (32 students); 2019-20 (46 students); 2018-19 (47 students); 2017-18 (58 students); 2016-17 (69 students); 2015-16 (72 students); 2014-15 (79 students) 180 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-9 self-contained in the west central part of the site. While PVPTA has no immediate plans to relocate, the site could be sold in the future or repurposed by the School District. In any event, the facilities occupy only 15 percent of the 31-acre site and have co-existed with the nearby school and adjacent residential uses for many years. Roughly 75 percent of the PVUSD site is vacant, and at least five developable areas have been identified on the campus. These include the school itself (in the event it is closed), the ballfield east of the school, the large lawn adjacent to the school, a vacant area between the school and the PVPTA facility, and the undeveloped area west of the PVPTA facility. Each of these areas is at least one acre in size. The area west of the PVTPA facility is the largest of the five areas and the one deemed most viable as a housing site. It is the closest location to Crest Road and could easily be developed without affecting activities at either the school or the transit facility. Accordingly, the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone identifies this area as the location for future affordable housing. The entire Rancho Del Mar site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and an underlying zoning designation of RAS-2. The designation permits 16 units on the site, based on the site area of 31 acres and the density of one unit per two acres (31/2 = 15.5, rounded up to 16). However, the General Plan (as amended in 2021) requires that the allowable density for this site be transferred to a single location on the property where a density standard of 20-24 units per acre applies. This is reinforced and codified by the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone (RDMO). The RDMO effectively takes the 16 units of housing and transfers it to a single location on the west side of the parcel. The RDMO further mandates that any housing built on the site be 100% affordable to very low and/or low income households. Such development is permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the objective development and design standards contained in the RDMO. The RDMO also provides opportunities for emergency shelter and single room occupancy (SRO) hotels. Emergency shelter is permitted by right, subject to objective development standards that have been adopted by the City. SROs require a conditional use permit and are also subject to objective design standards. These provisions create opportunities for extremely low income households as well as low and very low income households. Creation of the RDMO occurred collaboratively with the School District. District staff confirmed that there are no prohibitions on the application of this zoning overlay or the use of the property for affordable housing. Moreover, the District has expressed interest in developing housing for teachers in the past; such units would likely meet income criteria for lower income housing. Programs in this Housing Element support active communication with the School District regarding the disposition of the area west of the PVPTA for affordable housing. The PVUSD site also meets the “carry-over” criteria established by the State for sites that were counted in the prior cycle Element. It is zoned with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and permits “by right” development of affordable housing, subject to objective design and development standards. The current zoning was put in place just six months before the end of the Fifth Cycle planning period and was principally intended to provide a housing opportunity for the Sixth Cycle. 181 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-10 For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the capacity figure of 16 lower income units is being used for the site. Under State Density Bonus law, a 100% affordable project would be eligible for an 80 percent density bonus. This could potentially result in 29 units of lower income housing, which is equal to the total number of units assigned to the City under the Sixth Cycle RHNA. However, State law precludes the City from counting potential density bonus units when determining its RHNA capacity. As explained in Section 4.6, the remaining 13 units will be met through Accessory Dwelling Units. 4.5.2 Rolling Hills City Hall (APN 7569-003-904) This site is located at the southeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. Palos Verdes Drive North is a major thoroughfare and provides access from Rolling Hills to surrounding communities and the regional roadway network. Portuguese Bend Drive is a local street but the primary north-south route through the city, connecting to Crest Drive. This is one of the only sites in Rolling Hills that is located outside the security gates, and adjacent to a transit line. An elementary school and park are nearby in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The property is 1.22 acres and is roughly rectangular in shape. It has a General Plan designation of Civic Center and a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these designations permits housing, so a General Plan amendment would be required to enable its development. The site is owned by the City of Rolling Hills. The parcel currently contains three structures: City Hall, the Rolling Hills Community Association Administration Building, and an accessory structure that houses an emergency generator. The site is relatively flat, although it is adjoined by a steep canyon to the east. There is a single family residence located to the south. To the west, there is a guardhouse in the median of Portuguese Bend Road, and a public tennis court on the west side of the road. Site ingress and egress is from Portuguese Bend Road. Direct access to Palos Verdes Drive North is not feasible due to high speeds and volumes and the existing traffic signal at the corner of Portuguese Bend. Given the existing uses on the site and its function as the only civic building in Rolling Hills, the site is not a practical location for multi-family housing. Its rezoning is not recommended at this time. 4.5.3 Rolling Hills Tennis Court Facility (APN 7569-015-900) This site is located immediately west of City Hall on the southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. It is adjoined by a residence and horse stables on the west and south and by street frontage on the north and east. The site is 0.86 acres and is one of the few properties located outside the City security gates. It is currently in use as a community tennis facility, with three tennis courts in total. Like City Hall, the property has a General Plan designation of Civic Center and a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF). Neither of these designations permits housing, so a General Plan amendment would be required to facilitate residential development. The site is owned by the City of Rolling Hills. Parking for the tennis courts is provided on the City Hall property to the east. 182 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-11 The site could potentially be converted to housing. At a density of 20 units per acre, it would yield 17 units. However, the community would lose parkland, which is already in short supply, as well as a well-used recreational amenity and gathering place. As a result, no rezoning is recommended. 4.5.4 Los Angeles County Fire Station (APN 7567-017-900) This is a 2.2-acre site owned by the County of Los Angeles located at 12 Crest Road East. It is currently developed with Battalion 14 Fire Station 56, which provides fire and rescue services for Rolling Hills and nearby communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. While much of the parcel is open space, it occupies a steep downslope and would require costly grading and construction. Moreover, the Fire Station is an essential community asset and long-term use. This site is also located in an area that is far from services and amenities, not served by transit, and under the oversight of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Rezoning to allow housing is not recommended. 4.5.5 Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center (APN 7569-022-006) The parcel is located on the western edge of the City, immediately west of the Rancho Del Mar (PVPUSD) site. It is outside the western City gatehouse at 5300 Crest Road and forms part of the 8-acre Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center, which straddles the border between Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes. The Retreat Center consists of two parcels—a 5.95-acre parcel located entirely in Rancho Palos Verdes that contains the buildings, gardens, and a portion of the parking lot, and a 1.96-acre parcel located entirely in Rolling Hills that contains parking, landscaping, and unimproved property. The parcel has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and is zoned RAS-2. These designations would allow a single dwelling unit on the site. A General Plan Amendment and rezoning could be considered to allow multi-family housing on the property, or on a portion of the property. The unimproved portion of the site is about 0.67 acres, which could hypo- thetically support 13 units if developed at a density of 20 units per acre. This area has a 15-30 percent slope and would require grading to support multi-family construction. The flatter portion of the site (i.e., the parking lot) is larger and would be easier to develop but is currently in active use. The City has had prior conversations with the Retreat owners regarding the possibility of housing on this site. While there are no plans to redevelop the property, it remains a potential long-term opportunity. 4.5.6 Conclusions Based on the analysis above, only the Rancho Del Mar site is considered a viable housing site at this time. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning amendments completed in 2021, the site is viable for 16 units of low/very income housing. 183 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-12 4.6 Accessory Dwellings The City of Rolling Hills has estimated the potential for 40 ADUs and JADUs over the eight-year planning period, or approximately five (5) ADUs per year. This projection is based on the permitting of nine ADUs in 2021 alone, and the implementation of Housing Element program that encourage ADUs in the coming years. It is further based on a citywide survey conducted in October 2020 (with a 30 percent response rate) indicating that: • 25 percent of the survey respondents indicated they had a secondary building on their property with a kitchen, bath, and sleeping area. Another 25 percent indicated their home had two kitchens or an area that could be “easily converted” into an ADU. • 24 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would consider developing an ADU on their property now, with another 15 percent indicating they would consider this at some point in the future. • 8 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would rent their ADU to a tenant while 24 percent said they would use it for a caregiver or employee and 31 percent said they would use it for a family member. Extrapolating these results to the citywide total of 639 households, the results suggest that:4 • An estimated 153 households might be interested in developing an ADU on their properties, with another 95 potentially interested at some future date. • An estimated 51 households would rent their ADU to a tenant, 153 would be interested in using their ADUs for a caregiver or domestic employee, and 198 would consider using an ADU for a family member. The survey, combined with physical characteristics of the City’s large lots and building stock, indicate significant potential for ADU development. ADUs could be created through new construction, conversion of existing guest houses and barns, and reconfiguration of interior spaces in primary residences. The latter category includes Junior ADUs (JADUs), which are often affordable to very low income tenants “by design” given their small size. A majority of the 2020 survey respondents indicated they would use their ADU for a family member, caregiver, or other domestic employee. A substantial number of these households would likely pay reduced rent, or no rent at all. Some would likely meet HCD criteria for extremely low income households. In order to demonstrate the suitability of ADUs and JADUs to satisfy the RHNA, the City must estimate the affordability of ADUs by income category. This requires data on occupancy and rents. The 2020 ADU survey conducted by the City identified 12 ADU tenants, including two extremely low income, two very low income, one low income, and seven who were moderate or above moderate income (see Appendix C). This is based on data provided by survey respondents and the HUD income categories by household size for Los Angeles County. The 4 The numbers in the three bullets below this sentence have been developed by applying the percentages from the survey to the total citywide housing stock. This assumes that the 192 households who responded are representative of the 639 households that live in Rolling Hills. 184 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-13 City’s 2020 ADU survey produced only two data points for rents—one unit renting for $950 and another for $1,500. Both of these were market-rate units with no deed restrictions. In addition, weekly scans of Craigslist ads in 2021 identified two ADUs in Rolling Hills and two in Rolling Hills Estates, with rents of $895 for a “basement apartment”, $1,200 (for a JADU at an unidentified address), $1,800 (for a one-bedroom one bath “guest house”), and $3,950 for a two-bedroom one bath, 1,000 square foot guest house. Assuming a household size of two, the rents for these six units correspond to two very low-income units, three low income units, and one above moderate income unit. This is a limited sample size, however, and it excludes units that may be occupied “rent free” or without advertising. In 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments conducted a survey of ADU rents in multiple jurisdictions across the region. The stated purpose of the survey was to “provide local governments with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assign ADUs to income categories for the purpose of Sixth Cycle Housing Elements.”5 The SCAG study was organized by geographic sub-area, including one sub-area corresponding to Coastal Los Angeles County. The survey included an estimate of the percentage of ADUs that would be affordable to “Extremely Low Income” households, which included units that were available for little or no rent and were not advertised (for instance, a detached in-law unit occupied by the elder parents of the homeowner). The distribution identified in the SCAG survey (for Coastal LA County) was as follows: Extremely Low: 15% Very Low: 2% Low: 43% Moderate: 6% Above Moderate: 34% This distribution is roughly consistent with the sample taken by the City of Rolling Hills and the survey data collected in 2020. Applied to the City’s projection of 40 units, the allocation using SCAG’s methodology would be: Extremely Low: 6 units Very Low: 1 unit Low: 17 units Moderate: 2 units Above Moderate: 14 units This is equivalent to 24 lower income units and 16 moderate and above moderate units. All of the ADUs permitted to date have been “full” ADUs, meaning they are at least 500 square feet in size. Among the City’s Housing Element programs is an initiative to create at least five JADUs. Given the small size of these units and the fact that they are created by repurposing existing space, they are more likely to be affordable to very low income households, thus shifting the distribution shown above so that more “very low” income units are produced. 5 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, published by SCAG in 2020 185 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-14 In addition, based on actual production of ADUs in 2021, the City anticipates a smaller share of “Low” income units and a larger share of “Moderate” income units. Moderate income units represented one-third of the production in 2021, which suggests something closer to the following distribution for 2022-2029: Extremely Low: 7 units (occupied rent-free or at minimal charge) Very Low: 5 units Low: 6 units Moderate: 8 units Above Moderate: 14 units Housing Element programs have been developed to ensure that the City reaches its very low/ extremely low income ADU targets. 4.7 Summary of Ability to Meet RHNA As shown in Table 4.3 below, the combination of recently approved housing units (expected to be occupied in 2022), future affordable units on the Rancho Del Mar site, and new ADUs can accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories. The table illustrates a surplus capacity of seven lower income units based on projected ADU production over the planning period. Table 4.3: Summary of Housing Opportunities, 2021-2029 Income Category TOTAL Extremely Low/ Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Approved Development -- 2 3 7(*) 12 Vacant Residential Lots -- -- -- 20 20 Rancho Del Mar site (**) 8 8 -- -- 16 Accessory Dwelling Units 12 6 8 14 40 TOTALS 20 16 11 41 88 RHNA 20 9 11 5 45 Surplus/ Deficit 0 +7 0 +36 +43 Adequate Sites? YES YES YES YES YES Source: Barry Miller Consulting, 2021 (*) includes 3 new homes and 4 large ADUs, see Table 4.1. 186 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-15 4.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation Home energy costs, including electric and natural gas utility bills, are considered part of monthly housing expenses. The large floor area of many Rolling Hills homes suggests that this may be an important consideration in the city. Home energy bills can be substantial, particularly for senior households on fixed incomes. Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation and reduced energy costs. The US Department of Health and Human Services provides funding for a program known as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). In California, the program is administered by the Department of Community Services and Development. LIHEAP is aimed at assisting low-income households that pay a high portion of their incomes to meet their energy needs. This is achieved through one-time financial assistance grants covering the utility bills of eligible households, an energy crisis intervention program to help low-income households in danger of having their utilities turned off, free weatherization and energy efficiency upgrades to qualifying households, and energy education and budget counseling. Low income customers are also eligible for reduced rates through the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) and Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs. Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company offer energy conservation and assistance programs. These include home energy audits, rebates on energy- efficient appliances, and weatherization assistance to qualified low-income companies. SCE has an energy management assistance program for qualifying households. While the measures above are aimed at meeting day to day utility bills, there are also more systemic long-term ways to reduce home energy costs. Nearly half of the homes in Rolling Hills were built before 1960, many without consideration given to the cost and availability of energy. Weatherization and insulation can provide significant reductions in home energy use and reduce monthly utility bills. Replacement of older appliances can likewise provide significant long-term savings. A variety of rebates and other financial incentives are available for homeowners. In addition, all new construction in California is subject to State building code and energy standards, including Title 24. These requirements apply to most remodeling projects, creating opportunities to retrofit older homes. The standards are periodically updated to reflect new technology and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The latest standards incorporate the California Green Building Code, including energy-saving design standards for walls, ceilings, and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, window glazing, and the use of renewable energy sources such as solar energy. These standards are incorporated in Title 15 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the Building Code). The City also encourages the use of solar panels to maximize energy efficiency, as well as the application of passive solar design principles that reduce heating and cooling costs. These measures include home orientation and siting, landscaping to reduce direct sunlight, placement of windows to support home heating and cooling, the use of skylights, and incorporation of overhangs and shade structures. In addition, home energy costs can be reduced by incorporating some or all of the measures listed below: 187 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-16 • Solar heating for swimming pools • Flow restrictors on hot water faucets and showerheads (to reduce natural gas use) • Tankless water heaters • Attic ventilation systems that reduce attic temperatures during summer months. • Insulation, caulking, and weatherstripping to guard against heat gain in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter. These measures can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55 percent and for heating as much as 40 percent. • Proper maintenance and use of stoves, ovens, clothes dryers, washing machines, dishwashers, and refrigerators. • Purchase of air-conditioning units and refrigerators on the basis of efficiency ratings (the State prepares a list of air-conditioning and refrigerator models that detail the energy efficiency ratings of the product) Indoor and outdoor lighting also impacts home energy costs. The City has adopted standards for outdoor lighting through its Municipal Code (Section 17.16.190(E)). Energy efficient lighting is required in most cases, and outdoor lighting is prohibited in many instances to retain dark skies and the community’s rural character. For interior spaces, the costs of lighting can be reduced through purchase of light bulbs which produce the most lumens per watt, avoidance of multi-bulb mixtures, and use of long-life bulbs and clock timers. As a member of SCAG, the City also participates in the Regional Comprehensive Plan to achieve a sustainable future. The City also has joined ICLEI, which is a membership association of local governments committed to advancing climate protection and sustainable development. Rolling Hills also is a participant in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments Environmental Services Center. The Center serves as a clearinghouse for information on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability. It assists residents, businesses, and public agencies with incorporating energy-saving practices in their daily lives and operations. Water conservation provides another opportunity to reduce home utility costs. The City has adopted a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code), and encourages the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures and products to reduce water use. 188 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-17 4.9 Financial Resources This section of the Housing Element summarizes financial resources for affordable housing in Rolling Hills. An overview of federal and State programs, as well as tax credit programs, is provided below. 4.9.1 Federal Programs A major source of housing assistance in many communities is the Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) program (including the Los Angeles County Urban County CDBG program, which provides federal funds to about 50 participating small cities). Rolling Hil ls no longer participates in this program, as the cost of its administration made it infeasible. When the City did participate, it received approximately $6,000 per year. The City transferred these funds to Rancho Palos Verdes, an adjacent city which has a population roughly 25 times larger than Rolling Hills. Opportunities for funding through other federal programs is limited. For example, the federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) program is designed to increase home ownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income Americans. The funds are distributed to jurisdictions based on need. They support programs such as loans to assist low- income families with down payments to purchase homes, tenant-based rental assistance, rehabilitation of affordable housing, and relocation assistance for low-income tenants. The high cost of land and construction, limited opportunities for home ownership, absence of a sewer system, and very high incomes in Rolling Hills, make the City non-competitive for these applications. Likewise, HUD’s Section 202 program provides funding for construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of structures for supportive housing for very low-income seniors. It offers interest- free capital advances, as well as rental assistance funds. The funds are provided to private and non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives and are highly competitive. Use of these funds in Rolling Hills is constrained by the community’s natural hazards, lack of infrastructure, and high land costs. The use of project-based federal Section 8 funding for new affordable housing and substantial rehabilitation of existing housing is infeasible in Rolling Hills for these same reasons. The federal government also operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. This program assists very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in securing housing in the private market. Participants may choose any housing that meet the requirements of the program. A housing subsidy is paid directly to the property owner, and the tenant pays the difference between the actual rent charged and the amount subsidized by the program. Housing choice vouchers could potentially be used on ADUs, but this is rarely done in practice. HUD also operates the Section 203(k) program, which facilitates the rehabilitation and repair of single-family residential properties by insuring homeowner loans for purchase or refinancing. It can enable homebuyers to purchase homes that need significant repairs and can also be used for a variety of other improvements. These funds can also be used to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities, and to eliminate health and safety hazards. Eligibility for this program in Rolling Hills is limited due to the factors cited earlier. 189 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-18 Other HUD programs include Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (interest-free capital advances, operating subsidies, and/or project rental assistance for eligible projects developing affordable housing for persons with disabilities) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP). These programs are most viable in areas with lower land and development costs, as well as available infrastructure and services. 4.9.2 State Programs The State of California provides resources for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, and assistance. Many of these programs are oriented toward populations in need of assistance or housing stock requiring repair or rehabilitation. The absence of these populations, coupled with the cost of land and construction in Rolling Hills and the excellent quality of the Cit y’s housing stock, render the City ineligible for many types of assistance. The only site where State financial resources could likely be feasible is the PVUSD site, given that it is publicly owned and has infrastructure and public street access. In 2017, the State approved SB 2, which established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. The State subsequently established the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant program which provides funding for local planning activities aimed at supporting housing production. In 2020, the City of Rolling Hills received a $65,000 LEAP grant, which was used to fund preparation of the Housing Element. The City may be eligible for future planning grants and other SB 2 funds that facilitate housing affordability and promote projects and programs to implement the Housing Element. The California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) provides loans for construction of affordable housing projects and could be a source of revenue for future affordable housing development in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone. The State provides a pre-development loan program for low- income housing projects, and low-interest long-term deferred payment loans through the Multi- Family Housing Program. These sources could potentially be used on the PVPUSD site. CHFA also provides financing for rehabilitation of housing by low- and moderate-income households, which would generally not be viable in Rolling Hills due to housing conditions, costs, and local income levels. The State Department of Housing and Community Development provides funding for a variety of programs to prevent homelessness and assist those who are unhoused. These programs can fund construction of shelters and provide direct subsidies to individuals. HCD programs also help support supportive and transitional housing. 4.9.3 Resources for the Private and Non -Profit Sectors The primary affordable housing financing resources for the private and non -profit sectors are tax credits and mortgage revenue bonds. Developers can also take advantage of various state regulatory tools, such as density bonuses and reduced parking requirements for projects incorporating affordable units. The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding affordable housing. Each state receives 190 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-19 a tax credit based on its population—that credit is then used to leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation projects. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) competitively administers credits to projects based on priorities they set each year. Once constructed, a specific percentage of the units must remain rent -restricted, and occupancy of those units is limited to people meeting specific income criteria. The California Public Finance Agency administers an Affordable Housing Bond program, which provides developers with access to tax -exempt bonds to finance lower-income multi- family and senior projects. A qualified developer can finance a project at a lower interest rate because the interest paid to bond holders is exempt from federal income tax. This program is often done in tandem with tax credits. Individual home buyers may also be eligible for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC), working through a lender and the Los Angeles County Development Authority. This program provides a federal tax credit for income -qualified homebuyers equivalent to 15 percent of annua l mortgage interest. Generally , the tax savings are calculated as income to help buyers qualify to purchase a home. Buyers in Rolling Hills would generally be ineligible due to the very high income required to purchase a home in the city. 4.9.4 Summary of Prospective Financing Sources Due to the City’s small population, low density, very high fire hazards, and lack of infrastructure, government resources for housing are extremely limited. The City’s residents are generally ineligible for State and federal housing assistance based on income and home ownership status. The City does not have a housing department, and has no regular local, state, or federal revenue source for housing. The use of traditional approaches to financing affordable housing are also limited by the relatively small number of units that would be contained in an individual development project in the city. Despite these constraints, the City is amenable to exploring future funding sources and supporting applications that would facilitate housing rehabilitation and development. Given the absence of a sewer system in the city, one of the most important financial resources potentially available to the City is State and federal funding for sanitary sewer and storm drainage improvements. The City is continuing to pursue grants to extend sewer service and improve water quality; this could potentially create future housing opportunities on sites that are not viable today. Low-income housing tax credits could be considered to facilitate housing on the PVPUSD site. Eligible projects on this site could also use State density bonus provisions, thereby increasing the potential number of units. Other programs that could be considered include those that assist lower income seniors with energy conservation, septic system improvements, and minor home repair. 191 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Resources and Opportunities Page 4-20 192 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-1 5.0 Constraints to Housing Production 5.1 Introduction Government Code Sections 65583(a)(5) and (6) require the Housing Element to contain an analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. Governmental constraints include land use controls, building codes and code enforcement practices, site improvement requirements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Non-governmental constraints include the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, requests to develop at densities below what is allowed by zoning, community opposition, and similar factors. In each case, the Housing Element is required to demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints that are identified, thus improving the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The extent to which these constraints are affecting the supply and affordability of housing in Rolling Hills is discussed below, along with past (or proposed future) efforts to eliminate those constraints. 5.2 Governmental Constraints Governmental constraints include activities imposed by local government on the development of housing. These activities may impact the price and availability of housing, the ability to build particular types of housing, and the time it takes to get housing approved and constructed. While these requirements are intended to improve housing quality and protect public safety, they may have unintended consequences. 5.2.1 Rolling Hills General Plan Every city and county in California is required to adopt a General Plan for its long-term development. This Housing Element is actually part of the General Plan but it stands on its own as a separate document since it is updated on a schedule set by the State of California. The other elements of the General Plan are updated as needed. Most cities update their plans every 15 to 20 years. Most of the Rolling Hills General Plan was drafted in 1990. In addition to the Housing Element, the Plan includes a Land Use Element, a Circulation Element, an Open Space/ Conservation Element, a Safety Element, and a Noise Element. An update to the Safety Element was prepared concurrently with the Housing Element, in response to recent State requirements. The Rolling Hills Land Use Element includes a Land Use Policy Map illustrating the types of uses permitted throughout the city. When the Map was adopted in 1990, it reinforced existing parcel patterns and responded to the infrastructure, geologic, wildfire, and environmental constraints in 193 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-2 the city. Four categories are shown: Very Low Density Residential (2 acres per unit), Low Density Residential (1 acre per unit), Civic Center, and Publicly-owned Open Space. Prior to 2020, the City did not allow development at densities greater than one unit per acre and had no General Plan provisions for multi-family housing. As part of 5th Cycle Housing Element implementation, the City amended its Land Use Element to add the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay designation to the Map (corresponding to the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site). At the same time, the City adopted new Land Use Element standards and policies allowing multi-family housing in the Overlay area, along with policies allowing a diverse mix of housing units, as required by state law. The Land Use Element recognizes Rolling Hills’ heritage as an equestrian community comprised of large lots on steep terrain. Its policies call for buffering between uses, preservation of views, and minimizing exposure to landslides, wildfires, and other hazards. These policies remain appropriate given the safety hazards in the community. The Element specifically discusses the 150-acre Flying Triangle landslide hazard area, noting that the area is subject to a moratorium due to unstable geologic conditions. It also notes that many existing parcels are constrained by steep slopes and have only small areas that are suitable for building pads and construction. Recent amendments to the Safety Element further emphasize environmental hazards in the city, as well as constraints associated with evacuation, water supply, and emergency vehicle access. These constraints make most of Rolling Hills poorly suited for additional development or zoning changes that would result in increased density and population. As it currently stands, the General Plan is not a development constraint. 5.2.2 Zoning Standards The Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the General Plan and provides objective development standards for all parcels in the City. There are three zoning districts in the City: • Residential Agricultural Suburban 1 (RAS-1), which has a one-acre minimum lot size • Residential Agricultural Suburban 2 (RAS-2), which has a two-acre minimum lot size • Public Facilities (PF) The RAS-1 zone roughly corresponds to the “Low Density Residential” General Plan designation The RAS-2 zone roughly corresponds to the “Very Low Density Residential” General Plan designation.1 The PF zone corresponds to the “Civic Center” General Plan designation. Parcels with a General Plan designation of “Publicly-owned Open Space” are zoned RAS-1 or RAS-2, whichever is prevalent on private parcels in the vicinity. There are also two overlay districts. Overlays are mapped “on top” of one of the three base zones listed above and apply additional regulations specific to subareas of the city. The first overlay district (OZD-1) provides more lenient setback standards in an area of the city characterized by smaller lots. Roughly 70 lots along Middleridge Lane, Williamsburg Lane, Chesterfield Road and Chuckwagon Road, are covered. The second overlay district (RDMO) is 1 Parcels along Spur Lane and Cinchring Road have a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential but a zoning designation of RAS-1. 194 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-3 the Rancho Del Mar Overlay, which is mapped on the Rancho Del Mar School site in the RAS-2 district. The RDMO requires the transfer of General Plan density for the property as a whole (which yields 16 units) to a single location in order to facilitate the production of multi-family housing. This overlay also includes objective standards for multi-family housing and emergency shelter, which are permitted by right. The zoning ordinance includes definitions of terms (Chapter 17.12). At this time there are no definitions of transitional and supportive housing, both of which must be permitted in every residential district under state law. An action program in this Element has been included to make that Code amendment. The definitions expressly acknowledge manufactured and mobile homes as being the same as detached single family dwellings, provided they are located on a foundation. The zoning regulations indicate permitted and prohibited uses in each zoning district. Single family residences and accessory dwelling units are permitted “by right” in RAS-1 and RAS-2. The only expressly prohibited uses are short-term rentals (less than 30 days), commercial cannabis activities and cannabis dispensaries. Numerous types of accessory structures are permitted by right, including stables, pools, sheds, and small (under 200 SF) cabanas, guest houses, pool houses, garages, greenhouses, and similar structures. Such structures generally require conditional use permits when they exceed 200 SF (accessory dwelling units are excluded from this requirement). Other conditional uses include schools, fire stations, and similar public buildings and utilities. Site plans are required when development is proposed. Table 5.1 summarizes the development standards in the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones, starting with the minimum lot size requirements of one acre and two acres. The Code states that existing parcels of record that are smaller than the minimum lot size requirements are considered to be conforming. Minimum dimensional standards are established for new lots, including the ratio of width to depth and a requirement for a minimum width of 150 feet. There are also standards for minimum street frontage, keeping in mind that most streets are private and contained within easements. These standards are more flexible on cul-de-sacs, depending on turning radius. As indicated in Table 5.1, building coverage is limited to 20 percent of the net lot area in both the RAS-1 and RAS-2 zones. Total impervious surface coverage (structures and hardscape) is limited to 35 percent of the net lot area; maximum disturbed area is limited to 40 percent of the net lot area; and building height is restricted to one story. The code identifies 2:1 (50%) as the maximum buildable slope. A minimum dwelling size of 1,300 square feet is established for the primary unit on the site. The Code includes setback standards of 50’ for front and rear yards, and 20’ for side yards in RAS-1 and 35’ for side yards in RAS-2. Lower standards apply in the OZD-1 overlay zone and exceptions are provided for lots along street easements.2 The zoning code affirms the one-story construction requirement established by the Rolling Hills Community Association (the RDM Overlay area is subject to a two-story requirement). The finished floor of structures must be no more than five feet above grade. Basements are permitted and storage areas may be located above or below a story. The code also provides standards for graded building pads and requirements for stables and corral sites. 2 The City is currently developing standards to implement SB 9, which allows the division of existing lots into two parcels and the construction of two dwellings on each parcel, subject to specific objective standards and other considerations. 195 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-4 Table 5.1: Summary of Rolling Hills Zoning Standards(1) RAS-1 RAS-2 OZD overlay Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 2 acres N/A Setbacks Front 50’ from front easement line (2) 30 feet from front roadway easement Side 35 feet (3) 20 feet (3) 20 feet, reduced to 10’ for street side yards Rear 50 feet Structure Coverage (4) 20% Impervious Surface Coverage 35% Building Pad Coverage 30% Maximum Disturbed Area 40% of net lot area (excl. easements) Maximum Height One-story (1) Standards for the RDM Overlay Zone and standards for ADUs are addressed in Section 5.3.2 of the Housing Element. (2) Most property is Rolling Hills is subject to easements varying in width around each property boundary and road easements, granted by the property owner to the RHCA, a private corporation, or another person or entity for the purpose of construction and/or maintenance and use of streets, driveways, trails, utility lines, drainage facilities, open space, and/or a combination of these uses. The RHCA requires that all easements must be kept free of buildings, fences, plantings or other obstructions. (3) Reduced to 20’ in RAS-2 and 10’ in RAS-1 and OZD if there is a private street along the side property line. (4) The percentage figures in Table 5.1 apply to the “net lot area” on each parcel, which excludes these easements. Additional standards in the Zoning Code prohibit reflective outdoor siding, limit outdoor lighting (to maintain dark skies), and require Class “A” roofing. Conditions are established for specific accessory uses, such as greenhouses, pools, and playgrounds. This includes a requirement that guest houses (which are different from ADUs) may not exceed 800 square feet. Whereas guest houses may not be rented and typically require a conditional use permit, ADUs are permitted by right and subject to different standards (see P. 5-5). A minimum of two garage parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling unit. An additional space is required for homes with guest houses (as noted above, guest houses are treated differently than ADUs). Homes are also required to have driveways, which are generally limited to 20 feet in width and one per lot, though exceptions apply. The parking requirement is not a development constraint and is appropriate given the size of parcels, the high number of automobiles per household3, and the fact that the streets lack sidewalks and are too narrow to permit on-street parking. There is also no public transit service in the city. 3 The 2015-2019 US Census American Community Survey indicates that 63% of all households in Rolling Hills own three or more vehicles. 196 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-5 The development standards in Table 5.1 do not present constraints to the construction of single family homes. Even a “small” substandard lot of 200’ x 200’ (40,000) square feet would be allowed 16,000 square feet of buildable area after required setbacks are subtracted. The allowable structure coverage on such a lot would be 8,000 square feet, providing more than enough space for a residence and detached accessory structures. The requirement for single- story construction has not constrained single family construction, given the ample building footprint accommodated on each site. In fact, single-story construction has enabled many older adults in Rolling Hills to age in place. State law also requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. No such requests have been received in Rolling Hills, as development typically occurs on existing lots rather than through subdivision or multi-unit construction. 5.2.3 Standards for Different Housing Types Section 65583 and 65583.2 of the Government Code require cities to plan for a “variety of types of housing, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” Accordingly, the Rolling Hills Housing Element includes provisions for each of these housing types in the city, with the exception of housing explicitly reserved for agricultural employees, since this was not identified as being a need in the city. Accessory Dwelling Units An Accessory Dwelling Unit—or ADU—is an attached or detached dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. ADUs are commonly known as in-law units, second units, or granny flats. A “Junior” Accessory Dwelling Unit (or JADU) is an ADU that it is no more than 500 square feet in size, contained entirely within the footprint of an existing or proposed single family dwelling, and has an efficiency kitchen. JADUs often have their own bathrooms but they may also share bathrooms with the primary residence. State law now requires that all cities and counties permit ADUs and JADUs meeting certain standards “by right”—in other words, without a public hearing or discretionary approval. Prior to 2018, ADUs and JADUs were not permitted in Rolling Hills. However, the zoning regulations allowed the construction of non-rentable guest houses for family members, visitors, and domestic employees on all residential properties. The large size and high value of properties in Rolling Hills has supported the development of guest houses in the past, resulting in a large inventory of structures that could potentially be converted from guest houses to ADUs in the future. The city also has a large number of accessory structures such as barns, pool cabanas, studios and workshops that could be converted to ADUs. Because of the single story construction requirement, there are also a substantial number of homes with floor plans conducive to Junior ADUs, as many homes have wings, additions, or rooms that could easily be partitioned as independent living units. In January 2018, the City Amended Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to allow for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and 197 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-6 JADUs). Consistent with State law (Government Code 65852.2 and 65852.22), the City allows ADUs and JADUs ministerially (e.g., without a discretionary public hearing) provided the units meet specific standards and design criteria established in the zoning code. The City has also created a discretionary review path for projects that do not meet these standards. Chapter 17.28 establishes that an ADU and JADU may be allowed with a simple building permit if it is within the space of an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure, including an allowance for up to 150 additional square feet for ingress and egress. The unit must also have exterior access independent of the single family dwelling and side and rear setbacks that meet building and fire codes. In addition, detached ADUs are permitted with a building permit (and no additional permit) if they are 800 square feet or less, no more than 16 feet tall, and have side and rear setbacks of at least four feet. A second permitting path has been created for units that are between 800 and 1,000 square feet. Such units require an ADU Permit, which like the building permit is issued ministerially, with no discretionary review. These units are subject to a size limit of 850 square feet for a studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. If attached to the primary dwelling, the unit is subject to a requirement that it may not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling. The ADU may not cause the lot coverage on the property to exceed 50 percent or cause the FAR to exceed 0.45. Setback standards also apply. The City’s ADU ordinance incorporates State standards for parking, which waive parking requirements for JADUs and units created by converting habitable accessory structures. Parking is also waived for units near public transit stops or car-share vehicles. This is generally not applicable in Rolling Hills, since the community is not served by transit or car-share services. Per State law, the Code allows for carports and garages to be converted to ADUs without replacement parking. Where this situation does not apply, one space is required for each ADU, and tandem parking is permitted. ADUs are subject to general requirements, such as fire sprinklers (if the unit is in the primary residence) and a prohibition on short-term rentals (less than 30 days). They are also subject to permit streamlining requirements, including a requirement to act on the application within 60 days after it is deemed complete. This time period may be extended at the applicant’s request, or if the ADU is located within a new single family dwelling on the lot. The City allows both the ADU and the primary residence to be rented, although there are limitations on renting JADUs if the primary residence is not owner occupied.4 The City’s Ordinance also prohibits the sale of an ADU separately from the lot and primary dwelling. ADUs are also subject to basic architectural standards, including compatibility with the design of the primary dwelling. This is objectively quantified, for instance by specifying that the roof pitch must match the primary dwelling, and that the entry be on the side or rear elevation. The ADU is also subject to a minimum length and width standard of 10 feet, and a minimum ceiling height of seven feet. Landscape screening requirements apply to units that are near adjacent parcels. If the ADU changes the building exterior or involves a new structure, it is subject to design review by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee (see next section for further discussion). 4 JADUs (units created within the floorplan of an existing home) are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement unless the property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization. 198 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-7 ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from all impact fees. Units larger than 750 square feet may only be charged impact fees that are proportionally related to the square footage of the unit. The Code also includes waivers for utility connection fees for most ADUs, thereby reducing construction and operating costs. Moreover, the Code provides the option for a conditional use permit for ADUs that do not conform to the basic development standards of Chapter 17.28. Overall, these requirements do not constrain or inhibit ADU or JADU construction. The regulations reflect State regulations and create ample opportunities for homeowners to earn extra income while providing a new dwelling unit for a tenant, employee, caregiver or family member. Given the large lot sizes in the city, the setback standards, FAR standards, and lot coverage limits still allow for generous ADU footprints. Likewise, the single story requirement is consistent with the requirement for single family homes. The “bonus” 150 square feet for JADU ingress/egress creates an incentive for such units. The requirement to provide a parking space is consistent with State law, since there is no transit in Rolling Hills—and is not a constraint given the large lot sizes and substantial driveway space available on most lots. While no constraints have been identified, there are opportunities to provide incentives for ADUs that have yet to be realized. Because of recent changes to State law, there are opportunities for ADUs to be conveyed separately or operated by non-profits and/or affordable housing providers. As noted in Chapter 6, the City will pursue future programs to encourage ADU construction, including ADUs for very low and low income households. This includes creating a roster of ADUs and an inventory of units that meet “extremely low income” needs by providing housing for family members, domestic employees, or other long-term occupants. Multi-Family Housing In February 2021, the City amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family housing within the City limits. This was a key implementation measure in the Fifth Cycle Housing Element. New policies in the General Plan Land Use Element expressly support a range of housing types in the city, including multi-family housing. Chapter 17.19 of the Municipal Code creates the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Opportunity Overlay Zone, which has the following objectives: • Create “by right” opportunities for multi-family housing • Implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning to accommodate the City’s current and projected need for housing • Facilitate well-designed development projects • Encourage development that provides attractive features that integrate the public realm with development on adjacent private property. The zone is mapped on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar school site, which as noted in Chapter 4 and Appendix B, is the most viable location for multi-family housing in Rolling Hills. The zone allows 16 units of multi-family housing on the site (excluding potential density bonus units), with a requirement that this housing be constructed at a density of 20 to 24 units per acre. The 20 unit per acre minimum density requirement corresponds to the “default density” under AB 2348, while the 16-unit requirement is based on the number of units permitted by the underlying 199 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-8 General Plan and RAS-2 zoning designations. It is also a threshold used by HCD to identify viable housing sites. Affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in this zone, provided it is affordable to low and very low-income households and meets objective design standards that are included in the zoning code. These include minimum dwelling unit sizes of 250 square feet for a studio, 400 square feet for a one-bedroom, 650 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 900 square feet for a three-bedroom. Higher minimums had been proposed initially but were lowered to the adopted standards based on direction from HCD that the above figures would not constrain development. As noted above, the allowable density range for the Zone is 20-24 units per acre. Numerous projects—both market-rate and affordable—have been developed in this density range in Los Angeles County in recent years. The range can accommodate apartments, condominiums, townhomes, row houses, clustered units, manufactured homes, and small detached cottages. All of these housing types would be permitted under the regulations prescribed by the Overlay Zone. Development standards for multi-family housing within the Overlay Zone are conducive to higher density construction. These standards require 5-foot front and side setbacks and a 10-foot rear setback. Encroachments such as decks, balconies, awnings, porches, and stairways may extend into the setback areas, and architectural features such as eaves and cornices are also permitted in the setbacks. There are no lot coverage standards or Floor Area Ratio limits. A 28’ height applies, allowing two-story construction. This is the only place in Rolling Hills where two- story construction is permitted. Development is subject to a requirement that 100 square feet of common open space be provided for each dwelling unit. Thus a 16-unit project would be required to set aside 1,600 square feet of shared open space, which is equivalent to about 5 percent of the development site (assuming a density of 20 units per acre). When drafting the Ordinance, the City initially proposed a common open space standard of 150 square feet per unit, but this was reduced to 100 square feet during HCD’s review of the draft to eliminate the potential for a constraint. One parking space per unit is required, plus one guest parking space for every 10 units. For senior housing, one space per unit is required for the first 10 units, and 0.5 spaces per unit are required for any additional units. The RDMO zone allows surface parking, with no requirements for garages or carports. At 180 square feet per parking space, the total area dedicated to parking in a 20 unit per acre project would be 3,240 square feet, or about nine percent of the site. Even with driveway lanes, the total area of the site required for parking would be small. Moreover, the ordinance includes provisions for reduced parking where certain conditions exist (shared parking agreements with nearby uses, available street parking, etc.). No parking is permitted in the 20’ front setback area (at the driveway location). This would not be a constraint given the large size of any parcel that would be created in the future to accommodate multi-family development. Moreover, the front yard setback for structures is only five feet, which creates more space for the building envelope and encourages parking to be placed to the rear or side of the parcel, potentially within the setback. 200 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-9 The development standards require that multi-family housing be located at least 50 feet from the toe of the slope associated with a hillside area within the Overlay District. Figure 5.1 shows the sloped area and indicates that the linear distance between the toe of the slope and the access road serving the multi-family development site is 337 feet. Thus the area where structures are acceptable extends 287 linear feet back from the access road (minus a 5-foot front setback). While the rear 50 feet may not include structures, it could include open space and other amenities, including parking and driveways. The 50’ setback does not affect parcel width (i.e., the east-west dimension), and still leaves room for a substantial development site on the property. Because affordable multi-family housing is permitted by right in the Overlay Zone, the City has adopted objective design standards to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent uses. These address residential frontages (facades, etc.), usable open space standards, public space amenity requirements, and operational standards. Such standards have the potential to create a development constraint if they are too onerous or add to the cost of housing. The residential frontage standards require that the ground floor be no more than five feet above the ground surface. This is easily attained, since the site is relatively flat. The standards establish a 10’ floor to floor height, which is consistent with the overall 28’ height limit as well as typical residential construction standards and interior ceiling heights. Entrances and windows are required along the front façade, and entrances to individual units may either be direct to the exterior, or to an interior hallway. Stoops and porches may be located on the exterior, and projecting elements (bay windows, eaves, balconies) may extend into setback areas. Street tree, landscaping, and lighting requirements apply, but these do not constrain development. Figure 5.1: Slope Setbacks on PVUSD Site 201 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-10 The usable open space standards likewise do not represent a constraint. These requirements call for an amenity such as a children’s playground or clubhouse in multi-family projects. The amenity may be indoors or outdoors and may not include parking areas, streets, or driveways. Projects are also expected to include amenities such as pedestrian walkways, landscaping, bike storage racks, and screened trash enclosures, and would need to comply with building code standards for interior noise. These are common requirements in California communities and do not represent a constraint. Mobile and Manufactured Homes As required by State law, the City Zoning Ordinance allows for manufactured housing units to reduce residential construction costs. Section 17.12.130 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code defines manufactured homes and mobile homes as “single family dwellings”; as such, they are subject to the same standards as wood-frame construction. Emergency Shelters Every city in California is required to identify a zone where at least one year-round emergency shelter is permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit (Govt Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)). The Government Code further requires that emergency shelters be subject to the same standards that apply to residential and commercial development in that zone, except that certain objective standards prescribed by the State may apply. In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to permit emergency shelters “by right” in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone. Rolling Hills has adopted standards for shelters that meet the requirements of the Government Code and facilitate emergency shelter construction or conversion. The RDMO Zone encompasses over 31 acres of public property, most of which is underutilized. There are opportunities to create shelters by converting existing buildings, constructing new buildings, or using temporary facilities such as portables or tiny homes. This use is permitted by right, with no discretionary permit required by the City. There are no limitations on where shelters may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. Since shelter beds do not constitute “dwelling units”, an emergency shelter would not be considered part of the 16 dwelling units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not affect the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone. The City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review in December 2020 and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they are compliant with the Government Code and do not present a constraint to emergency shelter development. The adopted standards include: • Shelters must be at least 300 feet apart, as allowed by the Government Code • One parking space for each staff person must be provided. There are no supplemental parking requirements based on the number of beds. • A maximum of 12 beds applies. This is comparable to the maximums that apply in nearby cities, including those with unsheltered populations. • 50 square feet of personal living space is required for each occupant, excluding common areas. 202 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-11 • The standards allow, but do not require, shelters to include a dining room, commercial kitchen, laundry room, recreation room, child care facilities, and support services (the Code indicates these may be provided, but they are not mandatory) • At least five percent of the shelter area must be dedicated for on-site waiting and intake, and an equivalent (or larger) area is required for exterior waiting • Shelters must comply with building code, plumbing code, and trash enclosure requirements—the same standards that apply to other uses in the Overlay Zone and in the underlying base RAS-2 Zone. Consistent with the Government Code, an application to operate an emergency shelter requires submittal of a management and operations plan that addresses hours of operation, staffing levels, maximum length of stay, and security procedures. The application would require approval by the City Administrator, based on satisfaction of the conditions listed above and review for compliance with Building, Fire, and other applicable regulations. The regulations do not constrain emergency shelter development and are compliant with Government Code requirements. As they were just put into effect in 2021, the City will monitor their effectiveness over the 2021-2029 planning period to determine if changes are needed. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its zoning regulations to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the RDMO Zone. These are facilities with individual rooms or small efficiency apartments designed for very low-income persons. There are no limitations on where SROs may locate within the boundary of the RDMO Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required. In December 2020, the City submitted preliminary standards to HCD for review and subsequently revised those standards to ensure that they do not present a constraint to SRO development. The adopted standards include: • A minimum of six units and a maximum of eight units • Maximum occupancy of two persons per unit • Floor area of 250-350 square feet per unit • Each room must include a water closet (Toilet plus sink) • Each room must include a kitchen sink with a disposal (but not necessarily a full kitchen) • Each unit must have a closet • Full kitchens (i.e., with range, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) and full bathrooms (with shower/bath) may be provided in each unit but are not required. If these facilities are not included in each unit, then shared facilities are required on each floor. • 0.5 parking spaces are required per unit, plus one space for each employee on duty • Occupancy is for 30 days or more The City initially proposed including a requirement for 24-hour on-site management, and a requirement for elevators in the event the building was two stories. Both of these requirements were removed following HCD’s feedback that they were potential constraints. Requiring 24-hour management requirement could be a constraint for a 6-8 unit facility. As a result, on-site management is not required on a 24-hour basis. Given that the building would only be two 203 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-12 stories, the requirement for elevators was removed. Since SRO rooms would not be classified as independent “dwelling units”, they would not be considered part of the 16 units permitted by the Overlay Zone and would not reduce the number of allowable multi-family units in the Zone. Supportive, Transitional, and Employee Housing Supportive housing is a type of rental housing that includes on-site services such as medical assistance or treatment of chronic health conditions or disabilities. Transitional housing is a type of supportive housing but is specifically intended for unsheltered residents who are transitioning to permanent housing. Supportive and transitional housing is not associated with a specific structure type—single family homes can be used in this manner, and so can multi-family buildings. Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires cities to treat transitional and supportive housing as residential uses that are only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In other words, a City cannot hold a single family home used as supportive housing to a different standard for parking, setbacks, floor area, etc. than a single family home occupied by a family or other type of household. Public Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 requires the City to treat employee housing for six or fewer people the same as other single family housing in each zoning district. For example, if a corporation in another city purchased a home in Rolling Hills and allowed its employees to live there, the use would be treated like any other single family home. Rolling Hills presently has no Code language that limits transitional, supportive, or employee housing or imposes any special restrictions on such housing. However, these housing types are not expressly acknowledged in the Municipal Code. The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an action item to add definitions of transitional, supportive, and employee housing to the Municipal Code within six months of Housing Element adoption, acknowledging that such housing is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, as required by State law. Housing Constraints for Persons with Disabilities Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4) requires the Housing Element to include “an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement of development of housing…for persons with disabilities. AB 686 also requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing, which includes housing that meets the needs of persons with disabilities. In November 2020, the City Council approved reasonable accommodation procedures, including application requirements, review procedures, findings, and provisions for noticing and advertising the opportunity. These procedures establish a process through which persons with disabilities can request reasonable accommodations (or modifications) to the City’s codes, rules, policies, practices or services so that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy or use a dwelling. The City has also adopted a resolution recognizing the Americans with Disabilities Act, including a commitment to assist disabled residents. 204 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-13 Rolling Hills has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code. As long as construction is consistent with the Building Code, residents are permitted to provide any disabled access or amenity improvements necessary to reduce barriers. Access to homes via ramps is permitted. One-story construction throughout the community removes a major barrier for persons with disabilities and facilitates access for persons with mobility limitations. Accessibility improvements, universal design changes, and other accommodations for persons with disabilities are processed administratively in conjunction with the building permit process and are permitted in both of the City’s residential zones. Residential Care Facilities and Definition of “Family” The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires that small licensed residential care facilities for six of fewer clients be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts. Rolling Hills complies with this requirement in practice and has no minimum distance (separation) or siting requirements for residential care facilities. However, the Zoning Code does not expressly mention or define small residential care facilities. It should be amended to indicate that this use is permitted. As required by California Health and Safety Code Section 1566.2, the City does not collect business taxes, registration fees, or other fees for small residential care facilities. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code includes a definition of “family” in its zoning regulations. Overly restrictive definitions may pose a housing constraint, but in this instance the definition is broad and inclusive. According to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, “family” means: “one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding, rooming or lodging house, hotel or club. Family may include domestic servants.” 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Controls State law requires the City to consider not only the impact of individual development standards, but also the cumulative effects of these standards on the cost and supply of housing. For example, it is possible that a particular setback requirement may appear reasonable on its own but may limit development opportunities when combined with height and lot coverage limits. Sometimes, the combined effect of different development controls can require more expensive construction or result in frequent zoning variances. Because of the very large lot sizes in Rolling Hills, the zoning standards do not create an adverse cumulative impact on development costs or the housing supply. As previously noted (pages 5-2 and 5-4), a special zoning overlay (OZD-1) was created in 2012 to recognize that some parts of the city have prevailing lot sizes that are smaller than the one-acre minimum required by the RAS- 1 district. Roughly 10 percent of the City’s parcels are covered by this zone, which allows reduced setbacks in order to avoid the need for zoning variances. As noted earlier, the combination of front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a rectangular one-acre lot would still allow for a buildable area of over 16,000 square feet. Most parcels are considerably larger than one acre and have buildable areas that exceed 20,000 square feet. FAR and lot coverage limits likewise allow ample structure coverage, and homes larger than 10,000 square 205 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-14 feet can be built without Variances on most lots. The one-story height limit tends to produce building footprints that are quite large—but still within the 20% structure coverage requirement. Each residence is required to have two covered parking spaces (three, if an ADU or guest quarters are on-site). This requirement is modest given the typically large home size and does not constrain building construction. The land use controls also do not present a cumulative constraint to ADU construction. Almost every parcel in the City has the land area or existing built floor area to support an ADU, and many homes already have spaces that could be easily converted to ADUs. The ADU and JADU regulations adopted in 2018 and revised in 2020 were drafted to work in tandem with the controls for the RAS-1 and RAS-2 districts and have laid the foundation for substantial ADU production. There are no cumulative land use constraints to multi-family development. The Rancho Del Mar Overlay (RDMO) Zone standards have been tested to ensure they are internally consistent and can support housing in the 20-24 unit/acre range. The RDMO Zone allows multi-family housing to be either owner or renter occupied. New housing units in this zone must be affordable. The affordability requirement is not a constraint to development, as the site is publicly owned and represents a unique opportunity for reduced land and construction costs. There are no comparable opportunities in the city, as this is the only property in Rolling Hills that is flat, vacant, served by public sewer, and walking distance from public transit. One notable omission from the City’s zoning regulations a provision for density bonuses. State law requires that the City offer a density bonus for projects that set aside various percentages of units for affordable housing, senior housing, and other types of special needs housing. The number of bonus units is based on a sliding scale and can be up to 50 percent above the base density permitted by zoning. For projects where all units are affordable to low and very low income households, the density bonus rises to 80 percent. A density bonus could be requested for the Rancho Del Mar site, since the overlay requires that any multi-family housing is 100 percent affordable. This would allow 28 units on the site instead of the 16 allowed by the General Plan and zoning. The Housing Element includes a program recommendation that the City amend the Municipal Code to adopt density bonus provisions or adopt the State provisions by reference. 5.2.5 Building Code Standards The City of Rolling Hills adopted the Building Code for Los Angeles County in effect on January 1, 2020 as its Building Code. A number of local amendments to the Code were made. This includes an allowance for the City Council to hold a public hearing to review decisions of the County Board of Appeals, Code Enforcement Appeals Board, or Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board. Other local amendments include a modified definition of “basement” (to avoid the appearance of multi-story buildings), adjusted provisions for grading and cut slopes, limits on driveway slope, and limits on developing slopes over 50 percent. The City has also adopted the Los Angeles County Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Residential Code, Fire Code, and Green Building Code. 206 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-15 Effective July 1, 2008, all land in the City of Rolling Hills was deemed to be a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). As a result, several more restrictive fire safety standards have been adopted. The City also has adopted standards for hours of construction, and requirements for geological surveys and investigations. 5.2.6 Permit Processing Times and Approval Procedures Processing and permit procedures can be a constraint to the production and improvement of housing due to the time they add the development process. Unclear permitting procedures, layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval can increase the cost of housing, create uncertainty in the development process, and increase the financial risk assumed by the developer. In Rolling Hills, the time required to process a project varies depending on the size and complexity of the proposal, and the volume of projects being reviewed. Not every project must complete every possible step in the process. In addition, certain review and approval procedures may run concurrently. For smaller projects, permit processing times tend to be faster than in most cities. Administrative review applications (i.e., those that do not require public hearings) typically take only a few days to process. However, the City’s capacity is limited, requiring that some permit processing functions are contracted out. Even smaller projects that are approved ministerially typically require review by the Rolling Hills Community Association and the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department, in its role as the contracted building authority of the City. The City collects no fees for over the counter review—such fees are assessed when the project is submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Administrative review processes have been created for residential additions less than 1,000 square feet, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, remodels, foundation repair, and re-roofing. Such projects are required to submit two sets of plans, various checklists, and calculations of existing and proposed square footage, lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. The City’s website provides comprehensive information for applicants seeking permits, including on-line portals for applications, payment, and checking progress on permit status. Larger projects such as new homes take longer, but they are less common. New homes in Rolling Hills are multi-million dollar projects that often require demolition, site preparation and grading, and new driveways before construction may begin. Larger projects may also require review by the LA County Health Department for the adequacy of the septic system, and the Fire Department for fuel modification. An initial consultation with staff is strongly encouraged at the start of the process. Once an application is received, it is reviewed for completeness, including required calculations, elevations, and site plans. The Planning Commission conducts an initial project review meeting, a field trip, and a meeting to forward the application to the City Council. Likewise, the Council conducts an initial meeting, a field trip, and a meeting to forward the plans to the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). 207 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-16 The RHCA has an Architectural Committee that reviews plans for new homes and large additions to ensure that easements are kept free and clear of structures, including fences and other obstructions.5 Projects are submitted to LA County Building and Safety following RHCA review. Projects that require Variances to development standards or Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) also require Planning Commission hearings. CUPs are required for large horse stables and corrals, detached garages, tennis courts, and a number of other large-footprint site features. From start to finish, the process from submittal of plans to approval of permits may take six months or longer for a brand new home. Applications for ADUs, major remodels, residential additions, and accessory structures are more common, and are processed more rapidly. ADUs, JADUs, and other ministerially approved projects take approximately two to four weeks to process. The City regularly seeks ways to expedite processing and improve the timeliness of its services. At the present time, permitting and processing time is not considered a constraint and the City complies with the time limit requirements established by Sections 65943 and 65950 of the Government Code. 5.2.7 Site Improvement Requirements The principal site improvements required upon development of a vacant property are the undergrounding of electrical lines to the structure, installation of a septic system, and conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Road and emergency access (fire safety) improvements may be required for properties that do not have street frontage or have other access constraints. New development in Rolling Hills consists almost entirely of custom homes on existing vacant or previously developed lots, rather than subdivision of “raw land,” which tends to reduce overall improvement requirements. At the Rancho Del Mar affordable housing site, installation of curb and gutter improvements would be required prior to development, but the site already has road access, storm drainage, and water and sewer facilities in place. The cost of installing a new septic system is generally not a constraint for brand new homes but can be an impediment for ADUs and smaller additions, particularly for homeowners with limited incomes. At minimum, the County Health Department requires a feasibility study for any project that could result in septic tank capacity being exceeded. Older homes may face costly septic installation requirements that could render a home addition or ADU infeasible. Programs to assist lower income or senior homeowners with septic tank replacement could be considered, particularly where an ADU is being added. 5.2.8 Development and Permitting Fees Fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the costs of processing permits and providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools, and infrastructure. Most of these fees are assessed through a pro rata system based on the square footage or value of the project, the staff time required for processing, and the magnitude of the project’s impact. If fees become excessive, they can become a constraint on development and make it more difficult to build 5 School District and City-owned property is exempt from this requirement. Thus, any development in the RDMO Housing Opportunity Zone would not be subject to RHCA review. 208 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-17 housing affordably. They can also place a burden on lower income homeowners seeking to modify their homes or add an Accessory Dwelling Unit. A summary of residential development fees charged by the City of Rolling Hills is presented in Table 5.2. Most projects do not require payment of these fees, as they would not typically require use permits, Variances, Zoning changes, General Plan amendments, CEQA review, lot line adjustments, and so on. However, Site Plan Review is commonly required for all new homes and major additions, and ADU permits are required for larger ADUs. For projects complying with City standards and requirements, the fees are not a development constraint. Table 5.2: City of Rolling Hills Major Development Fees1 Fee Type Fee Amount Notes Site Plan Review $1,500 Conditional Use Permit $1,500 Variance $1,250 Minor Variance $750 Encroachments from main structure that do not extend more than 5’ into required setbacks Zoning Change or Code Amendment $2,000 General Plan Amendment $2,000 Accessory Dwelling Unit application $375 Major Remodel Review $375 View Impairment Review $2,000 Processing fee for Committee review of impacts on trees and views Water Efficient Landscape Review $1,500 Unused balance refunded Traffic Commission Review $300 Required for new driveways Lot Line Adjustment $1,500 Plus County fee Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 Plus County fee Final Parcel Map -- County fee only Environmental Review Determination $200 Plus Fish and Game Fee Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee plus 10% Only required as needed Appeal Fee 2/3 of original application fee Only required as needed Source: City of Rolling Hills, 2021. Barry Miller Consulting, 2021 1 This is not a comprehensive list of all fees but covers the major development-related categories in the City’s fee schedule. The fee schedule also covers records searches, inspections, and review of grading plans. 209 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-18 Rolling Hills is one of 13 cities that contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety (LACDBS) for plan checking, building permits, and building inspection. The County issues building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits on the City’s behalf. The cost schedules for the incorporated cities served by LACDBS are higher than the schedules for the unincorporated area but are comparable to nearby cities with full-service building departments. A residential project with an assessed valuation of $100,000 would be subject to a plan check fee of $3,413 and a permit fee of $4,029. This includes required energy and disabled access checking costs. As the value of a project increases, the fees decline as a percentage of total project costs. They represent 7 percent of a $100,000 project but less than 5 percent of a $500,000 project. The fee schedules for other permits varies by type. Electrical permits are subject to a base fee of $74.70, plus a cost per square foot ($0.20/SF for multi-family and $0.50/SF for single family and duplexes). Separate fees are collected for swimming pools, branch circuits, lighting fixtures, appliances, and electrical plan checking. Mechanical permits are collected for HVAC systems, compression units, boilers, refrigeration systems, etc. Plumbing permits are based on the number of fixtures and also cover projects requiring connection to septic tanks and work such as solar water heaters, sprinkler systems, and backflow protection devices. Relative to the other 12 cities that contract with Los Angeles County, the fee schedule in Rolling Hills is slightly higher. However, the fees are lower in Rolling Hills than in nearby Rolling Hills Estates. The County also collects fees for projects requiring geotechnical review. This would apply to most new housing units in Rolling Hills. The fee ranges from $2,752 to $17,746, with the actual amount based on 0.50% of the value of the proposed structure. Additional fees are charged for geotechnical site inspections and geotechnical review of grading plans. Los Angeles County typically updates its fees annually based on the consumer price index and other factors. The increase in 2021 was 2.2 percent for all cities served by the County. Rolling Hills updates its fee schedule less frequently, although fees are considered as part of the annual budgeting process. Some of the City’s fees—such as the fees for parcel maps and lot line adjustments—have not been updated in many years. There are no local surcharges or special fees associated with multi-family housing. On a per unit basis, permitting costs would be substantially lower for multi-family units than for new single family units. This is due to the smaller size of multi-family units and to multi-family housing being permitted “by right” within the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, with no applicable administrative fees. The City’s fee structure has not historically distinguished between single and multi-family construction, as multi-family housing only recently became a permitted use. A number of other fees apply in Rolling Hills; these are typically associated with new residences and are intended to offset the additional cost of providing services. These include: • A Park and Recreation Fund Fee, which is equivalent to 2% of the first $100,000 in building evaluation, plus an additional 0.5% of the remaining balance. The fee for a $1 million construction project would be $6,000. This fee is only charged for new primary homes---ADUs are exempt. • A School Impact Fee, which is paid to the Palos Verdes Unified School District. In 2020, the fee was $3.79 per square foot for new residential construction. 210 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-19 • A fee collected by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), equivalent to $0.20 per $100 of assessed valuation (i.e., $2,000 for a project with a construction value of $1,000,000) • Additional architectural review fees collected by the RHCA, including a $165 flat fee plus $1 per square foot for new construction, additions and major remodels. In addition, RHCA collects fees ranging from $25 to $500 for individual features such as swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, and new roofs. There are no sewer connection fees in the city, since there are no sewers. There is no water connection fee; water service charges are determined by the size of the meter and the number of fixtures, plus the amount of water used. The City likewise has no impact fees for housing, transportation, public art, or other services. Projects in the RDMO Zone would be exempt from the RHCA fee, since they are outside the HOA boundary. In total, fees for a typical new home are roughly equivalent to 7-8 percent of total construction costs. This is comparable to other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, though somewhat higher than in other urbanized parts of Los Angeles County. The higher fees are associated in part with the terrain and hazards in Rolling Hills and the size and complexity of applications for new homes, many of which require extensive grading and multiple inspections. Fees do not constrain development in Rolling Hills, but they do add to the cost of housing, which is already expensive in the City. Programs to reduce processing and permitting fees for ADUs could be considered, as they could incentivize ADU production. 5.3 Non-Governmental Constraints Non-governmental constraints significantly affect the affordability of housing in Rolling Hills. Specifically, the high cost of real estate in the city, its heritage as a rural, gated equestrian community, and its limited infrastructure and severe environmental constraints, make it extremely challenging to build traditional affordable housing units. The city is one of the most expensive and highly constrained communities in California. To be economically viable, affordable housing must be tailored to community context—for example, through accessory dwelling units. 5.3.1 Land Costs Land in Rolling Hills is expensive. The city features dramatic topography, with sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles basin. Property in the city is marketed as a location for prestigious estates. The supply of acre-plus homesites on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is limited, making demand for such properties very strong. A scan of Zillow.com in Fall 2021 shows two vacant lots for sale in the city—one for $7.5 million and another with geologic constraints for $1 million. Data on recent sales shows a vacant single family parcel that sold for $6.85 million in November 2020 and another that sold for $1.84 million in 2019. These properties have been marketed and sold as sites for large single family homes. The economic viability of affordable housing on these sites is further challenged by the cost of the site improvements that would be required to facilitate safe development. The vacant parcels described above lack public sewer; are accessed by narrow, winding, private roads traversing 211 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-20 an area with very high wildfire severity; and have slopes that exceed 50 percent in some cases. The cost of road widening, grading and earth movement, and installation of community-wide sewer and storm drainage construction make most types of multi-family housing economically infeasible. There is no public revenue source to make these improvements. The absence of commercial land uses in the city limits the City’s ability to sponsor programs that would reduce or underwrite land or site improvement costs. 5.3.2 Construction Costs The cost of construction, including labor and materials, is a significant constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills. While high costs have impacted the entire state, Rolling Hills is particularly impacted by the high cost of mitigating environmental constraints, including fire and geologic hazards. New home construction requires grading and earth movement, often with costly retaining walls and engineered drainage systems. Many homes in the city feature high- end finishes, as well as amenities that result in higher costs. The city is also vulnerable to elevated or inflated costs that reflect its reputation as a high-end, high-income market. In 2014, the Rolling Hills Housing Element estimated that construction costs were approximately $330 to $500 per square foot. Based on recent projects in the city, costs have doubled since then. The National Association of Homebuilders estimated that costs increased 26 percent between June 2020 and June 2021 alone. There have been rapid increases in the price of lumber, copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, and other building materials, resulting in some projects being placed on hold and others being cancelled altogether. Construction costs for home additions now regularly exceed $800 per square foot. Construction of septic tanks represents a unique expense in Rolling Hills that is not common in surrounding cities. Anecdotally, homeowners in the city report costs of well over $25,000 to install new septic systems, which in some cases can be an impediment to adding an accessory dwelling unit or expanding an older home. 5.3.3 Financing Financing is not a constraint to housing development in Rolling Hills, but the high cost of housing makes it infeasible for most households to buy a home in the community. Home mortgage interest rates remain relatively low, with rates at around 3.0 percent for a 30-year mortgage in Fall 2021. Income and down payment requirements have become more stringent than they were following the mortgage crisis of a decade ago, and there are fewer flexible loan programs to bridge the gap between the amount of a required down payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds. Given the very high cost of housing in Rolling Hills, significant capital is required to purchase a home. A 20 percent down-payment on the median priced home in the City would be nearly $750,000, with monthly mortgage payments of nearly $19,000. A very high income would be required to qualify. First time buyers face particular challenges in the city, given the lack of equity from prior home ownership. 212 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-21 5.3.4 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Development in Rolling Hills is controlled through both municipal zoning and privately enforced CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are considered a non-governmental constraint because they are enforced by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), a private entity. The CC&Rs were established by the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1936 upon the initial development of the community. They apply to all property in the city except the City Hall Campus, Tennis Court Facilities, PVP Unified School District site (Rancho Del Mar), and Daughters of Mary and Joseph Retreat Center. The RHCA does not have design review or building permit review authority on these sites. Elsewhere in Rolling Hills, the CC&Rs restrict the development and use of property to single family homes and limited public uses. They do not allow multi-family housing, commercial, office or industrial activity. One of the stated purposes of the CC&Rs is to preserve and maintain the rural character of the community, including regulating the architectural design of structures. The CC&Rs authorize the RHCA Board to appoint and maintain a five-member Architectural Review Committee to carry out this objective. The Committee is comprised of three Association members and two licensed architects. The RHCA Board has adopted a Building Regulations manual that is used by homeowners and their architects/ contractors, and by the Committee to evaluate projects. Committee review is required for all new residences and accessory structures, and for all projects that modify the exterior of existing structures. Committee meetings occur twice monthly, on the first and third Tuesdays. The meetings are not considered “public hearings” since RHCA is not a public agency, but they are open to all members of the Association and are subject to Association bylaws. RHCA’s Building Regulations require that all homes under RHCA’s jurisdiction be one-story, ranch-style construction. The Regulations identify three permissible style types: traditional ranch, contemporary ranch, and early California Rancho. Specific standards are provided for each style, including allowable exterior siding materials, roof materials (and colors), roof pitch, building height (25 feet), and floor to ceiling plate heights (8’6” maximum in at least 50 percent of the structure). Regardless of style, all buildings must be painted white, conform to the natural grade, and have consistently designed doors and windows. A minimum floor area of 1,300 square feet, plus a two-car garage, is required for all residences. The regulations align with the City of Rolling Hills zoning regulations—in fact, the CC&Rs expressly state that the Architectural Committee must comply with applicable provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. This includes allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are not mentioned in the Association’s Building Regulations. Under AB 670 and AB 68 (effective January 2020), CC&Rs may not be used to deny ADU applications, and prohibitions on ADUs by homeowner associations are not enforceable. State law does allow homeowner associations to review the design of ADUs, provided their process is fair, reasonable, and expeditious. This has been occurring in Rolling Hills for the last three years with no adverse effects on ADU construction. 213 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-22 As noted earlier in this chapter, the City has developed a ministerial process for ADU approval as required by state law. Projects meeting the dimensional requirements in the Municipal Code (which are consistent with State standards) are approved without a public hearing or discretionary review by the City. If an ADU does not affect the exterior of a home (for instance, a Junior ADU entirely within the footprint of an existing home, or the conversion of a detached guest house to an ADU), then no RHCA review is required. The Architectural Committee does review ADUs that modify the exterior, add square footage to a structure, or result in a new accessory structure. The purpose of this review is to verify that the structure meets the objective design requirements in the RHCA Building Regulations rather than to evaluate the merits of the project or its off-site impacts. According to the Committee’s own guidelines, it “will not require modifications to working drawings that materially change the massing of the project.” City staff has worked closely with RHCA staff to ensure that their design review process is coordinated with City permitting, streamlined, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on applicants. The RHCA office is adjacent to City Hall and there is ongoing coordination between the two entities. When an application for an ADU is submitted to the City, the City advises the applicant to proceed to RHCA immediately afterwards to initiate project review. Projects are typically forwarded to the RHCA Architectural Committee within two weeks and are typically approved at the initial meeting; if modifications are required, the plans are typically approved at the second meeting two weeks later. The review occurs concurrently with the City permitting process, avoiding potential delays. In practice, every ADU application approved by City staff has subsequently been approved by the RHCA Architectural Committee. Nonetheless, an action program in this Element recommends that the City work with RHCA to update the 2017 Building Guidelines to acknowledge ADUs and provide guidance for homeowners seeking to add an ADU. 5.3.5 Infrastructure Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the limited availability of infrastructure, specifically streets, sewer, storm water and water facilities. Streets Rolling Hills has no public roads or streets. Since the 1930s, the community’s internal street network has been designed to establish a rural, equestrian character. This historic aspect of the city’s infrastructure is one of Rolling Hills’ defining features. The road network is typified by winding roads with a 15- to 25-foot paved cross-section and no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or streetlights. Narrow road width, coupled with steep grades and very low densities, effectively precludes public transit within the city. Access is also gate-controlled at three entry points. The city's circulation infrastructure is not conducive to uses generating high trip volumes, such as higher-density housing. Given the entire city’s designation as a very high wildfire hazard severity area, the capacity to evacuate the population is also a limiting factor. Most streets in the community are “dead ends” without emergency vehicle access alternatives in the event that ingress and egress is blocked. 214 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-23 A number of properties—including City Hall, the Retreat Center, and the PVUSD site, are accessed from roads outside the City gates. These parcels are less constrained by street access but could require ingress and egress improvements (resurfacing, driveways, etc.) in the event a change of use was proposed. Such improvements are typical for any development and would not adversely affect expected construction costs. Wastewater Disposal With the exception of the school site and thirteen residences that have individually or collectively (through the creation of a small sewer district) connected to an adjacent jurisdiction's sewer systems, there is no sanitary sewer system in Rolling Hills. Residences are served by individual septic tanks and seepage pits. These systems are designed to serve single family residences and are not conducive to multi-family housing. This is particularly true given the geologic, slope, and soil constraints in Rolling Hills. To meet water quality and runoff requirements, high-density housing typically requires a viable sewer connection. Over the past 35 years, the City has conducted multiple sewer system feasibility studies. In 2019, the City received approval from the Los Angeles County Public Works and Sanitation District to discharge effluent from up to 235 existing homes in Rolling Hills. The City is in the process of completing design drawings for Phase One, which is a 1,585-foot long 8-inch diameter sewer line along Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road. This will provide service to City Hall, the RHCA offices, and the Tennis Courts. Future phases of the project could provide service to residences but would require significant grant funding and potentially special assessments. In 2021, the City surveyed all households to determine the level of support for developing a sewer system. Roughly 16 percent of the City’s households participated. The survey found that about three-quarters of the residents’ septic tanks were more than 20 years old. More than 80 percent supported construction of a sewer system, though many responses were contingent on the cost. Past engineering studies have concluded that the terrain and unstable geological conditions in the city make a conventional gravity sewer system infeasible in the city, meaning the cost to property owners could be significant. The Palos Verdes Unified School District site is an exception. It is connected to a wastewater treatment line that was installed when the school was initially constructed. Collection lines were sized to accommodate a school campus with several hundred students, and associated maintenance facilities—a higher level of demand than is associated with current uses on the site. Given the availability of sewer service to this site and the high cost of extending sewer services elsewhere, it is the most suitable property for multi-family housing in the City. In some instances, septic systems may present a constraint to ADU development. This is generally not an issue for JADUs or smaller ADUs that repurpose existing habitable space, but a new detached ADU that adds floor space may require increasing the capacity of a septic system. As noted earlier in this chapter, a program in this Housing Element proposes further evaluation of this constraint, and possible ways to assist homeowners in addressing it. 215 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-24 Storm Water Run-off As a rural community without public streets, Rolling Hills does not have a municipal storm sewer system or continuous network of storm drains. Drainage follows topography, with stormwater flowing into steep ravines through the community. Water percolates into the ground along canyon bottoms, with runoff flowing to the ocean, or to larger streams and detention basins downstream, depending on location. To comply with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and maintain its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the City is required to screen and monitor its runoff to avoid compromising downstream water quality standards. It also required to implement a number of programs, such as an Illicit Discharge Elimination Program. The City also requires Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction in order to avoid erosion, pollution, sedimentation, and runoff that would degrade water quality. These requirements are not a development constraint but may add to the cost of construction. Moreover, the lack of a municipal storm drainage system represents another constraint to higher density housing in most of the city. The Rancho Del Mar site is outside the area covered by the MS4 monitoring program and drains west toward Rancho Palos Verdes. Unlike the rest of Rolling Hills, it is served by an improved storm drainage system. A 2017 facility evaluation reported the storm drains and inlets on the site as being in good condition. Water Water infrastructure in Rolling Hills is owned, maintained, and operated by California Water Service (CalWater). The city is within CalWater’s Palos Verdes District, which also serves the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Facility planning is governed by an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which evaluates anticipated demand and the water resources available to meet that demand. Projections of future water use are based in part on expected population growth, which is derived from SCAG forecasts and local general plans. Water demand is projected to increase by 6 percent by 2045, reflecting very slow population and housing growth in the Peninsula cities. Development beyond that anticipated by SCAG forecasts could reduce water pressure, compromise firefighting capabilities, and curtail domestic water availability. This is a problem throughout California, made worse by persistent drought conditions. The UWMP provides water shortage contingency plans, including measures to reduce demand and procure emergency supplies. Water storage facilities and pipelines in Rolling Hills are generally adequate to meet local needs. However, many of the city’s water facilities are aging and the system as a whole is vulnerable to damage during earthquakes and landslides. Storage and distribution facilities reflect the rural density of the city and are not sized to accommodate significant growth. The Palos Verdes Unified School District site provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as its water system was designed for a public school campus with several hundred students. 216 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-25 The introduction of ADUs in Rolling Hills could potentially impact water demand in the City. The California Water Company has no plans to upgrade the aging water system. As ADUs are created, it will be important to consider potential impacts on water distribution lines and fire fighting capacity. Several factors work to mitigate the impacts of ADUs on the water system. First, the population of Rolling Hills has declined by roughly 300 since 1980. Thus, the addition of 40 or so ADUs over eight years may not increase the total number of residents in the City. Second, water conservation measures have been implemented—and continue to be implemented—to reduce water flows and water demand. These measures include water- efficient landscaping requirements, as well as requirements for more efficient plumbing fixtures. 5.3.6 Environmental Constraints Rolling Hills has severe environmental constraints to development. Slopes exceeding 25 percent are present on almost every remaining undeveloped parcel in the city. Geotechnical studies are required when new homes are constructed, and mitigation is often required to reduce the potential for future damage. The City’s Site Plan Review Process and grading requirements are intended to strictly limit recontouring of existing terrain. Most grading occurs through “cut and fill” procedures that retain materials on site. This adds to local housing costs and limits the viability of multi-family housing on most properties in the city. Landslide Hazards Figure 5.2 shows landslide zones in Rolling Hills, as mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Large portions of the city are considered hazardous and major slides have occurred in the past. This includes the Flying Triangle Landslide, which has impacted roads, homes, and properties in the southern part of the city for the last 50 years. These areas are poorly suited for development and are susceptible to slope failure. Human modifications to slopes (through development) can exacerbate the problem and the risk. Building at the head of a landslide can decrease the bedrock strength along an existing or potential rupture surface and “drive” the landslide down slope. Improper grading practices can also trigger existing landslides. Because of these geologic hazards, the City limits land disturbance and other actions that would exacerbate soil instability. Ground instability would contribute to potential risks to human life as well as to physical structures. The Safety Element of the General Plan sets forth policies to restrict new development and expansion of existing development in areas susceptible to landslides. Earthquake Hazards Like most of Southern California, Rolling Hills is vulnerable to earthquakes. Large earthquakes can cause building damage and collapse, as well as damage to roads and utilities. The City of Rolling Hills is crossed by the Cabrillo Fault, which is part of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone. It is also vulnerable to earthquakes on the Whittier Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Malibu Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Redondo Canyon Fault. The location of these faults is shown on Figure 5.3. The Whittier and Newport-Inglewood Faults are considered capable of generating earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 7.0 and have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. In the 217 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-26 event of a major earthquake on either fault, the city of Rolling Hills would be vulnerable to ground shaking. Secondary hazards include liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and differential settlement. Fault rupture is not a significant hazard in the city, and there are no Alquist Priolo “special studies” zones within the city limits. Wildfire As shown on Figure 5.4, the entire city of Rolling Hills has been designated a “Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone” by CalFire. The city’s terrain creates challenges for vegetation management and presents conditions where a fire can travel quickly up and down canyon slopes. Despite defensible space requirements, the city’s rural nature and equestrian heritage means that extensive areas are covered by dense scrub and brush. The Palos Verdes Peninsula has a history of destructive wildfire, including fires that destroyed homes in 1973, 1993, 2009, and 2018. The City has taken measures to reduce fire hazards, including preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in 2020. The Plan outlines measures to harden infrastructure, improve vegetation management, underground electric power lines, and improve inspections and enforcement. It also includes provisions for evacuation. Additionally, the City (and Los Angeles County) require special building safety measures, including standards for roofing, eaves, exterior finishes, and buffer zones that respond to the higher fire hazard levels. Despite these measures, the risks of wildfire cannot be eliminated entirely. Moreover, the city continues to face evacuation constraints resulting from its narrow roads, limited ingress and egress points, and the presence of livestock on many properties. Biological Resources Rolling Hills supports a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some that are listed or under consideration for listing by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species include the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly, the California Gnatcatcher, the Pacific Pocket Mouse, the San Diego Horned Lizard, and Brackishwater snail. Development that could adversely impact the habitat of these species must undergo review and approval by the overseeing federal and state agencies. Typical mitigation measures include preservation of habitat, further restricting the potential land available for development. This constraint is likely to continue throughout the planning period. 218 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-27 Figure 5.2: Landslide Hazard Areas in Rolling Hills Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 219 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-28 Figure 5.3: Earthquake Faults in the Rolling Hills Vicinity Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 220 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-29 Figure 5.4: CalFire “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones Source: Draft Rolling Hills Amended Safety Element, 2021 221 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Constraints Page 5-30 222 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-1 6. Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Chapter 6 provides the City’s housing plan for the next eight years. The plan has three components: • A statement of the City’s goals and policies for housing. The goals and policies balance State mandates and Government Code requirements with local needs and priorities. • An action program. The action program identifies the specific, measurable steps the City will take during 2021-2029 to implement the policies. • Measurable objectives for housing production. These objectives correspond to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and also include numeric targets for housing rehabilitation and conservation. 6.1 Goals and Policies The following goals and policies reflect the City’s continued commitment to actively support residential development and plan for the City’s fair share of regional housing needs: GOAL 1: Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of existing and future Rolling Hills' residents. Policy 1.1: Accommodate Rolling Hills’ share of the region’s housing needs in a way that protects public safety, responds to infrastructure constraints and natural hazards, recognizes market conditions, and respects the historic context and land use pattern in the city. Policy 1.2: Allow the development of a variety of housing types in the city, including multi- family housing. While Rolling Hills will remain a rural equestrian community, housing opportunities will be provided for all income groups as required by State law. Policy 1.3: Facilitate development on the remaining vacant buildable lots in the city in a manner consistent with adopted zoning standards. Policy 1.4: Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in all residential zones. Maintain objective standards to ensure that ADUs and JADUs are compatible with the community; minimize visual, parking, traffic, and other impacts; and respect neighborhood context. Policy 1.5: Explore incentives to create and maintain Accessory Dwelling Units that are affordable to low and very low income households. Policy 1.6: Encourage the conversion of existing guest houses and other habitable accessory buildings into legal ADUs. 223 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-2 Policy 1.7: Work with other governmental entities and the non-profit community to support the development of affordable or senior housing on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in nearby South Bay cities. Policy 1.8: Maintain planning and building procedures that maximize efficiency and reduce permit processing times and high fees. Encourage public understanding of the planning and building processes to reduce project costs and delays. GOAL 2: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Rolling Hills. Policy 2.1: Encourage and facilitate the maintenance and improvement of existing homes. Policy 2.2: Ensure that new housing and home improvements comply with building code and fire safety requirements. Policy 2.3: Maintain a code enforcement program, including procedures to remediate violations. Policy 2.4: Require the design of home improvements, additions, ADUs, and infill housing to minimize impacts on existing residences. Include objective standards in the zoning ordinance that protect visual quality, privacy, and community character. Policy 2.5: Mitigate hazards that could potentially cause a loss of housing units in the city, including wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes. Encourage home hardening and defensible space to minimize the potential for housing loss during a natural disaster. Policy 2.6 Prohibit the use of ADUs as short-term rentals in order to maintain their viability as permanent housing units. Policy 2.7: Encourage weatherization, energy conservation, and renewable energy to increase energy efficiency and reduce home energy costs. GOAL 3: Address the housing needs of older adults and others in the community with special housing needs. Policy 3.1: Provide reference and referral services for seniors, such as in-home care and counseling for housing-related issues. Policy 3.2: Support shared housing programs and room rentals as options for seniors to remain in the community without financial hardship. Policy 3.3: Encourage housing opportunities for live-in care givers, domestic employees, and family members who may assist elderly or mobility-impaired residents who wish to age in place. 224 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-3 Policy 3.4: Consider participation in state and federal programs that assist lower income and senior households in home repair and maintenance. Policy 3.5: Strive to meet the needs of extremely low-income Rolling Hills residents, including seniors on fixed incomes. Policy 3.6: Encourage the retrofitting of existing Rolling Hills homes so they are accessible to the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities. Provide reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and procedures for disabled persons to ensure equal access to housing. Policy 3.7: Participate in countywide programs to meet the needs of unsheltered residents and others who may need emergency housing assistance. GOAL 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, disability status, or national origin. Policy 4.1: Affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that housing opportunities for persons of all income levels, races and ethnicities, and physical abilities are available in Rolling Hills. Policy 4.2: Enforce all applicable laws and policies pertaining to equal housing opportunity and discrimination. Maintain third party agreements to follow-up on and correct alleged violations. Policy 4.3 Make information on fair housing laws available to residents and realtors in the City by providing information on the City’s website and print media at the City Hall public counter. Policy 4.4: Ensure effective and informed community participation in local housing decisions. This should include special efforts to include traditionally underrepresented groups, including persons working or providing services in Rolling Hills. Policy 4.5: Distribute affordable housing opportunities around the city by focusing on ADUs as a housing strategy. Policy 4.6: Participate in regional forums and initiatives to promote fair housing. 225 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-4 6.2 Housing Implementation Plan, 2021-2029 The goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element will be implemented through a series of housing programs. Some of these programs are already underway and others will be implemented over the next eight years. This section of the Housing Element provides a brief description of each program, including measurable objectives, responsible entities, and implementation timeframes. Each of these programs has been developed consistent with HCD guidelines and State Government Code requirements. Program 1: Annual Progress Report As required by State law, the City will prepare and file an annual report on the progress made toward implementing its Housing Element using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Guidance on the content of the report is provided by the State Office of Planning and Research. It documents the City’s progress toward meeting its share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove government constraints to housing production. The report must be presented to the City Council prior to its submittal (it may be approved as a consent item). Quantified Objective: Provide one report per year Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: File by April 1 of each year Program 2: Rancho Del Mar Opportunity Site Monitoring In February 2021, the City adopted the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone on the 31-acre Rancho Del Mar (RDM) campus owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. As documented in Chapter 4 and Appendix B of this Housing Element, large parts of the RDM site are unimproved and vacant. The new zoning permits 16 affordable multi-family units on the site, which may be developed “by right” at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The City Manager will meet at least once annually with the School Superintendent to discuss the future of the site, including future development opportunities. Next steps to be pursued on the site include: • Exploring the feasibility of subdividing the site to create a separate parcel west of the PVPTA transit facility. This site could be more easily marketed as a development opportunity. • Further discussions with the School Board regarding opportunities for teacher housing and/or senior housing on the site. • In collaboration with the School District, make information on the site available to affordable housing developers. • Further discussions with non-profit developers regarding the opportunity to construct housing on the site, including technical assistance to developers where requested. 226 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-5 • Consideration of permit streamlining, CEQA clearance, and fee reductions for future affordable housing development on the site. Multi-family housing is already permitted “by right” subject to objective design standards adopted in February 2021, but further steps could be taken to reduce future development costs. Quantified Objectives: (1) 16 units of affordable housing on the RDM site (2) Annual meeting between the City Manager and School Superintendent Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Once annually, beginning in 2021 Program 3: No Net Loss Monitoring and Other Multi-Family Housing Opportunities The City has identified adequate capacity to accommodate 45 units of housing, as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Sixteen of these units are on the Rancho Del Mar Site. Five are new single family homes on vacant lots (three of which are already approved). The remainder are Accessory Dwelling Units. Rolling Hills will continue to maintain General Plan and zoning designations that facilitate development of the required number of units and will continue to comply with the Housing Accountability Act in the event projects are proposed. SB 166 (2017) requires that every city maintain “adequate sites” to accommodate its RHNA by income category at all times during the eight-year Housing Element period. If a designated housing opportunity site becomes unavailable, the city must demonstrate that it still has adequate capacity on its remaining sites (e.g., “no net loss”). In the event the Rancho Del Mar site becomes unavailable to produce the housing units envisioned by the overlay zone, the City would need another suitable site to accommodate those units. Cities generally meet the no net loss mandate by providing one or more “buffer” sites in addition to their primary sites. These sites must meet HCD criteria, including the ability to accommodate 16 units at a density of at least 20 units per acre. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, due to the lack of sewer and the community’s natural hazards, Rolling Hills does not have a buffer site available. The City will continue to explore potential housing sites that could supplement the RDM site, particularly where sanitary sewer service could be made available in the future. The City will continue to rely on accessory dwelling units to meet the balance of its lower-income housing assignment, regardless. Quantified Objectives: No net loss of housing capacity to meet RHNA at all times Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Continuous through 2029 227 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-6 Program 4: Add Definitions of Transitional and Supportive Housing, and Employee Housing, to Municipal Code To comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), the City of Rolling Hills must clarify that transitional and supportive housing are considered residential uses and are subject to the same restrictions that apply to the other residential uses that are allowed in a given zoning district. In other words, a single family home used as a group home for persons with disabilities is subject to the same planning and zoning requirements that apply to a single family home used by a traditional family. Most local governments have addressed this requirement by adding definitions to their zoning codes for transitional and supportive housing. The purpose of this program is to add those definitions to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Chapter 17). The definitions would acknowledge that such housing is permitted or conditionally permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone as required by State law. Definitions of small licensed residential care facilities (for six of fewer residents) and low barrier navigation centers also will be added to the Code and referenced in other zoning regulations, as required by State law. This program also includes a Municipal Code Amendment to add a definition for employee housing in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). HSC Section 17021.5 states that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer people shall be deemed a single family structure with a residential land use designation. It further states that employee housing may not be considered a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or similar term that implies that such housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a single family dwelling. State law precludes a city from requiring a conditional use permit, zoning variance or other zoning variance for such housing, and stipulates that the use of a single family dwelling for six of fewer employees does not constitute a change of occupancy for building code purposes. Quantified Objectives: Council Action Adopting Definitions Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 2022 228 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-7 Program 5: Density Bonus Ordinance Section 65915 of the California Government Code establishes mandatory statewide provisions for density bonuses for affordable and senior housing projects. Rolling Hills does not currently have density bonus provisions in its Municipal Code. Historically, the City has not had multi- family housing, nor any site where multi-family housing could be constructed. With the creation of the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone, a developer could request a density bonus and related concessions from a developer. State standards would apply in this instance. The City should adopt provisions in its Municipal Code acknowledging the applicability of State density bonus laws in the event a request is received. Quantified Objectives: Municipal Code amendment related to Density Bonuses Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Complete by December 2022 Program 6: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production, Monitoring, and Incentives As noted in Chapter 4, the City intends to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 29 lower income units through a combination of affordable housing on the Rancho Del Mar site (16 units) and privately constructed and rented ADUs on scattered sites throughout the city. At least 13 ADUs should meet affordability thresholds for low and very low income households.1 Creating opportunities for lower income households on scattered sites supports one of the main objectives of the State’s Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, which is to avoid the concentration of lower income housing in a single location. An ADU-centered strategy also responds to the lack of sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and public streets in Rolling Hills and the community’s rural densities and absence of supportive services. As stated in Chapter 4, the City approved nine ADUs in 2021 alone, including two that are projected to be affordable to lower income households based on their small size. Thus, creating another 11 ADUs affordable to lower income households over the next eight years is an attainable goal. The Annual Housing Progress Report should address the City’s progress toward meeting this goal; if the City is falling short after two years, the strategy should be revisited and additional incentives should be developed. Program 6 includes a number of specific elements, which are listed below: 6.1 Develop Citywide Roster of ADUs. The City developed an ADU roster in October 2021 and will expand the roster as new units are created. Currently, the roster (or data base) contains fields such as Address, Owner, month approved, square footage, and a description of each unit. This should be expanded to include information on whether the unit is occupied, the number of occupants, and the rent charged—this information would be requested from homeowners on a voluntary basis. Tracking occupancy and affordability is 1 Two ADUs meeting affordability criteria for low/very low are already under construction (see Table 4.1), leaving a balance of 11 needed. 229 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-8 intended to determine how many units are serving very low- and low-income households, and to demonstrate that the City is meeting its RHNA. 6.2 Annual ADU Survey. The City will send an annual letter to households on the ADU roster requesting information on the status of the unit. The information will be used to prepare a summary that can be referenced as part of the City’s Annual Progress Report. As part of this task, the City will also identify instances where very low or extremely low income households (including family members, domestic employees, caregivers, etc.) are residing on Rolling Hills properties and paying below market rent (or no rent). To the extent these households are occupying independent living quarters, this data provides evidence that the City is accommodating its RHNA target for very low income households. 6.3 Develop Inventory of Potential ADUs. Over time, the City will develop a parcel data base of potential (or “unintended”) ADUs, which are existing habitable spaces that could potentially be converted into independent dwelling units. This would include guest houses, pool houses, and similar accessory structures that are used by the primary residence. As the inventory is completed, owners would be advised of the opportunity to convert the space into a legal ADU. 6.4 Incentives for ADU Construction. The City will develop incentives for ADU construction. Different incentives may be developed for those building new homes (i.e., reduced fees for including an ADU in a new residence), those adding a new ADU on their property, and those converting existing habitable floor space into an ADU. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 65583(c)(7) (effective January 1, 2021), the City will explore the use of State CalHome, LEAP, REAP, and SB 2 funding to help local homeowners build or finance ADUs on their properties. Access to these funds typically requires rents that are affordable to low and very low-income households. 6.5 Pre-Approved ADU Plans. The City will determine its eligibility for State grant funding to develop “pre-approved” plans for ADUs that can be used by Rolling Hills residents. These architect-developed plans would be specifically tailored to meet the RHCA design guidelines and would respond to the topography and access constraints found on most Rolling Hills lots. Enabling homeowners to use pre-approved plans may reduce architectural design costs, and potentially reduce construction costs. This can make ADUs more feasible and allow them to be rented more affordably. 6.6 Coordination with RHCA. The City will coordinate with the Rolling Hills Community Association to ensure that RHCA’s design review practices and procedures do not constrain ADU construction or add to their costs. City staff will meet with RHCA staff and the RHCA Architectural Committee regularly to coordinate review, advise RHCA of State laws relating to ADUs, and address any issues that may arise in the future. The City will also work with the Rolling Hills Community Association to explore reduction of annual HOA fees for property owners agreeing to limit rents on their ADUs. 6.7 Septic Tank Replacement Grants or Financial Assistance. The City will pursue funding for a grant which can be used to assist homeowners with septic tank replacement when paired with the addition of an ADU. The grants would be targeted to lower income seniors who may seek to add an ADU but lack the financial resources to replace their septic tanks. 230 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-9 6.8 Non-Profit Construction of ADUs. The City will explore the possibility of engaging a non- profit housing developer in a program to develop ADUs in partnership with interested Rolling Hills property owners. Participation could be limited to qualifying lower income residents, or to homeowners who agree to limit rents to levels that are affordable to lower income households. Such a program was successfully implemented by the City of Santa Cruz, in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity, and could be considered locally. 6.9 Monitor Best Practices in ADUs. The City will continue to track statewide and national trends in ADU management, incentives, and regulations. The focus will be on cities in California that are comparable to Rolling Hills in density, character, and constraints, with an eye toward cities that are relying on ADUs to meet a substantial share of their RHNA for lower income households. Programs that are potentially transferable to Rolling Hills will be considered for local implementation. In addition to the specific measures listed above, City staff will continue to assist homeowners who are interested in adding an ADU, and will work with applicants to facilitate ADU review, permitting, and approval. Quantified Objectives: (1) Citywide ADU roster of 40 ADUs by 2029, including at least 13 ADUs rented at levels meeting affordability criteria for lower income households (2) ADU Survey, administered once a year (3) Inventory of potential ADUs (4) ADU Incentives (5) Two to four pre-approved ADU architectural plans Funding Source: City General Fund/ State grants Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Attorney Implementation Time Frame: (1) Rosters and Surveys prepared by 2022 and updated annually (2) ADU incentives by 2023 (3) Approved architectural plans by 2024, or as funding allows 231 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-10 Program 7: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Outreach, Education, and Information Program 7 addresses public outreach, education, and information on ADUs. Like Program 6, it has multiple elements. 7.1 Biennial Mailing. The City will send a mailing to all households in Rolling Hills at least once every two years advising them of the opportunity to create an ADU, the potential benefits of having an ADU, and potential incentives in the event the ADU will be occupied by a household worker, caregiver, family member, or other household meeting the definition of a low or very low income household. The mailing may consist of an article in the City’s monthly newsletter. 7.2 Website. The City will develop a landing page on its website with information on ADU opportunities (“Thinking about building an ADU?”). The website landing page will include information on the types of ADUs an owner may consider (detached, attached, junior, etc.), the typical cost and cost considerations, financing options, tax implications, development standards, tenant selection, and so on. The information should also be provided in printed form for interested homeowners. 7.3 RHCA Design Guidelines Update. The City will work with the Rolling Hills Community Association to facilitate an update of the RHCA Design Guidelines so that they address ADUs. Currently, the Guidelines do not acknowledge ADUs at all. The Update would provide objective design standards for ADUs that are consistent with Rolling Hills zoning standards as well as the design guidelines that currently apply. Quantified Objectives: (1) Mailings to all Rolling Hills households (at least once every 2 years) (2) Updated City website (3) Updated Design Guidelines document Funding Source: City General Fund, State grants Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: (1) First mailing by December 2022 (2) Website update by June 2023 (3) Update of design guidelines by 2024 232 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-11 Program 8: Assist Senior and Disabled Households The City will continue to address the housing needs of seniors and persons with disabilities by connecting those in need with social service agencies, non-profits, volunteer organizations, and other service providers, and by coordinating with the RHCA in the services and programs it provides. As noted in the Needs Assessment, more than one-third of the city’s residents are over 65 and about 10 percent have one or more disabilities. The City will work with seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, to evaluate housing needs and resources. Several of the programs listed elsewhere in this Element (shared housing, assistance with home maintenance, reduced utility rates, etc.) are primarily intended to benefit lower income seniors. The City also will support expanded opportunities for persons with disabilities, including the use of universal design principles and accessibility standards in new construction and ADUs. As part of this program, Rolling Hills will also work with the Harbor Regional Center to implement outreach services to Rolling Hills families on services available to persons with developmental disabilities. The City’s website will be updated to include links to housing and supportive services for seniors and disabled persons. Quantified Objectives: Website landing page with senior housing resources Facilitate age-in-place retrofits for 10 senior households Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: June 2023 (for website) Program 9: Assist Extremely Low-Income Households Extremely Low Income (ELI) households have incomes that 30 percent or less of the County median. In 2021, the income thresholds for ELI were $24,850 for a household of one; $28,400 for a household of two; $31,950 for a household of three; and $34,450 for a household of four. Based on CHAS data, there are 25 ELI households in Rolling Hills, representing about 3.5 percent of the city’s households. The CHAS data indicated that all 25 of these households were homeowners, suggesting they are primarily seniors on fixed incomes. The City will explore ways to assist elder Rolling Hills homeowners on fixed incomes with home maintenance, repair, and retrofit activities. It will also direct these households to appropriate resources, such as shared housing services and programs to reduce utility costs. There are additional ELI households in Rolling Hills that may not be counted in the Census data, including extended family members living in independent quarters on a property, or domestic employees (housekeepers, au pairs, personal assistants, etc.) living in guest houses, accessory buildings, or in separate quarters within the primary residence. The City will address the needs of these households by prioritizing applications for ADUs and encouraging homeowners to create opportunities for domestic employees and family members to live “on site.” A study sponsored by SCAG in 2020 determined that 15 percent of the ADUs in the coastal Los Angeles area were likely to be available at rents affordable to Extremely Low Income 233 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-12 Households.2 A 2018 study further found that 17% of the ADUs in Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver were occupied by a friend or family member for free.3 A 2014 study found that 18% of the ADUs in Portland were occupied for free or extremely low cost.4 A 2012 UC Berkeley publication indicates that up to half of all ADUs are occupied at no cost.5 Based on these analyses, the City is estimating that seven “rent free” or extremely low income rentals will be added to the Rolling Hills housing stock by 2029. It will seek to document and measure progress toward this objective by soliciting voluntary reporting of such units by individual homeowners. As noted in Program 6.2, an annual survey is proposed to be administered to all registered ADU owners in the city. This would enable tracking of rent-free or reduced rent ADUs. Quantified Objectives: Provide seven housing units affordable to Extremely Low Income Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Prepare inventory of ELI units by 2024, update annually Program 10: Support Regional Efforts to End Homelessness Extremely low-income persons also include those who are homeless or may be at risk of becoming homeless. Although the point-in-time surveys for the last five years have not counted any homeless residents in Rolling Hills, the City recognizes that homelessness is a regional problem that requires regional solutions. Rolling Hills will continue to allow emergency shelters and single room occupancy hotels in the Rancho Del Mar Overlay Zone and will monitor the effectiveness of its regulations in its Annual Housing Progress Report. The City will continue to work with adjacent communities on emergency shelter referrals. As a member of SCAG and the South Bay Cities COG, staff and elected officials participate in forums and discussions of homelessness, and potential programs and resources to end homelessness and increase the supply of shelter, transitional, and supportive housing in Greater Los Angeles. Quantified Objectives: Participation in point in time surveys; participation in at least one regional meeting annually on strategies to end homelessness Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029 2 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020 3 Jumpstarting the Market for ADUs. Terner Center (for ULI), San Francisco, 2018 4 ADUs in Portland OR. Environmental Solutions Management, 2014 5 Scaling Up Secondary Unit Production in the East Bay. Berkeley Institute of Regional Development, 2012 234 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-13 Program 11: Permit Streamlining The City will continue its efforts to expedite permit processing, ensure efficiency, and reduce administrative and processing costs for new development. This could include provisions for reduced fees for ADUs that are rented at below market levels, or occupied by qualifying lower income households. As part of the annual budgeting process, the City will ensure that fees are appropriate for the services provided, and will consider ways to improve the permitting and entitlement processes. Quantified Objectives: Compliance with all provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act Funding Source: City General Fund/ Permitting Fees Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director/ Planning and Community Services Department/ LA County Building and Safety Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021 through 2029 Program 12: Facilitate Communication with Affordable Housing Service Providers, Developers, and Advocates The City of Rolling Hills periodically receives requests from housing advocates, non-profit developers, and service providers to disseminate information on affordable housing needs and opportunities and work collaboratively to address housing issues. City planning staff regularly field requests from for-profit and non-profit developers, participate in regional housing meetings and discussions, and work with other cities to explore creative, effective ways to meet housing needs. In the event a non-profit agency or developer wishes to submit a grant application that will increase housing affordability for senior or low income Rolling Hills residents, staff will provide administrative support wherever possible. Quantified Objective: Hold at least one meeting a year with one or more non-profit housing sponsors to discuss housing opportunities and needs in Rolling Hills Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Convene one meeting before December 2022 235 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-14 Program 13: Shared Housing Shared housing enables homeowners to offset their housing costs by receiving rent, or get additional help in managing housing duties. It also creates a resource for lower income households in the community, including college-aged students and young adults, caregivers, domestic workers, landscapers and building industry workers, child care workers, teachers, and other public service employees. It can also be a resource for seniors, some of whom may no longer wish to live alone or lack the financial resources to live alone. Residents in Rolling Hills have access to two nearby shared housing programs: Focal Point at the South Bay Senior Services Center in Torrance and the Anderson Senior Center in San Pedro. Both these centers offer resources to assist seniors locate roommates interested in sharing housing. These programs make roommate matches between seniors based on telephone requests. Numerous other home sharing services have emerged over the last decade. These include SHARE! Collaborative Housing, a public-private partnership supporting shared single family housing for persons with disabilities in Los Angeles County; Affordable Living for the Aging, which matches younger single tenants with seniors in Los Angeles County; and Los Angeles County HomeShare, which serves residents of all ages throughout the County. There are also private services such as Silverleaf (Long Beach) that facilitate home sharing for a fee. The City will continue to apprise residents about shared housing programs by providing information at the public counter and online. Quantified Objectives: Continue to provide informational brochures advertising shared housing programs at City Hall and on the City’s website Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Establish website links by December 2022 236 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-15 Program 14: Sewer Feasibility Studies and Phase One Construction As indicated in Section 5.3.5 of this Housing Element, Rolling Hills does not have a sanitary sewer system. With a few exceptions, the entire city is served by private septic systems. Septic system installation is costly and requires customized design to reflect steep terrain. The cost of installing sanitary sewers and storm drains would be even more costly, as it would likely require easements, force mains, and lift stations. The City recently completed design drawings for a sanitary sewer extension through adjacent Rolling Hills Estates that will bring service to Rolling Hills City Hall and the Tennis Courts. A future phase of this project could continue southward along Portuguese Bend Road, allowing some Rolling Hills homes and a number of vacant properties to be served by sewer. A survey done by the City in 2021 indicated there was strong support for a sewer extension project, contingent on the cost to each homeowner. There is currently no funding source for such an extension. Grant funding would be required, as it would reduce the cost burden on homeowners and make the project more feasible. The City will continue to work toward addressing this constraint during the 2021-29 planning period. This includes: • Developing the initial phase of the project, serving City Hall and the Tennis Courts • Conducting feasibility and cost studies for a future phase to serve privately owned homes and parcels in the northern part of Rolling Hills • Pursuing funding for future phases • Continuing to poll Rolling Hills residents on their level of support for the project In addition, the City continues to monitor water quality issues related to its MS 4 permit for stormwater discharge. Efforts to address runoff quality and implement best management practices to reduce pollution are ongoing and will continue. Quantified Objective: (1) Complete 1,585-foot sanitary sewer extension to City Hall/ Tennis Courts (Phase I) (2) Complete feasibility / cost study of sanitary sewer extension (3) Obtain grants for Phase I project construction Funding Source: General Fund/ State grants Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Complete Phase I by 2024 237 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-16 Program 15: Consider Participation in CDBG Urban County Program At least once every two years, the City should re-evaluate the feasibility of joining the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG program in order to create a funding source for home improvements for qualifying lower income Rolling Hills residents. The decision should consider the potential amount of funding that could be received by the city, and potential uses for that funding, as well as the administrative costs, reporting requirements, and staff resources required to carry out the program. In the event the City receives CDBG grants, it could consider using the funding to assist qualifying lower income households with energy efficiency improvements, housing rehabilitation and improvements, or septic tank replacement. Quantified Objectives: Prepare staff report to City Council regarding participation in Urban County CDBG program Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager/ Finance Director Implementation Time Frame: By 2023, and every two years thereafter Program 16: Code Enforcement The City will continue code enforcement and nuisance abatement activities to ensure the safety and habitability of housing in Rolling Hills. While property maintenance in Rolling Hills is excellent, there is a need for ongoing enforcement of planning and building codes. The City has a “Code Enforcement” webpage with online forms for reporting suspected violations, including those relating to vegetation management and outdoor lighting as well as unpermitted construction or nuisances. Periodic information on code enforcement resources and requirements is also provided to residents through the City’s monthly newsletter. Quantified Objective: Respond to 100 percent of resident Code Enforcement inquiries Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029 238 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-17 Program 17: Reduce Home Energy Costs Energy bills can be a significant cost burden, particularly for households on fixed incomes with large homes to heat and cool. The City has adopted the Green Building Code and enforces Title 24 energy efficiency requirements through its contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety. New residential projects, including new homes, ADUs, renovations, and additions, will continue to be required to meet Title 24 standards. These requirements result in energy savings which reduce gas and electric consumption and home utility bills. Rolling Hills also works with Southern California Edison to distribute information to residents on energy conservation and weatherization, including information on financial assistance and lower utility rates for low-income customers. The City will provide links on its website to assist lower income residents in accessing information on reduced utility rates. Rolling Hills is also a member of the South Bay Environmental Services Center, which provides information on energy incentives, audits and rebates. These programs will continue in the future. The City will also support resident installation of solar energy systems. A growing number of Rolling Hills homeowners have installed photovoltaic panels, increasing energy independence and resilience while reducing home energy costs. Quantified Objective: (1) Provide links on City website related to energy conservation, weatherization, and financial assistance (2) Adopt updated Building Code standards for energy efficiency Funding Source: General Fund, LIHEAP Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department Implementation Time Frame: Website Update, with links: Complete by January 2023 Program 18: Facilitate New Construction and Home Improvements The City will continue to work with property owners, architects, and builders to enable new housing to be built in the City. Continued cooperation and communication between City staff, applicants, and neighbors will facilitate the construction of new housing. The City is committed to efficient planning, building, and inspection procedures, and regularly seeks ways to improve the process and reduce delays. With few vacant lots remaining, most construction projects in Rolling Hills consist of home additions, repairs and modernization, or replacement of existing dwellings. Continued investment in Rolling Hills housing stock is strongly encouraged and will continue to be supported in the future. Although the City does not provide direct financial assistance to lower income homeowners, it assists owners in keeping costs down through permit streamlining and fees that are generally below average compared to other cities in Los Angeles County. Quantified Objective: 5 new single family homes (above moderate income) Funding Source: Private Funds (Permitting Fees) Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department, LA County Building and Safety Implementation Time Frame: Objective covers the period from 2021 through 2029 239 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-18 Program 19: Remediate Geologic Hazards The City will continue to explore solutions to ground stability and landslide problems. Grading, new structures and additions typically require a soils and geology report along with grading and building permits. The City has developed strict grading practices that limit grading to no more than 40 percent of the lot and require maintenance of natural slopes. These practices are necessary to safeguard the public against ground instability. The City will support repair work on landslide-damaged homes and hillsides that have been damaged or compromised by past landslides. The City will strive to avoid further loss of its housing stock as a result of natural disasters, including landslides and wildfires. Quantified Objective: Geologic studies for new development and major grading permits Funding Source: City General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Services Department/ City Manager Implementation Time Frame: On-going, 2021 to 2029 Program 20: Fair Housing Services Program Administration The City will contract with a third party fair housing services provider to promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, disability, or other characteristics protected by state and federal fair housing law. The City will also contact the fair housing service provider annually to obtain information on cases and referrals originating in Rolling Hills. Quantified Objective: Active contract with a fair housing services provider Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: By December 2022; renew Agreement as needed 240 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-19 Program 21: Fair Housing Outreach The City will provide information on fair housing resources on its website, including a link to the fair housing service provider. Other outreach measures include posting regulations regarding housing discrimination, as well as phone contacts, at City Hall and periodically providing this information in the City’s newsletter. The City will also provide a referral process for any person who believes they have been denied access to housing because of their race, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status or disability. In the event a complaint is received, the City will refer the party to the City’s housing service provider for follow up and work with the complainant to resolve the issue. Quantified Objective: Active contract with fair housing services provider Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Ongoing, 2021-2029. Website update by December 2022. Program 22: Fair Housing Training for Staff At least one City staff member will attend an on-line fair housing certification training class on an annual basis. These classes are typically three-hour sessions in which participants are informed and educated about federal and California fair housing laws, compliance, and illegal housing practices. The trainings cover prohibited and best practices, including language guidance for advertising housing for sale or for rent, and protected classes under federal and California law. In addition, the City will regularly evaluate the need for multi-lingual services, including translation of material on its website into other languages. It will also continue to implement its reasonable accommodations ordinance and monitor data on persons with disabilities in the city to ensure that barriers to mobility are eliminated to the greatest extent possible. Quantified Objective: Annual staff training Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: City Manager Implementation Time Frame: Initiate in 2022 241 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-20 6.3 Summary of 2021-2029 Quantified Objectives Table 6.1 provides quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by income group. The new construction objectives align with the RHNA numbers that appear earlier in the Housing Element. The rehabilitation objective aims to assist 10 very low-income senior households over the eight year period. The conservation and preservation objectives correspond to the approximate number of households in Rolling Hills by income group based on Census data. The objectives aim to preserve housing for 100 percent of these households. There are no housing units in Rolling Hills that are at risk of conversion from affordable to market-rate. Table 6.1: Quantified Objectives by Income Group for Rolling Hills (20 21-2029) Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/ Preservation Extremely Low [1] 7 5 25 Very Low 13 5 45 Low 9 45 Moderate 11 25 Above Moderate 5 500 Total Housing Units 45 10 640 Source: SCAG Adopted Regional Housing Needs Determinations (November 2012) [1] City’s RHNA for “Very Low” income is 20 units. This has been allocated proportionally to “Extremely Low” and “Very Low” based on Table 3.8, which indicates the current proportion of “Very Low” income households in these two groups. Extremely low income households represent 35% of the “very low” total. Table 6.2 summarizes the 22 Housing Element programs listed in this chapter. It includes a quantified objective and timeframe for each program, as presented above. 242 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-21 Table 6.2: Housing Element Action Plan Summary # Program Timing Quantified Objective 1 Prepare Annual Progress Report on Housing Element implementation Annually, by April 1 One Report per year 2 Facilitate affordable housing on Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity site Annual meeting with School Superintendent 16 lower-income units by 2029 3 No net loss monitoring/ other housing opportunities Continuous, through 2029. Address in Annual Report. No net loss of housing capacity for duration of planning period 4 Add definitions of transitional, supportive, employee housing to Municipal Code December 2022 Council action adopting definitions 5 Adopt density bonus provisions in Municipal Code December 2022 Council action adopting density bonus provisions 6 Accessory Dwelling Unit production, monitoring, and production • ADU Roster in 2021 • Annual ADU survey, starting in 2022 • Pre-approved plans in 2024 • ADU incentives in 2023 40 ADUs by 2029, including at least 13 ADUs affordable to lower income households 7 Accessory Dwelling Unit Outreach, Education, and Information • First biennial mailing by end of 2022 • Website update by 6/23 • Update of design guidelines by 2024 • Outreach mailer to 639 households • ADU website landing page • ADU section added to RHCA Guidelines 8 Assist senior and disabled households • Website update by 6/23 • Housing assistance during 2021-2029 Assist 10 lower income senior households with age in place retrofits 9 Assist extremely low income households • Prepare inventory of ELI units by 2024 7 ADUs affordable to ELI households 10 Support regional efforts to end homelessness Ongoing • Participate in point-in- time surveys • Attend one mtg a year 11 Permit streamlining Ongoing Compliance with Permit Streamlining Act 12 Facilitate communication with affordable housing service providers, developers, and advocates By December 2022 Convene at least one meeting a year 13 Shared housing By December 2022 Provide information on website, plus print media resources 243 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Housing Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs Page 6-22 # Program Timing Quantified Objective 14 Sewer feasibility studies and Phase I construction Phase I construction (serving City Hall) by 2024 • Sewer extension to City Hall/ Tennis Courts • Feasibility study for sewer extension 15 Consider participation in Urban County CBDG Program By 2023 Staff report and Council discussion 16 Code enforcement Ongoing 100% follow up 17 Reduce home energy costs By 2023 Website update 18 Facilitate new construction and home improvements Ongoing 5 market-rate single family homes (including 3 already approved) 19 Remediate geologic hazards Ongoing Geologic studies for new development 20 Fair housing services contract and program administration Develop agreement in 2022; renew annually or as needed Contract with fair housing service provider 21 Fair housing outreach Website update by December 2022 • Contract with fair housing service provider • Website links or landing page 22 Fair housing training for City staff Initiate in 2022 Annual training for at least one staff member 244 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-1 Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Evaluation Overview In 2018, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 686, adding a requirement that local housing elements address each community’s obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing.” AB 686 defined this is as: “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.” In April 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development issued its formal guidance memo on how local governments should address this new requirement in their housing elements. The guidance memo indicates the ways in which the AFFH mandate affects outreach and community engagement, data collection and analysis, the site inventory, identification and prioritization of “contributing factors,” and the goals, policies, and programs of the housing element. It also includes data sources and other resources for local governments. Chart A-1 summarizes the AFFH mandate; the requirements are extensive. As a result, the City of Rolling Hills has provided this appendix to address the mandatory components rather than including this information in the body of the Housing Element. The findings of this assessment have informed the policies and programs in the Housing Element. There are limitations to the analysis presented here. Rolling Hills is a small community, comprised of a single Census Tract Block Group. It is affluent and homogenous and does not have pockets of poverty or notable disparities between its neighborhoods. Many of the AFFH maps developed by HCD simply affirm this, rather than revealing spatial patterns within the city limits. The underlying goal, which is to reduce impediments to fair housing in the city and improve housing opportunities for lower-income households, remains relevant. In addition, Rolling Hills does not participate in the federal CBDG program as a member of the Los Angeles County Urban County designation. As such, it is not directly covered by the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices prepared by the County Community Development Commission and Housing Authority. Some of the findings of the County Analysis are cited here, as they apply more broadly to the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes are both members). 245 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-2 Chart A-1: Summary of AB 686 Requirements Source: HCD, April 2021 246 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-3 The remainder of this report provides the data that is generally referred to as the AFFH analysis. This includes trends and patterns related to segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity (including persons with disabilities), and disproportionate housing needs. Unless otherwise indicated, all maps in this chapter were prepared using the AFFH data viewer from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Duty of All Public Agencies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Federal law already requires that federal agencies administer programs in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing. This also extends to all local governments receiving funds from the federal government. AB 686 further extended the obligation to all public agencies in the State of California. This mandate applies to administration of all programs and activities relating to housing and community development. The statute requires an examination of policies, programs, rules, practices, and activities, and where necessary, changes to promote more inclusive communities. Outreach The City of Rolling Hills has worked to engage all economic segments of the community in the Housing Element Update process. This included conducting more than 11 housing-focused public meetings on Zoom in 2020 and 2021, delivering newsletters with information on the Housing Element to every household in the city, and providing housing-related surveys (both paper and electronic) to every housing unit in Rolling Hills. By reaching out to every household in the city, Rolling Hills has engaged its lower income residents in the process. Meetings have been held in the evenings to facilitate participation. The public was invited to participate in each meeting as “panelists” rather than “attendees,” giving them equal footing to staff and Councilmembers/ Commissioners rather than the more limited opportunities offered by webinars. Drafts of the Housing Element were made available at City offices and on-line, with at least 30 days provided between the release of the Draft and action by the City Council. Site Inventory AB 686 requires that a jurisdiction identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The sites identified by the City must work to replace segregated living patterns with integrated living patterns. Rolling Hills has done this by focusing on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to meet its housing needs, rather than by zoning scattered sites throughout the city for multi-family housing. By definition, ADUs provide an effective way to achieve economic integration as they enable low and very low income households to live throughout the community rather than in segregated living patterns. As noted throughout the Housing Element, the City currently has no multi-family housing units— thus, the designation of the Rancho Del Mar property as an affordable housing opportunity zone would not constitute a “concentration” of poverty. As the only site in the city that has sewer and storm drainage, flat buildable land, road and transit access, and relatively few natural hazards, it is the only suitable site in the city for multi-family housing (see Chapter 4). Placing multi-family 247 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-4 housing elsewhere in Rolling Hills---on hazardous sites prone to landslides and wildfires, without public street access or sewer facilities—would be inconsistent with the objectives of AB 686. Fair Housing Enforcement Fair housing enforcement is presently handled on a case-by-case basis. The State of California has an Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FEHO) that enforces the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights authorities that prohibit discrimination. In the event a fair housing complaint is received by the City, the involved party would be referred to FEHO for investigation. An action program in the 2021-2029 Housing Element recommends that the City contract with a third party non-profit to promote the enforcement of fair housing laws, respond to complaints, and resolve complaints through conciliation, mediation, referrals, and litigation where necessary. Most cities in the region have agreements with third party non-profits that provide this service. These entities also provide on-line workshops for city staff and landlords, and offer phone and on-line counseling. HCD’s AFFH data viewer reports that there were zero (0) fair housing enforcement and outreach inquiries in Rolling Hills between 2013 and 2021. The City is unaware of any fair housing cases that may have occurred without being formally reported, and has not received complaints or inquiries from residents. The City is likewise unaware of any Section 8 housing choice vouchers in use within Rolling Hills, or any instance of a prospective applicant being denied the opportunity to use a voucher within the city. Due to the small size of the City’s staff, there is not a formal fair housing training program and there is limited expertise on fair housing issues. An action program in this Element directs the City to provide fair housing training to staff, and to improve web-based and print media resources to inform residents of their rights and obligations under the Fair Housing Act. Fair housing information will also be included in the City’s newsletter. The City is committed to complying with the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., by ensuring that housing is available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex. Integration and Segregation Race and Ethnicity Chapter 3 of the Housing Element provides an overview of the racial composition of Rolling Hills and the surrounding region. Relative to Los Angeles County and the greater Los Angeles region, Rolling Hills has a higher percentage of White and Asian residents, and a lower percentage of Black and Hispanic residents. This is also true of the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Rolling Hills has have seen an increase in Asian and multi-racial residents over the last 20 years, but the aggregate Black and Hispanic population is 7.3 percent compared to a countywide figure of 56.3 percent. 248 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-5 Figure A-1 shows the percentage of Non-White residents living in Census tract block groups in and around Rolling Hills. Since the City is comprised of a single Census tract block group, this data is most useful on a regional basis. Census tracts located several miles to the east and north of Rolling Hills, in Lomita, and in the San Pedro and Wilmington neighborhoods of Los Angeles, are more diverse. Some of the Census tracts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have larger percentages of Asian residents, making them majority non-White. Figure A-2 shows the “diversity index” for Census tract block groups in and around Rolling Hills. The index is an indicator of racial and ethnic diversity within a given geographic area. It considers both race and ethnicity (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic). The higher an area’s number, the more diverse it is. The index ranges from zero (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). An area’s diversity is 100 when the population is evenly divided into different race/ethnic groups. The Table indicates an index of 48.4 for Rolling Hills, indicating it is somewhat diverse. The rating is comparable to many other census tracts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Some tracts in Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes are more diverse, while several tracts in Palos Verdes Estates are less diverse. The diversity index is considerably higher in the more urbanized tracts in San Pedro and the Harbor neighborhoods to the east. Persons with Disabilities Chapter 3 of the Housing Element provides information on the number of people with disabilities by disability type in Rolling Hills. Roughly 10.6 percent of the city’s population has one or more disabilities compared to 9.9 percent in Los Angeles County as a whole. The higher local percentage is likely a result of the older population in Rolling Hills, where the median age is 55 compared to the County average of 36.5. Figure A-3 shows census tract maps for Rolling Hills and the surrounding area indicating the percentage of residents who are disabled. The special housing needs of persons with disabilities are addressed in Section 3.3.2 of the Housing Element. 249 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-6 250 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-7 251 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-8 252 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-9 Familial Status The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of familial status. This refers to the presence of children in a household, regardless of the relationship of the child to the adult members of the household. It also includes pregnant women and persons in the process of obtaining legal custody of a child. Housing that is exclusively reserved for seniors is exempt from these requirements. Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to someone because they have a child or are a single parent, evicting a tenant if they have a child, or requiring families with children to live in a specific part of a multi-family building. Advertising that prohibits children also is prohibited. Relative to Los Angeles County as a whole, Rolling Hills has about the same percentage of married couples with children but much lower percentages of single parent households. The 2015-2019 ACS indicated there are five single parent female households with children in Rolling Hills. Despite the small number, single parent households may have special needs due to having only one income, as well as greater needs for child care and other supportive services (see Housing Element Section 3.3.4). These obstacles can limit net income and prevent most single parents from being able to live in Rolling Hills. Income Level Activities funded by federal community development and housing programs are typically designed to benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons. For example, activities qualify for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding if they benefit the residents of a primarily residential area where at least 51 percent of the residents are low- and moderate-income. Accordingly, HCD has used Census income data to map these areas by Census block group. This is shown in Figure A-4. The Figure illustrates that there are no LMI areas in Rolling Hills or in any of the adjacent communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Fewer than 25 percent of Rolling Hills’ residents are LMI. While there are a few block groups in Rancho Palos Verdes that are 25-50 percent, none exceed 51 percent. There are multiple LMI block groups in San Pedro and the Harbor neighborhoods east of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. There are also LMI areas in Lomita and Torrance to the north. Figure A-5 shows median income by Census block group. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is one of the most affluent parts of Los Angeles County, with Rolling Hills among the highest income census tracts in the County. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence Racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty –or R/ECAPs—are census tracts identified by HUD with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and poverty rates that exceed 40 percent or are three times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever is lower. Figure A-6 shows the location of R/ECAP areas in southern Los Angeles County, including the City of Los Angeles. 253 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-10 254 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-11 255 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-12 The largest concentration of R/ECAP areas in the County are in and around Downtown Los Angeles, the neighborhoods south of Downtown, and a few tracts in the Harbor area and Long Beach. There are no R/ECAP areas on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. HCD also has identified “racially concentrated areas of affluence” (RCAAs). These are areas that exhibit both high concentrations of White residents and high concentrations of wealth. With a population that is 70 percent White, Non-Hispanic and a median income of over $250,000, all of Rolling Hills is considered an RCAA. Large areas of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes also meet the RCAA criteria. Other parts of Los Angeles County considered to be RCAAs include Malibu, Santa Monica, Bel Air/ Brentwood, Westwood, 256 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-13 Beverly Hills, and adjacent parts of the West Side, as well as La Canada-Flintridge and several other outlying communities. Historic Context Like many communities in Southern California, Rolling Hills reflects cultural and social norms of the era in which the city was founded and initially developed. These norms predated the Fair Housing Act and civil rights movement and included practices that excluded certain racial and ethnic groups from purchasing property. The history of Rolling Hills is linked to broader early 20th Century efforts to develop the 16,000- acre Palos Verdes Peninsula as a master planned community. Prior to 1910, the entire area was farm and ranchland. Several development concepts were proposed in the 1910s and 20s, including a plan to divide the peninsula into large estates (Vanderlip, 1914) and the “Palos Verdes Project,” which eventually became the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Long before Rolling Hills was subdivided, the Peninsula had gained a reputation as the “Riviera of America” and was renowned as an exclusive and beautiful place to live.1 A.E. Hanson became manager of the Palos Verdes Corporation in 1931. He laid out the boundaries of a development named Rolling Hills, just beyond the boundaries of the Palos Verdes Project. The community was initially marketed to residents of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills as 10 to 50 acre “dude ranches.”2 In 1936, it was reimagined as an equestrian community of one- to five-acre homesites. The initial development included 100 homesites on 600 acres. All homes were required to be one-story ranches, painted white, a requirement that remains in place today. The Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were a strong part of the community’s appeal, as they assured maintenance and uniformity throughout the years. Rolling Hills was subdivided by a single large owner. In that respect, it is more akin to a large residential subdivision, rather than a traditional city or town with multiple land uses, developers, and housing types. Moreover, its first generation of housing consisted of modest one-story ranch-style homes, including homes smaller than 2,000 square feet. Multi-family housing was excluded from the community to retain its rural, equestrian character and to recognize what was then a remote and rugged location with no services. As a community of small horse ranches with no sewer system, high fire danger, and private streets, construction of multi-family housing would not have made economic sense. As the Palos Verdes Peninsula was built out at suburban densities in the 1950s and 60s, Rolling Hills retained its very low density zoning. Some of the adjacent cities on the Peninsula added multi-family housing, but the established lot pattern in Rolling Hills and its CC&Rs made this infeasible. In this respect, the CC&Rs had an exclusionary impact on the community. The City incorporated in 1957 to further protect its very low-density character. As this became a rarer commodity in southern Los Angeles County, real estate values increased substantially. Much of the original 1930s and 40s era housing stock was replaced with newer, larger housing with many more amenities. The city became a “location of choice” and became less affordable. 1 Morgan, Delane. The Palos Verdes Story, 1982 2 Rolling Hills General Plan Land Use Element, 1990 257 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-14 These changes were largely economic and driven by the dynamics of the private real estate market. They occurred after the passage of the Fair Housing Act and the era of redlining. However, the conditions were compounded by historic inequities in access to capital among racial monitories and a legacy of discriminatory lending practices in the United States. Housing opportunities for lower income households have not historically existed in the city. The city’s identity and history is rooted in its low density, rural character and equestrian heritage. Fair housing solutions that reflect the City’s history and character can and should be pursued. These include creating housing opportunities on the recently rezoned Rancho Del Mar site, and encouraging greater production of accessory dwelling units in the community. They also include enforcement of fair housing laws and increased awareness of fair housing rights and practices, as well as the history of housing practices in California. Access to Opportunity California HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened a task force to advance fair housing through research and policy recommendations. One of the products of this effort was a series of “opportunity maps” that identify resource levels across the state. The intent of these maps is to improve the eligibility of “high resource areas” for low- income housing tax credit funding. Improving access to these funds makes it more viable to build affordable housing in these areas. The opportunity maps depict composite data on environmental conditions (vulnerability to pollution, etc.), economic conditions (poverty, job proximity, home values), and educational conditions (graduation rates, math and reading proficiency, etc.). HCD has made these maps available through its AFFH data viewer. Conditions in Rolling Hills are depicted in Figures A-7 through A-10. On all of these maps, each census tract is assigned a value based on its level of resources. The higher the value, the more positive the outcome. TCAC Environmental Outcomes In this context, environmental conditions refers to environmental health and exposure to man- made hazards such as vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and cancer-causing chemicals. It does not refer to natural environmental hazards such as wildfire and landslides. Figure A-7 indicates that outcomes in Rolling Hills are positive, as the community does not have industrial land uses or major pollution sources. The City also is in the highest-ranking category using the Cal EnviroScreen maps and is highly ranked on the Public Health Alliance of Southern California “Healthy Places Index.” Environmental outcome values are also high in the other Peninsula cities. Exposure to environmental hazards is much higher along the freeways and in the Harbor area, where industrial uses and refineries are more prevalent. TCAC Economic Outcomes Figure A-8 shows economic outcomes in southern Los Angeles County. This is generally a measure of wealth and access to jobs. Rolling Hills and all of the Peninsula cities are in the highest category, reflecting high rates of home ownership, high home values, and high incomes. The census tracts to the east have more diverse ratings, with low ratings in Northwest San Pedro and Wilmington. 258 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-15 TCAC Educational Outcomes Educational outcomes are shown in Figure A-9. Rolling Hills is in highest quartile, with positive educational outcomes. This reflects the community’s high wealth and access to education. Less positive outcomes appear in the census tracts to the east, with the lowest outcomes in the San Pedro area and in the neighborhoods around the Port of Los Angeles. Transportation Public transportation to and from Rolling Hills is poor and there is no transit service at all within the city limits. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority operates buses along Palos Verdes Road North, which serve the northern edge of the city and provide service to the Peninsula’s commercial centers as well as San Pedro. Connecting service is available along those routes to other transit systems (including the Metro Silver Line in San Pedro), providing connections to Los Angeles and other regional destinations. However, given the distance and travel time, these are not generally viable means of transport to workplaces. US Census data indicates that zero percent (0.0%) of the city’s residents use public transit to commute to work. Composite Opportunity Map Figure A-10 is a composite of the TCAC analysis, taking the three above variables into consideration. The Figure affirms what is shown in Figures A-7, -8, and -9. Rolling Hills is a high-resource, high opportunity area, with positive environmental health indicators, positive economic outcomes for its residents, and access to quality education. Because of the city’s small size, these opportunities are homogenously distributed across the community. The same conditions are found in the other Palos Verdes Peninsula neighborhoods, some of which have even higher composite scores than Rolling Hills. Figure A-10 provides a more regional perspective than Figures A-7, -8, and -9. The pattern immediately evident on this map is that the coastal communities of Los Angeles County are almost all in the highest resource category. There is a swath of moderate and low resource neighborhoods extending from Downtown Los Angeles southward to the Port of Los Angeles. Areas extending from Central LA southward are highlighted on the map as having high segregation and poverty rates, corresponding with the lowest level of opportunity. Moving further east, the pattern becomes more diffuse, with a patchwork of high, moderate, and low resource areas extending toward the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County. The high opportunity ranking given to Rolling Hills was part of SCAG’s rationale for assigning the city a large allocation in the 6th Cycle RHNA. The base number of units assigned to the city by SCAG was calibrated upward based on their “social equity adjustment,” resulting in Rolling Hills’ 45 units (compared to six units in 2013-2021). This reflects several mandated objectives of the RHNA methodology, including promoting socio-economic equity and balancing disproportionate household income distribution across the region. As indicated earlier in this analysis, the Rancho Del Mar School site provides the best location to improve access to opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing within Rolling Hills. The site has the potential to improve economic outcomes for lower income households by providing affordable housing in a high-resource area. 259 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-16 260 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-17 261 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-18 262 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-19 263 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-20 Disproportionate Housing Needs “Disproportionate housing needs” refer to conditions in which members of a protected class within a defined geographic area experience much higher housing needs than the population at large.3 Following HCD guidance, the analysis to identify disproportionate needs considers cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions. Much of this data also is contained in the Housing Element Needs Assessment (Chapter 3), but the focus here is on extremely low- income residents, tenure, and persons of color. As noted in earlier sections of this Appendix, the analysis for Rolling Hills is hampered by the small size of the community and the fact that it contains only one Census Block Group. The margin of error for American Community Survey (ACS) data for the city is high, and the number of residents in protected classes is small. Where available, maps are used to compare data for Rolling Hills with data for surrounding communities. Tenure by Race Rates of home ownership often vary by race and ethnicity. Regionally and nationally, the rate of home ownership is substantially lower for Black/African-American households than it is for White households. This is not the case in Rolling Hills. The 2015-2019 ACS indicates that 100 percent of the Hispanic, Black, and multi-racial households in the city are homeowners. For White households, 95 percent are homeowners and 5 percent are renters. Among Asian households, 98 percent are homeowners and 2 percent are renters. Cost Burden As noted in Chapter 3, a household is considered cost burdened if more than 30 percent of its income is spent on housing (including utilities). Figures A-11 and A-12 depict the incidence of cost burden for owners and renters in Rolling Hills and surrounding communities. Table 3.9 (in Chapter 3) indicates the percent of income spent on housing for homeowners with a mortgage, homeowners without a mortgage, and renters. Roughly 31 percent of the city’s households are considered cost-burdened, but most have above moderate incomes. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes data on the number of households that are cost-burdened in each community using federally-defined income categories. This is referred to as the CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data. According to the CHAS 2014-2018 data, there are 100 low- and very low-income households in Rolling Hills (i.e., earning 80 percent or less of the areawide median income [AMI]). These households include 83 who were cost-burdened, including 65 who were defined as being “severely” cost-burdened (spending more than half their incomes on housing). CHAS data indicates that 78 of the cost-burdened lower-income households were homeowners and the remainder were renters. The relatively high number of cost-burdened low-income homeowners is likely associated with retired seniors on fixed incomes, who must still pay property taxes, utilities, insurance, HOA dues and other housing costs—even after their mortgages are paid off. These expenses may be several thousand dollars a month. In fact, the CHAS data indicates that there are 25 extremely low-income households in Rolling Hills (earning 3 The protected classes are race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability. 264 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-21 less than 30% of AMI), all of whom are homeowners. The CHAS data indicates that there are no extremely low-income renters in the city. CHAS data identifies 10 very low-income renter households in the city (30-50% of AMI), along with 30 very low-income owners. Seventy-five percent of these households pay more than 30% of their incomes on rent. As illustrated in Figures A-11 and A-12, the incidence of cost burden is somewhat lower in Rolling Hills than it is in adjacent communities, including those on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Overcrowding As noted in Chapter 3, a household is considered overcrowded it the housing unit it occupies has more than one person per room, excluding kitchens and bathrooms. As noted on page 3- 11, only one percent of the city’s households meet this definition. There are no households in the city that meet the definition of “severe” overcrowding, which is more than 1.5 persons per room. Moreover, the data indicates that none of the renter-occupied households in the city were overcrowded. There were six owner-occupied units with more than one person per room. Figure A-13 shows this information spatially, illustrating that units on the Palos Verdes Peninsula are generally not overcrowded. Units in the more urbanized areas to the east, with higher percentages of renters and smaller housing units, are more likely to be overcrowded. Housing Problems The HUD CHAS data indicates how many households in each community experience one of four specific housing problems—these problems are (a) lack of a complete kitchen; (b) lack of complete plumbing facilities; (c) overcrowding; and (d) severe cost burden (paying more than 50 percent of income on housing). According to CHAS data for 2014-2018, there are about 110 owner-occupied households in Rolling Hills and four renter households in Rolling Hills with one or more of these problems. Since all housing units in the city have kitchens and baths, and only six are overcrowded, the primary problem experienced is a severe housing cost burden. The CHAS data indicates there are 105 owner-occuped households with a severe housing cost burden. Most of these are lower-income senior households Figure A-14 shows this data on a regional level. The rate of housing problems is higher in Rolling Hills than it is in the other Palos Verdes Peninsula cities, due to the high percentage of senior homeowners living on fixed incomes and paying substantial portions of their incomes on housing. However, the city’s rate is comparable to other affluent areas on the west side of Los Angeles and is lower than in the neighborhoods and communities immediately south and immediately east of Los Angeles. 265 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-22 266 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-23 267 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-24 268 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-25 269 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-26 Displacement Risk Figure A-15 illustrates “sensitive communities” in the southern half of Los Angeles County. These are communities with relatively high risks of displacement due to rising rents and a lack of tenant protection. None of the Palos Verdes Peninsula cities are shown as vulnerable. On the other hand, most of the tracts in the City of Los Angeles, including the San Pedro and Wilmington communities, are shown as vulnerable. The entire South-Central area of Los Angeles is vulnerable, as are nearby communities such as Compton, Inglewood, and Hawthorne. As depicted on Figure A-15, vulnerable communities are communities in which at least 20 percent of the population is low income and two or more of the following conditions are present: • Renters are over 40% of all households • People of color are 50% or more of the population • Share of severely cost-burdened very low income renters is above county median • Rents have been increasing at faster rate than county median • Larger than average gap between local rents and rents in surrounding tracts These conditions are not present in Rolling Hills. Figure A-15: Sensitive Communities Census tracts in purple are designated as “vulnerable” due to displacement risk ROLLING HILLS 270 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-27 Due to the very high percentage of home ownership, Rolling Hills does not face displacement risk. Displacement may occur due to other reasons, such as an aging household unable to maintain their property or afford the modifications needed to age in place. Populations with Special Needs Chapter 3 of the Housing Element identifies special needs populations in Rolling Hills. The principal special needs group is older adults, with one-third of the city’s population over 65. As noted in Section 3.3.1, 56 percent of the households in Rolling Hills include at least one person who is 65 or older. Most of the persons with disabilities and all of the extremely low income households in the city are seniors. Rolling Hills has a very small number of single parents and large households, and it does not have unhoused residents or farmworkers. Local Data and Knowledge HCD’s guidance for the AFFH analysis indicates that cities should use local data and knowledge to analyze fair housing issues, including information obtained through community participation or consultation. The regional demographic data help show spatial patterns but do not expressly explain why problems exist. An additional screen of local insights is necessary to complement federal and state data sources. While there is no specific local data on fair housing specific to Rolling Hills, the circumstances behind the spatial patterns shown throughout this analysis are mostly self-evident. The city was master planned more than 80 years ago as a low-density equestrian community with large parcels marketed to prospective homeowners. Rental housing was not included in these plans and CC&Rs were drafted and enforced to maintain single family character. The lack of sewers, risk of wildfire and landslides, and absence of public streets created further disincentives for multi-family housing, while also increasing construction costs. More recently, the high cost of land has made affordable housing construction economically infeasible, which will continue to be an impediment in the future. Rolling Hills is also an entirely residential community. There are no private businesses in the city limits, except for a handful of home-based occupations. Employment is associated with the PVPTA maintenance yard, the Rancho Del Mar school building, the Fire Station, and the City Hall/ Rolling Hills Community Association buildings, which collectively employ just over 100 people. Housing demand is not generated by businesses within the city. There are no underused commercial sites to be repurposed for housing, since there have never been commercial land uses in the city. Rolling Hills does generate demand for services that create jobs, including low-income jobs. Local homeowners provide employment for caregivers and home health care workers, au pairs and home child care providers, landscapers and domestic workers, personal assistants, and those in the construction trades. Housing for this workforce has been largely unavailable in the city, although some of these employees may live on-site and are considered part of the primary household. Local data and knowledge supports a fair housing strategy that is heavily focused on housing this population in ADUs, potentially at reduced rents. The service industry population is 271 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-28 generally more racially and ethnically diverse than the city at large. Providing additional ADU and JADU opportunities would help contribute to the State’s integration and equity goals while improving access to housing in a high-resource area. It can also reduce commuting and associated congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors “Contributing factors” are the underlying forces that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues. According to HCD, examples of contributing factors are community opposition to affordable housing, housing discrimination, land use and zoning laws, lack of regional cooperation, lack of affordable housing, and lack of public or private investment in areas of opportunity or affordable housing choices. AB 686 requires that the City strategically mitigate these factors through its goals, policies, and actions. The Housing Element must include programs that mitigate discrimination and improve fair housing choices and access to opportunities in high resource areas. Following is an assessment of factors that could contribute to fair housing issues in Rolling Hills. Lack of Roads and Sewers As noted throughout the Housing Element, Rolling Hills does not have a sanitary sewer system and has no public streets. This limits the viability of multi-family housing in the city, which by definition constrains opportunities for lower income households. There is also extremely limited access to transit and the city is entirely car-dependent. There is only one underutilized site in the city that has sewer access (Rancho Del Mar) and driveway access to a public street, and it has been identified as an opportunity site for affordable multi-family units. Environmental Constraints The entire city is designated a Very High Wildfire Hazard Severity area. In the past, wildfires have destroyed homes in Rolling Hills and endangered life and property. Wildfires are likely to become a greater threat in the future due to global climate change and continue to limit the viability of land in Rolling Hills for higher-density construction. Much of the city is landslide prone. Landslides have destroyed Rolling Hills homes in the past and will remain an impediment to multi-family development in the future. The City has responded to this contributing factor by identifying the opportunity for multi-family housing on one of the only unconstrained sites in the city. Economics Economic factors will continue to present a challenge to the achievement of fair housing goals in Rolling Hills. Land and construction costs are prohibitively expensive, making it difficult to build affordable housing. To the extent that members of protected classes often have lower incomes, they will continue to be disproportionately affected by high housing costs. The City has little direct control over economic pressure, as these are driven by the regional economy and real 272 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-29 estate market. Nonetheless, by creating the housing overlay zone on the Rancho Del Mar site, it has created an opportunity for affordable project in a location that is less impacted by these factors. Land Use and Zoning Laws Land use policies and zoning laws in Rolling Hills allow only very low densities on most sites, recognizing the city’s identity and heritage as an equestrian community, and the infrastructure and environmental constraints cited above. The City has worked creatively to allow for ADUs and multi-family housing within the context of these constraints. Nonetheless, limited opportunities for higher density housing may cause many of the conditions identified in this analysis to continue. Various Housing Element programs are included to address this issue. This includes adding provisions for transitional and supportive housing to the zoning regulations, as well as density bonus regulations. It also includes proactive support for ADUs, including units serving lower income residents and workers. Outreach, Education and Enforcement The City’s has limited staff (7 FTEs) in total and a severely constrained budget, with limited revenue to fund new programs. The capacity to do pro-active outreach and enforcement of fair housing complaints is limited. As a result, owners seeking to rent property may be unaware of fair housing laws and discriminatory practices. Likewise, tenants (or prospective tenants) may be unaware of their rights and may face discrimination without awareness of the opportunity for recourse. Additional fair housing information and outreach can help remedy this factor. The Housing Element recommends continued contracting with a third party to assist in fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement. Lack of Participation in Countywide Programs Rolling Hills does not participate in the Countywide Urban County CDBG Program. This may limit access to some of the fair housing resources available to other cities. Community Opposition The 2020 Rolling Hills Housing Survey, which was focused on ADUs, indicated mixed views on affordable housing, concerns about community character, and tremendous concern about the city’s ability to absorb additional housing and evacuate additional residents. The survey was anonymous and allowed for open-ended comments. While some were supportive, there were also negative views expressed about affordable housing, renters, ADUs, and the State’s housing mandates. This will continue to be an issue in the future and requires an ongoing community dialogue about housing issues and the benefits of having greater housing choices. 273 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis A-30 Summary of Fair Housing Issues and Additional Fair Housing Concerns According to the California Code of Regulations, a land use practice has a discriminatory effect where it actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of individuals, or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns, based on membership in a protected class. Such practices may still be lawful--however, the State has determined that they should be mitigated to the extent that they increase, reinforce, or perpetuate segregated housing patterns. In this context, the State has found that single family zoning itself has had unintended (and in some cases, intended) discriminatory effects. In response, the legislature has taken steps requiring local governments to accommodate additional housing units on single family zoned sites. Rolling Hills has adopted regulations permitting accessory dwelling units and is currently considering legislation reflecting recently adopted SB 9. Both of these measures provide potential opportunities for rental housing, smaller units, and more affordable units that did not previously exist in the city. New ADU production and affordability programs affirmatively further fair housing and promote new housing opportunities throughout the community. Strategies to enhance mobility (i.e., transit access to Rolling Hills), preserve existing affordable housing, and protect residents from displacement are less applicable in Rolling Hills. However , the City’s policies and programs do aim to address disparities and create new affordable housing opportunities in high-resource areas. The City has required that any multi-family construction be affordable to low and very low income households, ensuring opportunities for economic diversification rather than further concentration of affluence. Allowing market-rate multi-family housing would only exacerbate existing concentrations of affluence and run counter to the purpose and intent of AB 686. Rolling Hills also has made fair housing outreach and education a priority, not only for Rolling Hills residents but for those who may seek to move to Rolling Hills in the future. Current efforts will be expanded in the future by making more information available and strengthening communication with fair housing service providers. 274 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-1 APPENDIX B Analysis of Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) Site (APN 7569-022-900) The intent of this Appendix is to provide supplemental analysis supporting the designation of the Palos Verdes Unified School District (PVUSD) site as an opportunity site for “by right” affordable housing in the City of Rolling Hills. This analysis was requested by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to demonstrate the site’s capacity to provide 16 multi- family units at a density of 20 units per acre. Land use regulations supporting such development are required to meet the City’s 6th Cycle affordable housing allocation. Based on existing land uses, access, infrastructure, topography and hazards, land ownership, and site utilization, the City has determined that this represents the most viable site in Rolling Hills for such development. The 31-acre property is also known as the Rancho Del Mar site, as it is home to Rancho Del Mar High School, a small continuation school with an enrollment of 32 students in 2021. The Beach Cities Learning Center (17 students) also occupies a portion of the school building. Excluding the adjacent playing fields and lawn, the school campus occupies just six percent of the 31-acre site. The only other active use on the property is a Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority maintenance facility. A majority of the site is vacant. Location and Surroundings The PVUSD site is located at 38 Crest Road. Figure B-1 provides an aerial photo of the site to provide context, orientation, and an overview of adjacent uses. Figure B-2 is an assessor parcel map. Its exact area is 31.14 acres, including a 3.56-acre street internal to the site that provides access to Crest Road, at a point outside the controlled access entryway to the Rolling Hills (but within the city limits). The net acreage of the site without the street is 27.58 acres. The site is oblong in shape, with a panhandle area at its western edge that extends to the Crest Road access point. Excluding this panhandle area, the site extends roughly 2,600 feet from east to west and averages more than 600 feet from north to south. Within this area are numerous flat, graded surface areas with no structure coverage and minimal programmed activities. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes lies immediately south and west of the site. The area to the south is developed with single family homes at densities of 2-3 units per acre. This area is roughly 80 to 100 feet higher in elevation than the site itself, as there is a graded downslope between the residential neighborhood and the school property (the downslope is on the school property). Residential uses also abut the west side of the site, with densities around 3-4 units per acre. There are no road or driveway connections between the PVUSD site and the Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhoods to the south and west. A 15’ riding and hiking trail easement exists along the southern and western edges of the site but it is undeveloped. The difference in topography reduces the potential for visual impacts associated with future development. 275 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W APPENDIX B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-2 The entire northern perimeter of the site is defined by the Crest Road right-of-way. There are large lot homes on the northern side of Crest Road, set back more than 100 feet from the School District property line and more than 200 feet from the improved area of the PVUSD site. The area to the north is well buffered not only by large setbacks and Crest Road, but also by an internal street on the PVUSD property. Effectively, there are two streets between homes in Rolling Hills and the developable area—Crest Road, and the parallel internal street within the PVUSD site. On its eastern edge, the site is abutted by large lot residences. The home closest to the site is heavily screened from the PVUSD site by vegetation, as well as a private tennis court between the residence and the property line. The residence itself is more than 200 feet from the PVUSD ballfield and more than 550 feet from the school. The site context creates effective buffering from adjacent uses, mitigating land use compatibility concerns such as privacy, noise, and visual impacts. At the same time, the site is easily accessible from Crest Road and is outside of the gated area of the city. A fire station is located 1,000 feet to the east, and major shopping facilities and services are located just over a mile away in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Crest Road is one of Rolling Hills’ major thoroughfares and one of the few “through-streets” that bisects Rolling Hills and connects the city to adjacent cities and regional highways. History of the Site and Current Uses The site was initially home to Cresta Elementary School, which was constructed in 1960. A School District warehouse and maintenance facility was part of the original campus. The school closed in the early 1980s and was repurposed as Rancho Del Mar Continuation High School, which opened in 1986. At the time, there were discussions between the City and the School District to rezone the property and sell the site for residential development. However, Rancho Del Mar has remained on the site for the last 35 years. Given the value of the land and the low- intensity and limited extent of the existing use, residential development remains viable, even if the school does not relocate. The Rancho Del Mar Campus consists of three one-story buildings totaling 20,000 square feet of floor area. Figure B-3 shows the campus layout, as well as six photos of the school and adjacent areas. The campus consists of an L-shaped building (divided by a breezeway) with eight classrooms, a rectangular building with a classroom, multi-purpose room restroom, and custodial area, and a small building facing the parking lot with the main office. Classrooms at the school are open to the exterior and there are no interior hallways. The PVUSD shares its classroom and administrative facilities with the Beach Cities Learning Center. The Learning Center has 17 students aged 11-18 with emotional, behavioral, and learning challenges. 276 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-3 277 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-4 278 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-5 279 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-6 Rancho del Mar itself serves students ages 16-18 who were unsuccessful in a traditional high school setting. Students are referred to the school for a myriad of reasons, including poor attendance, personal crisis, behavioral issues, or other factors creating a high risk of drop-out. Enrollment at Rancho del Mar has been steadily declining and was just 32 students in the 2020- 21 school year. Enrollment was 79 students in 2014-15, 72 students in 2015-16, 69 students in 2016-17, 58 students in 2017-18, 47 students in 2018-19, and 46 students in 2019-20. There are also six teachers on site and three other personnel. Thus, the combined enrollment (Beach Cities and Rancho Del Mar) is fewer than 50 students on a 31-acre site. By contrast, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School and Palos Verdes High School enroll roughly 2,300 and 1,700 students respectively, on sites of similar size. Sale of the school property could generate significant revenue for the School District. Sale of a portion of the property also is possible, as the site is configured in such a way that easily facilitates its subdivision. A comprehensive structural evaluation of the school was completed in 2016 as part of the PVUSD Facilities Master Plan. Beach Cities Learning Center likewise prepared a facility condition status report in 2019 as part of its annual reporting requirements. Both evaluations found the building(s) to be in good condition. The buildings were last renovated in 2008. The 2016 evaluation called for resurfacing the parking area, upgrading the HVAC system, and upgrading the electrical system. Total capital needs were estimated at $1.9 million. All utilities were found to be in good condition, and drainage issues were minimal. The school campus is adjoined by an approximately 100-space parking lot on its north and east sides. To the west of the buildings, there is a large flat lawn area. To the east, there is an athletic field area that includes a basketball court and ballfield. The 2016 facility evaluation determined that the Floor Area Ratio of the school campus was just 0.03, as it defined the campus area as being 15.2 acres (including athletic fields, lawns, and other open areas on the perimeter of the site). The square footage of floor space per student is well below District averages. Beyond the 15.2-acre area associated with the school, the PVUSD has leased approximately 4.5 acres of the site (roughly 15 percent of the 31 acres) to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority. The PVPTA facilities include maintenance buildings and administrative offices and are self-contained in the west central part of the site. The Housing Element analysis presumes this part of the site will not be available for development and that the transit district will remain a long-term tenant. However, the PVPTA site could potentially be sold and redeveloped in the future, leased to a new third party, or repurposed by the School District. Potential Development Areas Figure B-4 shows potential development areas on the Rancho Del Mar site. These are summarized below: 280 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-7 • Area 1 is located between the transit facility and the school campus. It is an unimproved, almost completely flat rectangular area of 1.6 acres. Its dimensions are approximately 250 x 300, with 250 feet of frontage along the internal access street. The site is well situated for multi-family development and has no visible physical constraints. • Area 2 is located immediately adjacent to the school and is 1.0 acre. The dimensions are approximately 200 x 200, with a “stem” area providing access to the interior street. The area is currently an unimproved lawn with a few mature trees. It is almost completely flat and has no physical development constraints. The site could easily support up to 16 to 20 multi-family units at a density of 20 units per net acre. • Area 3 is the school itself, which occupies roughly 1.75 acres including parking, landscaped areas, courtyards, and classroom buildings. This option would be most viable if the school relocates and the site is sold, as co-location of a school and multi- family housing or emergency shelter would be unlikely. However, certain special needs housing types (such as housing for teachers) would be viable in this setting. • Area 4 includes the area east of the school. It includes approximately three acres of level ground, with 0.5 acres of parking, a two-acre ballfield serving the school, and other paved areas used for basketball and recreation. There are several areas within the three acres where 16-20 units could be built without impacting use of the site for parking and school recreation. • Area 5 includes approximately four acres and is located west of the PVPTA facility. It is regarded by the City as the best location on the 31-acre site for multi-family housing, as it would have the least impact on the school campus and transit facility. It is also the largest of the five areas and the most buffered from adjacent development. There are a number of extant foundations on the site from prior uses, and internal roadways that are not in use. The area has gently sloping terrain and has not been improved for school use, parking, or recreation, as the other portions of the site have. Figures B-5 through B-7 provide a bird’s eye view of each of the five areas. Physical Constraints to Site Development Approximately nine acres of the 31-acre site consists of a graded slope along the south side of Altamira Canyon. This area is shown in Figure B-8. The slope exceeds 30 percent, making it poorly suited for development. The sloped areas also have the potential for landslides and other seismic stability issues, which limit their suitability for further grading and construction. The sloped area is not considered suitable for multi-family development or special needs housing. It occupies roughly 29 percent of the site, all of which has been excluded from consideration in the definition of Areas 1-5 above. 281 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-8 282 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-9 283 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-10 284 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-11 285 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-12 286 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-13 The central portion of the site has historically been used for general maintenance activities, first by PVUSD and more recently by PVPTA. A search of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker data base identified two leaking underground storage tanks (LUST sites) at this location. The sites were determined to contain gasoline and hydrocarbons resulting from leaking underground storage tanks. Both sites have been cleaned per SWRCB standards and are now designated by the SWCRB as "complete” and “case closed.” As noted elsewhere in the Housing Element, the City of Rolling Hills—including the PVUSD site—has been designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the State of California. Rolling Hills is implementing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan to mitigate this hazard and is implementing vegetation management measures and programs to make structures more resilient. In the event of a housing proposal on this site, the need for an emergency-only access connection between the existing access road and Crest Road would be assessed. An analysis of infrastructure and utilities on the site conducted as part of the Housing Element found no constraints associated with redeveloping this site with residential uses or special needs housing. The site is used less intensively now than when it was actively used as an elementary school and school maintenance facility. Water, drainage, and wastewater facilities are adequate to support the number of units contemplated by the Housing Element. Importantly, this is one of the only sites in the City of Rolling Hills that has access to a public sewer system. As such, it is much more conducive to multi-family housing that sites elsewhere in the city that are served by private septic systems. Regulatory Constraints to Site Development Prior to December 2020, the PVUSD opportunity site was subject to a range of planning and regulatory constraints that limited the feasibility of multi-family housing. The site has historically had a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and a zoning designation of RAS-2 (Residential Suburban 2-acre minimum lot size), which effectively limited uses to existing community facilities or new large-lot residential development. While Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could conceivably be incorporated in new homes, the site would not have met State requirements for the Housing Element. In February 2021, the City of Rolling Hills amended its General Plan and zoning regulations to allow multi-family housing and other special needs housing types “by right” on the PVUSD property, subject to specific development standards. As noted elsewhere in the Housing Element, the amendments included: • Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to create the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay. The Land Use Element now explicitly states that multi- family housing and emergency shelter are permitted by right in this area, subject to objective development standards. The number of units on the site is based on a transfer of the allowable General Plan density to a clustered area where 16 to 20 units could be added. • Amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) to create the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Overlay, and to map this Overlay on the entire PVUSD site. 287 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-14 The Overlay establishes a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum density of 24 units per acre. Affordable housing is permitted “by right” subject to objective development standards defined in the Ordinance. The Ordinance identifies the area west of the PVPTA site as the location for future housing. • Amending the Zoning Regulations to allow emergency shelter on the property by right, subject to specific development standards specified in the Code. • Amending the Zoning Regulations to allow single room occupancy (SRO) units on the site, with a conditional use permit. Other Constraints to Site Development Development of multi-family housing, emergency shelter, or SRO uses on the PVUSD site could occur either: • by the School District itself (on its own or through a public-private partnership) • through a long-term lease; or • through sale of all or part of the property The City has met with the School District and reviewed Board Policies and Codes. Current policies accommodate all of these options—and that there are no prohibitions or limitations on multi-family and special needs housing. Moreover, the School District has expressed interest in developing housing for teachers in the past; such units would meet income criteria for low or very low income units. There are ample opportunities for such housing on the property that would not impact operations at either Rancho Del Mar School or PVPTA. Rancho Del Mar is a logical location for these activities, given the size of the site and its significant underutilization. The District is less likely to pursue development of an emergency shelter or SRO on its own, as these are not as clearly mission-aligned. However, it could sell or lease property to a third party who could develop these uses. SROs and emergency shelters would be unlikely to co-locate in the school building or on the 1.75-acre school footprint area, given the possibility for use conflicts. However, the 31-acre PVUSD property is large enough to accommodate multiple uses. There are developable areas on the site that are 1,500 feet away from the school. The District has already set a precedent by leasing a large portion of this site to a transit agency; it could do the same for a social service agency or another agency providing a public benefit service to the community. Like most School Districts in California, the sale or lease of PVUSD property is subject to action by the School Board. Section 3280 of the Board’s Policies allows the Superintendent or designee to study the existing and projected use of facilities to ensure the efficient utilization of space. A Board Committee is typically created prior to the sale of land (although teacher housing is specifically exempted by Board policy from any Committee requirements). A Board vote is required to approve the sale or lease terms. There are also requirements for how the proceeds of a sale or lease may be used. Once property is sold, the School District Board has no land use or decision-making authority over a site. Thus, the District could sell all or part of the PVUSD site to a non-profit housing 288 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-15 developer, for-profit housing developer, social service provider, or other third party who could develop housing “by right” without further oversight by the Board or City Council. Subdivision of the property would be required, creating a new legal parcel on which housing could be developed. Given its large size, the most likely scenario is only that a portion of the site would be sold, rather than the entire site. In effect, the Housing Element is creating a unique opportunity for the District to sell a vacant or underutilized subarea on its 31-acre site to a third party, who can then produce teacher housing, senior housing, affordable family housing, or another type of housing that meet local needs. There are a number of examples of successful small affordable housing projects in the Los Angeles region that meet the density and height criteria established for this site. For example, Habitat for Humanity is currently developing a 10-unit affordable two-story townhome project in Long Beach on a 0.5-acre site. Similar two-story projects by Habitat have been developed in Lynwood, Burbank, Bellflower, and Downey. In the event that the Rancho Del Mar School itself is closed in the future, the building could be sold and repurposed for other uses. Once sold, the floor space could be reconfigured for alternative uses, including special needs housing. The project would be subject to the objective standards prescribed by the zoning regulations (covered elsewhere in this Housing Element), but approval of the development would be ministerial. 289 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix B: Supplemental Analysis of the PVUSD Site Page B-16 /intentionally blank/ 290 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-1 APPENDIX C: Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Analysis In Fall 2020, the City of Rolling Hills surveyed its residents to determine the viability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a future affordable housing strategy. The survey was formatted as an 11 x 17 folded sheet printed double-sided (four 8.5 x 11 pages) and was mailed via the US Postal Service to approximately 700 addresses in the city. Return postage was provided so the survey could be easily returned. Residents had roughly one month to complete and return the survey. An option was provided to reply electronically via SurveyMonkey. Approximately 190 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 27 percent.1 Another seven surveys were received by SurveyMonkey, bringing the total response rate to 28 percent. The survey represents the views and experiences of more than one in four Rolling Hills households. This is a high response rate and is indicative of the community’s strong interest in the subject. Demographic information about the respondents was collected as part of the survey. Respondents tended to be older than Rolling Hills residents as a whole and were mostly long- time residents. About two-thirds of the respondents were 65 or older and 25 percent were 50- 64. By contrast, about 42 percent of the City’s adult residents are over 65 and 36 percent are 50-64. About 42 percent of the respondents had lived in Rolling Hills for more than 30 years and only 20 percent had lived in the city for less than 10 years. By contrast, about 27 percent of all residents have lived in Rolling Hills for more than 30 years and 31 percent have lived in the city for less than 10 years. The distribution of respondents by household size was close to the citywide average. Approximately 65 percent lived in one and two person households, which is similar to the citywide average. Only seven percent lived in households with five or more residents, which is just below the citywide average. Of the 194 respondents who indicated their housing tenure, 192 were owners and two were renters. This is equivalent to one percent of the respondents, whereas renters represent about five percent of Rolling Hills households. Figure C-1 compares demographics for the survey respondents and residents in the city as a whole. Responses to the survey was completely anonymous. Respondents were given the option of phoning the City if they had questions or wanted more information about ADUs. 1 This estimated return rate was based on 700 households. In August 2021, Census data indicated there were 637 households in the City, so the actual return rate was 31 percent. 291 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-2 Figure C-1: Demographics of Survey Respondents Relative to All Rolling Hills Residents 0 10 20 30 40 50 Less than 10 yrs 10-20 yrs 20-30 yrs 30+ yrs Length of Residency in Rolling Hills Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6+ Persons Household Size Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20-35 35-49 50-64 65+ Percent by Age Group Survey Respondents All Rolling Hills Residents 292 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-3 Suitability of the Property for an ADU Question 1 asked respondents to indicate if their property contained an ADU or other habitable spaces which could potentially be used as an ADU. Respondents were asked to check “all choices that apply,” so the results are not additive. Thirteen of the respondents indicated they had a legally permitted ADU on their properties with a separate kitchen, bath, and entrance. Some of these units may have been legally created in 2018-2020 after the City adopted its ADU Ordinance, but some likely already existed and are legally classified as guest quarters. Thirty-four respondents, or roughly 25 percent of the total, indicated they had a secondary building on their properties with an indoor kitchen, bathroom, heat and plumbing. This included guest houses/ casitas, pool houses, habitable barns, and similar features that could be considered potential ADUs even if they are not used for habitation by another household. Ten respondents indicated they had a second kitchen in their homes. Eighteen said they had another space in their home that could “easily be converted” to a separate dwelling or junior ADU. While some respondents may have counted the same space twice, roughly half indicated they had spaces on their properties with the potential to be used as an ADU or JADU. This is further supported by the responses to Question 2 below. Current Use of ADUs and Spaces Suitable as ADUs Question 2 asked how the spaces described in Question 1 were being used. Only three of the respondents indicated they were renting ADUs to a paying tenant. Seven indicated that the space was used by a caregiver or domestic employee, while eleven had a family member or long-term occupant living on the property. Collectively, this represents 21 units, or just over 10 percent of the respondent households. The remainder of the respondents with potential ADU space indicated they used these spaces for house guests or their own families, or that the space was unoccupied or used as storage. The survey findings indicate that ADUs (or “unintended” ADUs such as guest houses) already represent a component of the Rolling Hills housing supply. The survey suggests that there is potential to expand the number of permitted ADUs in the future, even without any new construction. About 15 percent of the respondents (30 in total) indicated they had potential ADU space on their properties that was vacant or used for storage. Respondents were asked the square footage of the spaces they were describing. Figure C-2 shows the distribution. More than 100 responses were received, with a median size of about 600 square feet. Respondents who had rented ADUs on their properties were given the option of reporting the rent that was being charged. Two of the three households who indicated they had a paying tenant replied. The monthly rents charged for these units were $950 in one case and $1,500 in another. Based on HCD income limits for Los Angeles County, the $950 unit would be considered affordable to a very low-income household of one or more persons. The $1,500 unit would be considered affordable to a low-income household of one or more persons. These 293 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-4 units are presumed to have been created or legalized between 2018 and 2020, following adoption of the ADU ordinance. Figure C-2: Square Footage of Spaces Reported by Respondents as Potential ADUs on their Properties, Including Guest Houses Income Characteristics of Households in Occupied Units Those who indicated their ADU (or “unintended” ADU/ guest house/ secondary space) was occupied by someone who was not part of their household were asked to describe the number of residents and total income of the occupants. The numeric HCD 2020 income limits (dollar amounts) and number of persons in the household were used so that the occupants could be easily identified using HCD’s income categories. There were 12 responses to this question, or about six percent of all surveys returned. This presumably includes the small number of units that are rented as ADUs, plus those occupied by caretakers, domestic employees, and other long-term occupants. The distribution by HCD’s income categories is shown below: Household Size and Income of Households Occupying Formal or Unintended ADUs Income 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5 person 6+ person TOTAL Extremely Low 1 1 2 Very Low 2 2 Low 1 1 Moderate/ Above Mod 1 4 1 1 7 TOTAL 5 4 1 1 0 1 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 >300 301-450 451-650 651-800 801-1000 1000+Number of UnitsSquare Footage 294 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-5 The data indicates that roughly half of the survey respondents’ ADUs (including those which may be unpermitted and used “informally” on a long-term basis) provided housing for low, very low, and extremely low income households. Interest in Developing an ADU Question 4 asked respondents if they might be interested in developing an ADU if they didn’t currently have one. There were 164 responses to this question, with 24 percent indicating “Yes” and 15 percent indicating “Maybe.” Another 40 percent indicated “No” and 14 percent indicated “Probably Not.” The responses are profiled in Figure C-3 below. Figure C-3: Level of Interest in ADU development (N=164) The chart above suggests that more than half of the City’s residents are not interested in developing an ADU on their properties, and another quarter are undecided or not interested at this time. To flesh out possible barriers, Question 4 included a follow up asking why respondents were not interested. The responses suggest it is primarily a lifestyle choice rather than the result of regulatory or cost barriers. About one-third (51) listed the loss of privacy as a factor, and another one-third (48) indicated they didn’t want to deal with tenants. The number of respondents listing the “permitting process” as a factor was relatively small (27 out of 164) and the percentage listing “cost” as a factor (24 out of 164) was even smaller. About 10 percent of the respondents cited lack of space as their reason. Location of Possible ADUs Those who expressed some interest in adding an ADU were asked where they might locate the ADU on their properties. The responses can potentially help inform local programs that facilitate ADUs in particular locations. There were 85 responses, representing more than 40 percent of No (65) 40% Probably Not (23) 14% Not Sure (11) 7% Maybe, but not now (25) 15% Yes (40) 24% Question: If you don’t have a legal ADU on your property, would you consider developing one? (164 replies) 295 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-6 the total survey respondents. Conversion of an existing accessory building (such as a guest house or barn) was the most commonly selected choice (38 responses), followed by a new detached structure (21 responses) and conversion of existing space in the house (6 responses). Only one respondent indicated they would build an addition to their home. Nineteen of the respondents were not sure where they might locate an ADU. Again, a majority (about 115) were not interested in adding an ADU. The responses suggest stronger demand for traditional ADUs than Junior ADUs, given the large number of respondents indicating they would built or convert an accessory structure, rather than use space within their own homes. Likely Use of Future ADUs Respondents were asked how they would use an ADU on their property if they developed one in the future. The responses to this question are important, as the objective of the program is to create rental housing opportunities or opportunities for on-site care givers. Using the ADU as a home office or space for occasional house guests would not accomplish State-mandated housing program goals. Figure C-4 shows the responses to the question. Figure C-4: Likely Use of Future ADUs (N=192) The responses indicate that roughly one-third would use the ADU for another household, including 16 who suggested they would rent it to a tenant and 48 who suggested they would use it for a domestic employee or caregiver. The latter statistic is particularly important, as it suggests a potential resource for health care workers, elder care professionals, construction and landscape workers, and others who may work in Rolling Hills but lack the financial resources to live here. Nearly a third of the respondents indicated they would use the ADU for a family For rent to a tenant (16) 8% For a family member (60) 31% For myself (18) 9% For an employee or caregiver (48) 24% For occasional visitors (50) 25% Other (5) 3% Question: If you had a legal ADU on your property, how would you most likely use it? (192 replies) 296 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-7 member. The family member could be an extension of their own household or a relative or relatives living independently as a separate household. It is worth noting that only a quarter of the respondents indicated they would use the ADU for occasional visitors—historically, this has been the intended use of guest houses in the city. Use of ADUs as Affordable Housing Respondents were asked if they would consider limiting the rent on an ADU so that the unit was affordable to a lower income household. The question specifically asked if the respondent would consider a deed restriction that maintained the rent at a reduced rate (such as $1,200/ month for a two-person household) to help the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements. Of the 194 surveys returned, 25 indicated they would consider this and another 20 indicated they might consider this (“maybe”). This represents nearly one-quarter of the total respondents. Another one-quarter indicated they would need more information before deciding. About 35 percent indicated they would not consider a lower income affordability restriction and 15 percent did not respond. Figure C-5 shows the responses to this question. The data suggests that an “affordable” ADU program could generate sufficient participation for the City to meet its entire lower-income housing allocation through ADUs. Figure C-5: Viability of ADUs to Meet Very Low Income Housing Assignment (N=194) For the 98 respondents who answered “Yes”, “Maybe,” or “Need More Information”, the survey asked a follow-up question, which is the maximum length of time the respondent would consider acceptable for an affordability deed restriction. Two respondents did not reply, but the other 96 provided the answers below: • 20 would consider a 5-year term • 2 would consider a 10-year term Yes (25) 13% Maybe (20) 10% Need More Info (53) 27% No (68) 35% Didn't reply (28) 15% Question: If you had a legal ADU on your property, would you consider a deed restriction that maintained the rent at a reduced rate to help the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements? 297 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-8 • 3 would consider a 20-year term • 17 would consider a deed restriction that ended when they sold the house • 59 were not sure or answered “other” The responses suggest that long-term deed restrictions (10 or 20 years) and affordability contracts that “run with the land” would have limited participation. Residents are more open to short-term arrangements such as five-year affordability terms, and flexible arrangements that would not encumber the resale of their homes. This is an important consideration in the event a program is established. Incentives The final question in the survey asked respondents to select from a menu of possible incentives that might make a rent-restriction on an ADU more acceptable to them. Respondents were invited to select as many of the choices as they wanted. The most frequently selected options are shown in descending order in Figure C-6 below: Figure C-6: Ranking of Potential Affordable ADU Incentives The most frequently selected option was “nothing.” However, 55 respondents indicated that fee waivers or reductions would be an incentive, and 50 said expedited permitting would be an incentive. Many respondents were also supportive of the idea of rent-restricted ADUs serving local essential service workers such as fire-fighters and teachers. The least popular incentive was assistance in finding a tenant. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Question: What incentives might make a rent restriction more attractive to you? 298 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-9 Other Comments The survey provided an opportunity for residents to make general open-ended comments on ADUs and housing issues in Rolling Hills, as well as the factors the City should consider as new ADU policies and regulations are developed. Feedback was provided by 52 of the respondents. This is summarized below. Most of the open-ended comments expressed negative views about ADUs and their potential impacts on the character of Rolling Hills, as well as concerns with State housing mandates and the erosion of local land use control. Numerous concerns were raised about safety, security, and privacy. There were also concerns expressed about noise, parking, traffic, evacuation capacity, and impacts on the community’s rural, equestrian feel. Some respondents expressed concerns that they would not be able to choose their own tenants if they created an ADU or would be penalized if they created an ADU but did not rent it. Questions were also raised about property tax impacts, septic system impacts, and whether tenants would pay association dues and have access to RHCA facilities. There were also supportive comments, particularly from persons interested in creating ADUs for aging parents, or for themselves to age in place while renting out their primary home. Several respondents indicated an interest in renting space to a care giver. One respondent suggested prioritizing rentals to employees of the RHCA. Some respondents expressed their support for the idea of using the school property to meet affordable housing needs rather than relying on ADUs. Survey A copy of the survey mailed to residents follows this page. 299 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Findings Page C-10 300 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-11 City of Rolling Hills Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey October 2020 Dear Resident: Please take a few minutes to complete this survey about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Rolling Hills. Your responses will help us understand community goals and concerns and will be used to develop new policies for consideration by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission and City Council. State law requires that all cities and counties allow ADUs, provided they meet certain standards. Some of the potential benefits of ADUs include rental income for homeowners, on-site living space for caregivers or household employees, and accommodation of extended family (adult children, parents, etc.). ADUs can also help residents “age in place,” particularly as homeowners need more care or assistance. The City’s objective in carrying out this survey is to determine the level of interest in ADUs among Rolling Hills residents and evaluate their potential to meet local housing needs. Like all cities in California, Rolling Hills is required by State law to provide for its “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, including low- and very low-income households. ADUs provide a way to do that without significantly changing the character or appearance of the community. Some communities even provide special incentives for homeowners who rent ADUs at reduced rates to very low-income households, including household employees and local essential service employees. The deadline for returning your survey is November 20, 2020. Please use the enclosed postage-paid envelope to return the survey to City Hall by this date. If you would prefer to complete the survey on-line, please visit www.surveymonkey.com//rollinghillsADUsurvey. Please do not include your name or address on the survey as the intent is for all responses to be anonymous. If you have questions about the survey or about ADUs in Rolling Hills, please call Meredith Elguira at (310) 377-1521. What are ADUs and JADUs? Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are sometimes referred to as “in-law apartments” or “second units.” They are small independent dwelling units that exist on single family properties, either in a detached structure or as part of the primary structure with a separate entrance. ADUs include a bedroom or sleeping area, a bathroom, and cooking facilities. Rolling Hills has adopted specific zoning standards for ADUs as required by state law. The maximum allowable size is 850 square feet for a studio or one-bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a two bedroom. Other standards also apply. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are a type of ADU created by converting existing living space inside a single-family home (usually a bedroom) to a separate living space. They have a maximum size of 500 square feet. JADUs may have their own kitchenette or bathroom, or they may share the facilities in the primary residence. State law allows a property to have both an ADU and a JADU if certain requirements are met. 301 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-12 Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey! Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey 1. Does your property include any of the following features? (circle all that apply) A. A legally permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with kitchen, bath, and separate entrance? B. A guest house, pool house, casita, barn or other outbuilding that has heat and plumbing? _____ Check here if the space has a kitchen or other cooking facilities C. A space inside your house with a separate entrance from outside and independent living quarters, including a bedroom/ sleeping area and bathroom? _____ Check here if the space also has its own kitchen or cooking facilities D. Another space within your house that could easily be converted into an accessory dwelling unit? 2. If you circled one of the choices above, how is the space currently used? (If you circled more than one choice, please provide a response for each applicable space on your property. Use the blank line to the right of each choice below to describe the space you’re referring to). A. It is occupied by a tenant paying rent ____________________________________ B. It is occupied by a family member or long-term visitor who is not part of my household ___________ C. It is occupied by a caretaker or household employee(s) ____________________________________ D. It is used occasionally by guests or visitors ____________________________________ E. My own household uses the space ____________________________________ F. The space is currently not occupied by anyone, or is used for storage ___________________________ G. Not applicable 2A. About how large is the space of each applicable feature from Question 1 (in square feet)? (please skip question if not applicable) __________________ ___________________ _________________ 2B. If rent is collected for the space, what is the monthly amount? (if multiple spaces are rented, please indicate the rent for each area). (Please skip question if not applicable) __________________ ___________________ _________________ 302 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-13 3. If you have space on your property occupied by a household other than your own, please circle the category in the table below that most closely matches their annual income based on the number of persons in their household, if you know that amount. Recent data from the US Census indicates that 16 percent of Rolling Hills households have annual incomes below $50,000. ADUs (or potential ADUs) may provide a resource for these households. If Question 3 does not apply to your property, please skip to Question 4. Number of Persons in the Household (for other occupants only, not your own household) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Annual Income $23,700 or less $27,050 or less $30,450 or less $33,800 or less $36,550 or less $39,250 or less $23,700- $39,450 $27,050- $45,050 $30,450- $50,700 $33,800- $56,300 $36,550- $60,850 $39,250- $65,350 $39,450- $63,100 $45,050- $72,100 $50,700- $81,100 $56,300- $90,100 $60,850- $97,350 $65,350- $104,550 $63,100 or more $72,100 or more $81,100 or more $90,100 or more $97,350 or more $104,550 or more 4. If you don’t currently have a legal ADU on your property, would you consider developing one? (circle one answer) No Probably Not Not Sure/ Neutral Maybe, but not at this time Yes 4A. If you answered A, B, or C, what are the reasons? (Circle All that Apply) No Interest Cost Loss of Privacy Permitting Process Don’t Want to Deal with Tenants No Space Other (please explain below)_____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 5. If you decided to build an ADU on your property, where would it be located? (circle one) New detached structure on my property Conversion of an existing accessory building on my property (e.g., guest house, barn, etc.) An addition to my house Conversion of space already within the footprint of my house Not sure I would not add an ADU on my property 6. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, how would you most likely use it? (circle one) For rent to a tenant For a family member For myself For a household employee of caregiver For occasional visitors Other 303 D R A F T F O R H C D R E V I E W Appendix C: ADU Survey Report Page C-14 7. If you had a legally approved ADU on your property, would you consider a deed restriction that maintained the rent at a reduced rate (for example $1,200/month, which is considered the threshold for an “affordable” housing unit for a two person very low income household) to help the City meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements? (circle one) A. Yes B. Maybe C. I would need more information first D. No 7A. If your answer to Question 7 was A-C, what would be the maximum length of time you would consider for the rent restriction? (circle one) A. Five years B. 10 years C. 20 years D. Until I sell the house E. Not Sure F. Other _______________________ 7B: What incentives might make a rent restriction more attractive to you? (circle all that apply) A. No parking requirement B. Reduced (or no) permit fees C. Expedited permit processing D. Assistance in finding a tenant E. Rent supplement for the tenant F. Local tenant (e.g., school teacher, fire fighter, child care worker) G. Senior tenant H. Low-interest financing to create the ADU I. Permission to build a unit larger than 1,000 square feet J. Nothing K. Other _______________________ 8. To ensure that we are hearing from a cross-section of the community, please tell us a little about you: How Long Have You Lived in Rolling Hills? Less than 10 years 10-19 years 20-29 years More than 30 years Circle one choice in each box Are you a Homeowner or a Renter? Homeowner Renter Age Under 35 35-49 50-64 65+ How Many People Are in Your Household? 1 4 2 5 3 6 or more 9. Please share any concerns you may have about ADUs in Rolling Hills, or factors you’d like us to consider as new ADU policies and regulations are developed: 304 1/10/2022 1 2021-2029 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT City Council Hearing JANUARY 10, 2022 Background Required element of every General Plan Expresses City policies for housing conservation, housing production, and affordable housing Contents established by State law—many prescriptive statutory requirements Subject to certification by State HCD Failure to comply can lead to loss of eligibility for funds and legal risk Updated on eight-year cycle Fifth Cycle: Oct 2013 – Oct 2021 Sixth Cycle: Oct 2021 – Oct 2029 305 1/10/2022 2 Timeline 5th Cycle Element adopted in February 2014 -- not certified by State City amended Element in 2020-2021 in response to HCD objections Other cities were preparing 6th Cycle elements during this time Amended Element certified in July 2021 6th Cycle Element prepared in August-November 2021 6th Cycle adoption deadline was October 15, with 120-day “grace period” (February 12, 2022) Status of Elements in LA County (1/5/22) 9 25 42 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Nothing Submitted to HCD Yet Draft Currently Under Review Draft Reviewed and Found Non-Compliant Adopted, Compliance Determination Pending 306 1/10/2022 3 Adoption Process City prepares HCD Draft, circulates draft for 30 days (plus 10 days to respond to comments) City submits Draft to HCD. HCD has 90 days to issue comments (per AB 215). City amends HCD Draft in response to HCD comments (iterative process with HCD) City adopts Draft (Planning Commission and City Council hearings, plus CEQA review) Amended Draft submitted to HCD. HCD has 60 days to make compliance determination. Further amendments if non-compliant Finding of Compliance Contents Evaluation of Prior Element Needs Assessment Constraints Analysis Sites Analysis Resources Analysis Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives 307 1/10/2022 4 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 8 205 9 5 11 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate 2005-2021 Cycle 6 2021-2029 Cycles 4+5 •City must plan for 60% increase in number of units relative to last Element •Number of “lower income” units has increased by 123% Meeting the RHNA 5 new market rate single family homes (3 already approved) 16 units of affordable multi-family housing on Rancho Del Mar site 5 accessory dwelling units per year (plus 9 already approved) City has provided data demonstrating that at least 13 of these ADUs will be affordable to lower-income households Units created and occupied by family members or household employees for no rent or reduced rent may be counted as long as they can be documented by the City 308 1/10/2022 5 Data on ADU Rentals Citation: SCAG survey of ADU rents in coastal LA County indicates 15% were affordable to extremely low income HH Citation: Craigslist ads for ADUs on PV Peninsula indicates several units at $1,200 or less Program Recommendations Many recommendations are carried over from 5th Cycle State-mandated Zoning code amendments Ongoing activities (code enforcement, permit streamlining) New recommendations relate to: Incentives for ADUs Record-keeping to track ADUs Education and outreach about ADUs Amend RHCA guidelines to address ADUs Fair housing enforcement 309 1/10/2022 6 Review Process for HCD Draft Document was published December 3, 2021 Notice was provided to every household through Blue newsletter Notices were sent to housing advocacy groups/ supportive service providers Tribal notification was conducted (for CEQA) Planning Commission held hearing on December 16, 2021 30-day review period ended on January 2, 2022 No substantive comments on the Housing Element were received Next Steps January 11: Transmit draft to HCD for expedited review Receive HCD comments and revise Element Release Revised Draft and CEQA document Return to Planning Commission and City Council for adoption By February 12 if possible Otherwise, by March-April 2022 310 1/10/2022 7 2021-2029 ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT City Council Hearing JANUARY 10, 2022 THANK YOU! 311 Agenda Item No.: 9.A Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SEWER CONNECTIONS ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (WILLIAMSBURG AND MIDDLERIDGE LANE) AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: At the May 24, 2021 City Council meeting, two residents reported that they plan to construct sewer main lines along Williamsburg Lane and Middleridge Lane to serve the residents along these streets. The residents also noted that their proposed lines need an outlet. Since the City secured approvals from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District to discharge effluent from 235 homes within city limits to the County's treatment facility, the residents requested the City to allow the effluent from their proposed lines to discharge to the new 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road. In May, the residents expressed that the design of the 8" could be expanded to include a future connection to their proposed lines. The design of the 8" sewer main is complete as of November 2021. As a part of the design process, the completed plans are being reviewed by adjacent agencies for comments. In response to the residents' request, in June 2021, the City Council engaged Willdan Engineering (Willdan) to provide a feasibility study possible connections from the residents' proposed sewer lines to the 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road. The scope of work for the feasibility study also included analyzing upstream areas that could connect to the residents' proposed sewer lines in the future. DISCUSSION: The feasibility study recommended three options to discharge the effluent from the residents' proposed sewer lines. Option 1 includes the Middleridge line discharging to an existing Los Angeles County trunk line along Crenshaw Boulevard via gravity flow. Option 2 includes Williamsburg line discharging via gravity flow to Rolling Hills Estates existing pump station at Dobbin Lane. Option 3 includes Middleridge and Williamsburg lines discharging to the 8" sewer main along Rolling Hills Road via a pump station. There is a low point along Palos Verdes Drive North (due to the existing utilities lines underground), between the extension of the Middleridge and Williamsburg streets. Running sewer lines through the low point would result in the sewer line having only approximately three to four fee of cover (dirt above the pipeline). Design standards call for the sewer line to be much 312 deeper to avoid impacts from surface activities. Each option excluded the cost of the sewer connection from Middleridge Lane North and Williamsburg Lane to Palos Verdes Drive North. This cost is assumed to be included the residents' cost of installing the private sewer lines. Willdan noted that there are potential constraints on Palos Verdes Drive North that went beyond the scope of work of the feasibility study and would need to be analyzed in the design phase to verify that option 1 and option 2 are viable. Willdan worked with the City's Project Manager Alan Palermo to develop estimates of probable cost for each option. Option 1: $1,352,284 Option 2: $1,012,363 Option 3: $1,703,300 Willdan also analyzed the effluent discharge of the homes located upstream of the residents' proposed limits for the sewer lines. Based on the number of homes, the proposed size of the residents' pipes, and topography, Willdan concluded that the upstream effluent can be accepted in the downstream proposed lines and that the topography will allow the upstream effluent to be accepted via gravity flow. Attached to this report is the final feasibility study. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the feasibility study was $14,588. This amount was budgeted in the Utility Fund for FY2021-2022. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file study and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: RH Sewer Feasibility Study Ph III 09-3-2021-Complete (1).pdf 313 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SEWER SERVICE FEASIBILITY STUDY – PHASE III MIDDLERIDGE LANE AND WILLIAMSBURG LANE Prepared Under the Supervision of Tyrone Peter, P.E. R.C.E. No. 81888 Willdan Engineering 2401 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 300 Anaheim, California 92806 (714) 940-6300 September 2021 FINAL SUBMITTAL 314 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Project Area…………………………………………………………………………………... 3 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………….. 6 Sewer Pipe Capacity Analysis…………………………………………………………….. 7 Flow Coefficients…………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Flow Generation Analysis………………………………………………………………….. 9 Option 1……………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Option 2……………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Option 3……………………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Other Options………………………………………………………………………………… 17 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 Appendices A Project Location Map B Project Area Map and Conveyance Options Map C Conveyance of Upstream Parcels to Rolling Hills Road D As-Built Information E Zoning Information F LACDPW Sewer Capacity Policy G LACDPW Flow Generation Coefficients H Google Earth Image I Option 1 Exhibits J Option 2 Exhibits K Option 3 Exhibits 315 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Rolling Hills, CA (“City”) has retained Willdan Engineering to conduct research and analysis to study the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer service to two streets located west of City Hall; Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane (See Project Location Map - Appendix A). Properties on these streets, and the area upstream thereof, are not currently served by sanitary sewer lines. Willdan has performed three separate studies over the last 13 years to study the general nature of the sewer service potential in the area, however this study is specific to the Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane streets. The three previous studies are: City of Rolling Hills Sewer Feasibility Study, September 2008 (2008 Study): This study analyzed gravity sewer systems, Low Pressure Sewer (LPS) systems and combination gravity/LPS to serve the City. Sewer Feasibility Study Including City Hall and Tennis Court Site” (Phase I), October 2018: This study conducted concept level research and engineering feasibility evaluation regarding the potential of connecting the Project Area (City Hall, POA building, and the tennis court site, and upstream properties) to existing downstream sanitary sewer systems. Sewer Feasibility Study Including City Hall and Tennis Court Site” (Phase II), May 2020: This study involved the preparation of a Sewer Area Study and preliminary engineering plans for the extension of the sewer in Rolling Hills Road to serve the City Hall and Tennis Court Site. The documents prepared were submitted to and approved by: City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Torrance Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSD) 316 2 The three studies included research and conceptual level design of the sewer drainage of parcels south of Palos Verdes Drive North (PVDN), upstream of City Hall. It was noted in all three studies that providing sewer service to these properties may require pumps and easements due to topographic constraints. The 2008 report also studied a LPS to provide sewer service in this area. Subsequent to the Phase II Study, the City contracted with another consultant to produce construction documents for the extension of the sewer in Rolling Hills Road to serve the City Hall and Tennis Court site. The City now seeks to study providing sanitary sewer to Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. The project proposal included the study of two potential conveyance options; convey northwest within PVDN to a trunk sewer in Crenshaw Boulevard; or convey southeast within PVDN to the sewer being constructed within Rolling Hills Road. During the performance of the study a third conveyance option was studied; convey north across PVDN to the existing sewer within Dobbin Lane. In the performance of this study as-built information for downstream sewers was obtained and evaluated to determine conveyance feasibility. Topographical information was based on available GIS topography information and Google Earth data. Sewer flow generation rates were also calculated to evaluate downstream pipe capacity. The evaluation performed is concept level as limited topographic information was available and further design and evaluation will be required to produce preliminary engineering designs. Design concepts are presented which contain both gravity flow and pumping conditions; LPS systems were not considered in this study as they were thoroughly addressed in the 2008 Study. 317 3 PROJECT AREA The project area for this study is Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. However, as sewer design must account for future conditions, the area of Rolling Hills upstream of these two streets was also evaluated. The overall project area is shown on the Project Area Map in Appendix B. The 2008 study determined sewersheds within the Project Area based on topography and this same information was utilized for this study. The conveyance options are also shown on the Project Area Map and in Figure No. 1 below as follows: Option 1: convey northwest within PVDN to a trunk sewer in Crenshaw Boulevard Option 2: convey north across PVDN to the existing sewer within Dobbin Lane Option 3: convey southeast within PVDN to the sewer being constructed within Rolling Hills Road Conveyance Options FIGURE NO. 1 318 4 As mentioned above, the area upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane was also researched and evaluated. This area was previously included in the 2008 Study and the Phase II Study. Utilizing the information from the 2008 Study, Sewer Areas 9, 13, 18 were evaluated. The 2008 Study evaluated Area 9 as being pumped south to Crest Road to keep all sewer lines within existing rights of way. Areas 13 and 18 (portion) convey by gravity flow to Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane respectively. For the subject study, to be conservative, Area 9 was also evaluated as conveying north into Area 18, to agree with the topography, even though right-of- way does not exist between these two areas. This conveyance would require an easement, but would eliminate the need for pumping back to Crest Road. For the scope of the subject project, what is required is that the sewer flow from Area 9 is accounted for in the sewer modeling, not whether it is in right-of-way or in an easement. Also, for the subject study, the upper portion of Area 18 was assumed to flow into Area 17, based on the topography and the conveyance path to Rolling Hills Road, which concurs with the Phase II Study. It should be noted that the Phase II Study evaluated the upstream area of Areas 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 as tributary to Rolling Hills Road. A Will-Serve Letter was obtained from the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County and a Sewer Area Study was prepared and approved by LACDPW for the conveyance of this much larger area to Rolling Hills Road. Therefore, the subject study evaluated the potential of conveying flow from portions of Areas 9, 13 and 18, upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane, to Portuguese Bend Road / Rolling Hills Road (see Figure No. 2 below and in more detail in Appendix C). This conveyance pattern agrees with the Phase II Study and would minimize the amount of flow to the downstream connection points. To be conservative, the analysis also evaluated the flow from Areas 9, 13 and 18 (portion) conveying to PVDN and to the connection points in Options 1, 2, and 3. It is noted that although the conveyance to Portuguese Bend Road is feasible, engineering challenges would need to be addressed including shallow sewers, deep manholes, and the potential need for pump stations. 319 5 Area Upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane FIGURE NO. 2 320 6 METHODOLOGY This study performs analyses of the sanitary sewer lines assuming full build out conditions. The model determines all areas conveying to the sanitary sewer line and analyzes the hydraulic characteristics of the flow in the pipes. To perform this analysis, the following information was required: 1. Information on the existing sewer: pipe size, slope, and lengths 2. Information on the zoning and land use of the contributing parcels 3. Information on the contributing parcel sizes Existing information was obtained through research of available as-built information online and contained within the referenced studies. Available relevant as-built information from LACDPW is contained in Appendix D. Zoning and Land Use information was obtained by utilizing topographical, land use, zoning, and parcel information available online, in GIS databases and from the referenced studies. (See Appendix E) Information obtained was utilized to determine the waste flow generated by the properties. The flow generated by the parcels is a multiplication of the parcel acreage and a zoning flow coefficient for existing development. Discussion on the flow coefficients is contained in a following section of this report. Once the generated flow is determined, it is added to the sewer system proceeding upstream to downstream. The pipes between successive manholes are then analyzed to determine the hydraulic characteristics. This is accomplished by utilizing the as-built information obtained in Item 1 and performing hydraulic calculations in accordance with LACDPW requirements. 321 7 The hydraulic modeling begins at the upstream end of the system and proceeds downstream. Flows from the contributing parcels are accumulated at the manholes where they enter the system. Each pipe segment along the critical path is then hydraulically analyzed. LACDPW Capacity Policy (See Appendix F) defines capacity of the sewer mainline as: < 15” diameter ½ full = 100% Capacity (flow depth / pipe diameter) > 15” diameter ¾ full = 100% Capacity (flow depth / pipe diameter) All pipes in the system are 8” diameter pipes, therefore the design capacity is ½ full. Each pipe segment was then compared to the 100% capacity (1/2 full) value to determine its’ relative capacity, i.e., < 100% (< ½ full) is under capacity and > 100% (> ½ full) is over capacity. Segments that are over 100% capacity would be required to have the pipe size increased to bring that segment under capacity. SEWER PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS As mentioned previously, the design capacity is ½ full for pipes < 15” in diameter. LACDPW requires that the pipe flow be calculated by using Kutter’s formula, which is stated below: Q = AC(RS)^(1/2) C = 41.65 + (0.00281/S) + (1.811/n) 1 + (41.65 + 0.00281/S) * n/(R)^(1/2) Where Q = Discharge (cfs) C = Chezy coefficient A = Flow Area (sf) R = Hydraulic Radius (ft) S = Pipe Slope (ft/ft) n = 0.013 322 8 It is noted that for ½ full, R = Diameter / 4 Utilizing Kutter’s Formula, the analyses determined the Design Capacity for each pipe segment. This was calculated in a spreadsheet and is included on each exhibit. FLOW COEFFICIENTS Information regarding flow generation coefficients and rates was obtained from the LACDPW. The LACDPW table (See Appendix G) provides information on Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies and Zoning Coefficients based on zoning. The upper table values are gallons/day and must be multiplied by 2.5 to obtain peak flow values. The lower table values are in cfs/acre and are multiplied by the appropriate acreage to achieve peak flows. The parcels in the project area are large. Per the City of Rolling Hills zoning information in Appendix E, the parcels in the study area are RAS-1, minimum lots size 1 acre, and RAS-2, minimum lot size 2 acres. The zoning information for the City of Rolling Hills Estates in Appendix E indicates the residential parcels in the study area are Residential Low Density (20,000 sq. ft.). LACDPW zoning information in Appendix E indicates R-A-20000, however, to be conservative, this area is analyzed as 12,000 sf lot size. For the Phase II Study, LACDPW indicated that the zoning coefficients to be used for large residential lots is to be based on a proration of 0.001 cfs/ac as follows: Rolling Hills: RAS-1, minimum lot size 1 acre (43,560 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac RAS-2, minimum lot size 2 acres (87,120 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/87,120) = 0.0005 cfs/ac 323 9 Rolling Hills Estates: Low Density Residential (1 acre) (43,560 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac Low Density Residential (20,000 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac Los Angeles County: Low Density Residential (10,000 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/12,000) = 0.0036 cfs/ac FLOW GENERATION ANALYSIS The calculations for the flow generated by each area are shown in the tables on the Study Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 in Appendices I, J, and K. The calculations proceed from upstream to downstream. The cumulative flows are added to obtain the flow within each pipe segment. This flow is then compared against the Design Capacity Flow (1/2 full) to determine the % of Design Capacity. As stated previously, < 100% (< ½ full) is under capacity and > 100% (> ½ full) is over capacity. Having outlined the methodology utilized to evaluate the sewer capacities, each conveyance option is discussed further below. 324 10 OPTION 1 (SEE APPENDIX I) FIGURE NO. 3 Option 1 (see Figure No. 3 above) studied the conveyance of flows northwest within PVDN to a trunk sewer in Crenshaw Boulevard. A review of as-built information reveals that a gravity system exists in PVDN approximately 400 feet west of Middleridge Lane. The topography in the area was evaluated using GIS and Google Earth elevation data to determine the feasibility of connecting to this sewer. The upstream segments of the PVDN sewers are at shallow slopes and the downstream segments closer to Crenshaw Boulevard are steeper, which allows for the potential of lowering the sewer if needed to gain elevation. The Study Exhibit 1 shows the areas tributary to this conveyance option. Specifically, the areas and respective zoning analyzed are: Area 9 – RAS-2 = 67.6 ac Area 13 (yellow) – RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 176.8 ac Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac Area 18 (portion, pink) - RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 94 ac 325 11 Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac D/S area south of PVDN (LA County) = min. lot size 12,000 sf = 55.6 ac D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = min. lot size 20,000 sf = (5.7 ac + 6.2 ac = 11.9 ac) D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = Institutional = 2.8 ac These areas were modeled to determine the conceptual flow rates within the pipes and to evaluate the sewer flow relative to Design Capacity. A preliminary plan and profile was also prepared to conceptually design the horizontal and vertical alignment of the sewer. As mentioned previously, the downstream portions of the PVDN sewer are at steeper slopes. In order to gain sewer depth, the analysis assumes reconstructing portions of the existing sewer with 8” VCP at shallower slopes. The requirement for this must be determined by obtaining field survey information and utility location information. However, for the scope of this project, reconstructing the existing sewer segments is considered acceptable to evaluate feasibility. Using the conceptual design profile, the analysis indicates that the sewer line has capacity to convey the flow. Using the GIS/Google Earth information available indicates that the sewer would be as shallow as 4.40’, which may not be acceptable. However, this should be further evaluated with site specific topographical survey information. A review of the GIS topography indicates low points on PVDN east and west of Middleridge Lane. Google Earth reveals that drop inlets exist on PVDN east of Middleridge Lane. Google Earth does not indicate drop inlets west of Middleridge Lane, however it is reasonable to assume that a culvert exists in this area to convey the flow in the low point beneath PVDN. Location and elevation data for these drainage facilities, as well as detailed surface topographic survey and utility determination/mapping must be provided to further assess the feasibility of this option. 326 12 OPTION 2 (SEE APPENDIX J) 327 13 FIGURE NO. 4 (see Figure No. 4 above) A review of as-built information reveals that a gravity system exists in Dobbin Lane approximately 500 feet north of Middleridge Lane. The topography in the area was evaluated using GIS and Google Earth elevation data to determine the feasibility of connecting to this sewer. This sewer is at lower elevation than the study area and gravity connection to this sewer is feasible. However, this sewer conveys to the Lariat Lane Pump Station and adding flow to this pump station must be studied and the impact t o the pump station would have to be evaluated. Due to the conveyance to the Lariat Lane Pump Station, two scenarios were modeled under Option 2, Study Options 2A and 2B. Option 2A modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system: Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = min. lot size 20,000 sf = (5.6 ac + 3.5 ac + 4.4 ac = 13.5 ac) Option 2A assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to Portuguese Bend Road and are not tributary to the sewer system conveying to Lariat Lane Pump Station (see Appendix C). Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance. Regarding the Lariat Lane Pump Station, the as-built information indicates that the pump is rated to deliver 160 gpm at 60’ TDH. The model indicates that the flow conveyed to the pump station is 0.078 cfs = 35 gpm. Under this conceptual design, the pump would have the capacity for this added flow. 328 14 Option 2B modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system: Area 9 – RAS-2 = 67.6 ac Area 13 (yellow) – RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 176.8 ac Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac Area 18 (portion, pink) - RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 94 ac Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac D/S area north of PVDN (City of Rolling Hills Est.) = min. lot size 20,000 sf = (5.6 ac + 3.5 ac + 4.4 ac = 13.5 ac) Option 2B assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to this sewer system and conveying to Lariat Lane Pump Station. Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance. Regarding the Lariat Lane Pump Station, the as-built information indicates that the pump is rated to deliver 160 gpm at 60’ TDH. The model indicates that the flow conveyed to the pump station is 0.247 cfs = 111 gpm. Under this conceptual design, the pump would have the capacity for this added flow. As with Option 1, GIS and Google Earth indicate a low point and drop inlets between Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. Invert elevation information for the apparent storm drain was not available and the design assumes no conflict with the storm drain. Location and elevation data for drainage facilities and utilities, as well as detailed surface topographic survey and must be provided to further assess the feasibility of this option. Also, the addition of sewer flows to the Lariat Lane Pump Station would require discussion with LACDPW and the City of Rolling Hills Estates regarding coordination, permitting, and possible pump station upgrade improvement design. 329 15 OPTION 3 (SEE APPENDIX K) FIGURE NO. 5 (see Figure No. 5 above) This alternative would convey flow from the study area southeast along PVDN to the intersection of Rolling Hills Road. The topography in the area reveals that the intersection of Rolling Hills Road is approximately 60 feet higher than the Middleridge Lane/PVDN area. The sewer flow from Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane could convey to a common manhole and then be pumped to Rolling Hills Road to the project currently under design. As with Option 2, two scenarios were modeled under Option 3, Study Options 3A and 3B. Option 3A modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system: Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac Area 18 (orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac 330 16 Option 3A assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to Portuguese Bend Road and are not tributary to the sewer system in PVDN. Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance as it was established in the Phase II Study. Option 3B modeled the following areas and respective zoning as tributary to the system: Area 9 – RAS-2 = 67.6 ac Area 13 (yellow) – RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 176.8 ac Area 13 (green) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 19.3 ac Area 18 (portion, pink) - RAS-2 = min. lot size 2 ac = 94 ac Area 18 (Orange) – RAS-1 = min. lot size 1 ac = 28.5 ac Option 3B assumes the flows upstream of Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane are conveyed to this sewer system. Under this scenario, the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance the downstream system has capacity for this conveyance as it was established in the Phase II Study. As with Option 1, GIS and Google Earth indicate a low point and drop inlets between Middleridge Lane and Williamsburg Lane. Invert elevation information for the apparent storm drain was not available and the design assumes no conflict with the storm drain. Location and elevation data for drainage facilities and utilities, as well as detailed surface topographic survey and must be provided to further assess the feasibility of this option. 331 17 OTHER OPTIONS Although not studied in detail, other possible conveyance options are available. These would entail multiple sewer lines be constructed and conveyed to more than one of the outlets. That is, the flow could be conveyed to Crenshaw Boulevard, Dobbin Lane, and Rolling Hills Road, or any combination of those 3 connection points. To be conservative, the subject study analyzed all of the flow conveyed to one outlet. CONCLUSIONS The analyses provided reveal that all conveyance options studied are feasible, yet warrant more detailed design information regarding the following: Right of Way verification Topographic survey Storm drain location and invert elevation Utility locations and sizes Lariat Lane Pump Station design information Additionally, the conveyance options may require coordination and submittal of documents to: Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (San District) to obtain a “Will Serve Letter”; Submittal of a Sewer Area Study to the San District, LACDPW and the City of Rolling Hills Estates; Obtaining sewer flow measurements to correlate field conditions with the sewer modeling. 332 APPENDIX A Project Location Map 333 Middleridge Lane Williamsburg Lane City Hall Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Road Crenshaw Boulevard Dobbin Lane PROJECT LOCATION MAP PROJECT AREA 334 APPENDIX B Project Area Map and Conveyance Options Map 335 Middleridge LaneWilliamsburg LanePalos Verdes Drive NorthDobbin LaneOption 1Option 2Option 3337 APPENDIX C Conveyance of Upstream Parcels to Rolling Hills Road 338 (507) FS(540) FS(526) FS(534) FS(527) FS(535) FS(514) FSS=0.0040S=0.0040S=0.0040(511) FS(540) FSPALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH(550) FS/HPS=0.0200PT1PT2PT3PT4PT5PT6PT7PT8PT10PT11PT12(528) FSPT9PT13349.00'237.43'LC = 1 5 7 . 0 7' 6 5 . 0 7 'LC=241.90'LC=177.84'LC=61.62'119.52'LC=240.45'LC=233.35'(509) FS316.17'(513) FS(545) FS(524) FSPT9.5257.94'(538) FSLC=56.01'S=0.0401CITY OF ROLLING HILLSCITY OF ROLLING HILLSOFKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. ®31LEGEND:(513) FS = Surface Elevation per Google Earth502.79 INV. = Design sewer invert elevation at slope of 0.004 ft/ftEL (509.71) = Surface Elevation per GIS = Point Number for ManholePT5339 APPENDIX D As-Built Information 340 PROJECT AREA 341 PROJECT AREA 342 PROJECT AREA 343 PROJECT AREA 344 6'-8 3/4"5'-3/4" 143'-6 3/4"13'-9 1/2"8'-7 1/2"13'-3 1/2"345 8'-10 3/4"146'-11 3/4" 440 Google earth 346 347 348 6'-4"11'-8"349 11'-1 1/4"15'-4 1/2"350 351 8'-4 3/4"10'-1 1/2"7'-10"7'-10 1/2"352 353 354 355 356 357 PORTUGUESE BEND/ROLLING HILLS ROADSEWER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTKnow what'sbelow.Calltwo working before you dig.RPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTCITY OF ROLLING HILLSNo. C50129L UANNE BEANCIVILR E GISTERE D P ROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALI F O R NIA 358 Know what'sbelow.Calltwo working before you dig.RPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTCITY OF ROLLING HILLSNo. C50129LUANNE BEANCIVILREGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNIA359 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20 Know what'sbelow. Call two working before you dig. R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129LUANNE BEA N CI V I LREGISTERED PR O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERS T ATE OF C A L IFORNIACRENSHAW BLVD 360 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20 Know what'sbelow. Call two working before you dig. R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129LUANNE BEA N CI V I LREGISTERED PR O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERS T ATE OF C A L IFORNIA361 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20 Know what'sbelow. Call two working before you dig. R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129LUANNE BEA N CI V I LREGISTERED PR O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERS T ATE OF C A L IFORNIA362 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20 Know what'sbelow. Call two working before you dig. R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129LUANNE BEA N CI V I LREGISTERED PR O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERS T ATE OF C A L IFORNIAPALOS VERDES DR 363 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20 Know what'sbelow. Call two working before you dig. R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129LUANNE BEA N CI V I LREGISTERED PR O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERS T ATE OF C A L IFORNIA364 Know what'sbelow. Calltwo working before you dig. R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129LUANNE BEA NCI V I LREGISTERED PR O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERS T ATE OF C A L IFORNIASTA. 10+00 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 10+34.94 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 12+43.44 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 12+93.11 SEWER MANHOLE TO BE REMOVED STA. 15+93.95 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 40+00 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 43+50 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 47+78.69 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 52+28.69 SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL STA. 56+70± SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL 365 SHEET NOTES: MANHOLE PENETRATION CONNECTION Know what'sbelow. Call two working before you dig. R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. C50129LUANNE BEA N CI V I LREGISTERED PR O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERS T ATE OF C A L IFORNIA366 APPENDIX E Zoning Information 367 368 C R ES T R D HAWTHORNE BLVD***** SILVER SPUR RDHIGHRIDGE RDCOUNTR Y L N C R E N S H A W B L V D INDIAN PEAK RD ROLLING HILLS RDPALOS VERDES DRDEEP VALLEY DR R A N C H V I E W R D CLUB V I E W L N KINGSPINE RD BUCK S K IN LN S I L V E R S ADDLE LN PONY LNSTEIN HALE NATURE TR ASP E N WY R O C K B L U F F D R E N C A N T O D R W ILLO W W O O D RD PENNSYLVANIA DR SADDLE RDDEERHILL DRCYPRESS W Y E L M D A L E D R DAPPLEGRAY LN SUGARHILL DR IN DIAN VALLEY RDM O C C A S IN L NDUNWOOD RDG A U C H O D R ROLLINGWOOD DR BLUEM O U N D R D MISTY ACRES RDMONTECILLO DRC ONESTOGA D R AURORA DRS A N T A B E L L A R D SORREL LN M A RI NA DRR E A L D R MARLOMA DR STONECREST RD S H A DY VISTA RD COUNTRY M E A D O W RD STRAWBE R R Y L N SANTA CRUZ HIDDEN VALLEY RDC A R R IA G E D R GRA N A D A PALOS VERDES LN SYCAMORE LN ANACAPA LARIAT LN HILLCREST MNR EST R IB O D R EMPTY SADDLE R D BRIDLEWOOD CIRLATIGO LN MASONGATE DROA K T R E E L N SEVILLA P IN T O L N D O R ADO P L CRESTRIDGE RD R O A N W O O D D R CLEAR VISTA DR C O T T O N WOOD CIR Q U AILWOOD DR SEA VIE W DRCROSSFIELD DRS A D D L E B O W L N DOBBIN LNSEAHURST RD H IT C H IN G POST DRPALOMIN O L NW ILD H O R S E LN FOXPOINT LNSANTA ROSA C HADWICK LN B E E C H G ATE DR C E L E STE PL S C O T W O OD D RHORSESHOE LN SILVER AR R O W D R A V OCAD O L NPONDERO S A LN ROLLANDO DRRO LLING MEAD O W S RDTANGLEW O O D LN FERNCR E E K D R WHITLEY COLLINS DR S H A D O W LNSAN MIGUE L EMPTY SADDLE LNPEACOCK LNSPRUCE WYSW EETGRASS LN SILVERBIT LNSI LVE R E A G L E R DHIDD EN L N EASTVA L E R DCRESTA VERDES DR BROK E N B O W L N GOLDEN SPAR PLHAR B O R SIGHT DRSUNNYFIELD DRRAWHIDE LNDRYBANK DRCOLINA LNPLEASANT HILL D RLAZY CREEK LNP E A R TREE LNBRANDING IRON LNSINGLETREE LN STABLE WYBLACKHORSE RDS IL V E R L E AF DRC E R R ITO PLLANT ANA PL TE RRA C E D RMAJORCA HILLCRES T M EADOW COVERED WAG O N L N RANGE HO R S E LNROXCOVE DRSILVER SP RING DR QUARTERHORSE LN S U N D O WN D R SPINNING WHE E L L NACADEMY DRPOTRILLO RD LA CROIX DRRUSTLE R L N BASSWOOD AV CHALMETTE LN***** ***** R O L L A N D O D R ***** EMPTY S ADDLE LNANACAPA ***** FERNCREEK DR * * * * * ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** LARIAT LN ***** ***** HAWTHORNE BLVD***** ***** * * * * * ***** ***** ***** CRENSHAW B L V D***** ***** ***** ***** * * * * * ***** ***** ***** SE A V I EW DRLegend City Boundary Zoning Residental Low Density (1 Acre) Residental Low Density (20,000 Sq. Ft.) Residental Medium Density (15,000 Sq. Ft.) Residental Medium Density (10,000 Sq. Ft.) Residental Planned Development Commercial General Commercial Office Commercial Limited Commercial Recreation Agricultural Institutional Quarry Open Space Recreation 1 inch = 700 feet City of Rolling Hills EstatesZoning Map 369 https://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=GISNET_Public.GIS-NET_Public ZONING MAP FOR UNINCORPORATED LA COUNTY AREA 370 APPENDIX F LACDPW Sewer Capacity Policy 371 ,CL, '",' :'.,,' ": " ,l", ' ..~,:~(;.( '';~~(,;, October 12, 2005 ~~ o~jj Approved -- 'TO: FROM: Dean Efstathi0l;\ V Dennis Hunte( ~ Land Development Division POLICIES FOR MANAGING AVAILABLE SEWER CAPACITY AND SEWAGE DISCHARGE IN EXCESS OF DESIGN CAPACITY The following will set forth Public Works' policies related to managing sewer infrastructure capacity. Design capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as follows: c: 15" diameter ;: 15" diameter ~ full = 100% capacity (dID) % full = 100% capacity (dID) When Public Works determines there is available capacity in a mainline sewer for infil and redevelopment projects, the remaining available capacity shall be allocated on a first come - first serve basis. Sewer Advisory Committee A Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC) will be formed for the purpose of recommending courses of action to address proposed development connecting to existing sewers that will cause them to be operating beyond their design capacity. The SAC will make their recommendations to Dean Efstathiou, Assistant Director. The SAC will be chaired by Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division and will have representatives from Design and Land Development Divisions. Each Division will appoint a Principal Engineer or Senior Civil Engineer as a representative to the SAC and will convene whenever sewer decisions are required to address developmental impacts. Sewer Maintenance will maintain records of SAC meetings and will prepare recommendations to Administration for approval. The SAC may require other Division representatives to participate on a case-by-case basis when necessary, such as Building and Safety and Programs Development. Divisional Responsibilties Desiqn Division 1. Support activities of the SAC. 2. Prepare sewer area studies when required. 372 Dea n Efstath iou August 25, 2005 Page 2 3. Maintain records/archive of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements. Land Development Division 1. Support activities of the SAC. 2. Impose sewer area study requirements for private developments if necessary and reviewlapprove all submittals. 3. Refer cases to SAC when both sewer area studies and flow measurements indicate that a potential overload situation exists or will exist based on criteria described below. 4. Provide copies of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements to Design Division for archiving. Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division 1 . Chair the SAC, maintain meeting records and prepare position papers to Administration. 2. Advise the SAC when an overload condition is observed during maintenance activities. 3. Initiate effort to track and map all overload areas within the Consolidated Maintenance District. 4. Keep database of all flow measurement results. Desiqn Criteria 1. Capacity of sewer mainlines less than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.5, expressed as dID = 0.5. 2. Capacity of sewer mainlines equal to or greater than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.75, expressed as dID = 0.75. 373 Dean Efstathiou August 25, 2005 Page 3 3. When an area study indicates that flow conditions based on calculated discharges is between 101 percent to 150 percent of capacity, no flow measurements and no mitigation will be required. If maintenance records warrant, a flow test may be required. 4. When an area study for a development that proposes to increase the density or change the zoning indicates that flow conditions are between 151 to 200 percent of capacity, flow measurements shall be required. If the flow test indicates that the actual flow condition is below 151 percent, no mitigation wil be required. If the flow test results indicate the actual flow is above 151 percent, the case shall be referred to the SAC to evaluate options and make recommendations to Administration for approval. These options may include, but are not limited to: requiring full mitigation from the development, assessing pro-rata shares, creation of a reimbursement district, or establishing a County Improvement (CI) district. AHN:ca P:\LDPUB\SUBPCHECK\SEWER\MISCELLANEOUS\SEWER IN FRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT cc: Administration (Kelly) BUil?ing and Safety (Patel) D,).Design (Kumar) (Itl. ¡Art ¿~ Land Development (D'Antonio, Burge~hong, Witler, Narag) Programs Development (Afshari) , Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance (Del Real, Lehto) 374 APPENDIX G LACDPW Flow Generation Coefficients 375 Occupancy Abbreviation *Average daily flow Apartment Buildings: Bachelor or Single dwelling units Apt 150 gal/D.U. 1 bedroom dwelling units Apt 200 gal/D.U. 2 bedroom dwelling units Apt 250 gal/D.U. 3 bedroom or more dwelling units Apt 300 gal/D.U. Auditoriums, churches, etc.Aud 5 gal/seat Automobile parking P 25 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Bars, cocktails lounges, etc.Bar 20 gal/seat Commercial Shops & Stores CS 100 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Hospitals (surgical)HS 500 gal/bed Hospitals (convalescent)HC 85 gal/bed Hotels H 150 gal/room Medical Buildings MB 300 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Motels MB 150 gal/unit Office Buildings Off 200 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Restaurants, cafeterias, etc.R 50 gal/seat Schools: Elementary or Jr. High S 10 gal/student High Schools HS 15 gal/student Universities or Colleges U 20 gal/student College Dormitories CD 85 gal/student Zone Coefficient (cfs/Acre) Agriculture ----------------------------------0.001 Residential*: R-1 --------------------------------------------0.004 R-2 --------------------------------------------0.008 R-3 --------------------------------------------0.012 R-4 -------------------------------------------- 0.016* Commercial: C-1 through C-4 ---------------------------- 0.015* Heavy Industrial: M-1 through M-4 -------------------------- 0.021* exceed the coefficients shown * Use 0.001 (cfs/unit) for condominiums only Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies *Multiply the average daily flow by 2.5 to obtain the peak flow Zoning Coefficients * Individual building, commercial or industrial plant capacities shall be the determining factor when they Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works For large lots, per LACDPW, use a coefficient prorated on 0.001 cfs/ac as follows: 1 ac lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac 2 ac lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 87,120) = 0.0005 cfs/ac 20,000 sf lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac 376 APPENDIX H Google Earth Image 377 Drop inlets Possible Culvert Location 378 APPENDIX I Option 1 Exhibits 379 CITY OF ROLLING HILLSCITY OF ROLLING HILLSOFKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. ®31" = 100'CONVEY NORTHWEST TO CRENSHAW BOULEVARDEXHIBIT 11DOBBIN LNSUNNY FIELDWILLIAMSBURG LNMIDDLE RIDGE NORTHRAWHIDEBRANDING IRON LNEAST VALE ROADPALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTHPALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH381 APPENDIX J Option 2 Exhibits 382 S=(0.0100)S=0.0200 S=0.0200S=0.0595S=(0.0630)MH NO. 22MH NO. 10MH NO. 11A = 6.2 ACDOBBIN LNSUNNY FIELDWILLIAMSBURG LNMIDDLE RIDGE NORTHRAWHIDEBRANDING IRON LNEAST VALE ROADPALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH( 4 8 0 ) F S ( 4 6 4 ) F S ( 4 3 7 ) F S ( 4 4 6 ) F S ( 4 3 8 ) F S S=0.0201S=0.0040S=0.0241(439) FS(502)(503)(501)(500)(499)(497)(495)(496)(498)(493)(492)(506)(505)(504)LARIAT LANEPUMP STATIONPPALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTHA = 28.5 ACA = 5.7 ACA = 3.5 ACA = 19.3 ACS=(0.0608)MH NO. 21MH NO. 23A = 4.4 AC(494)A = 5.6 AC8" VCP SEWER8" VCP SEWER8" VCP SEWER8" VCP SEWERS=(0.0630)ALERT EXIST.RCPS=(0.1332)S=(0.0040)CITY OF ROLLING HILLSCITY OF ROLLING HILLSOFKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. ®3CONVEY NORTHEAST TO DOBBIN LANEEXHIBIT 22384 APPENDIX K Option 3 Exhibits 385 S=0.0200 S=0.0200S=0.0620S=(0.0630)MH NO. 22MH NO. 10MH NO. 11A = 6.2 ACDOBBIN LNSUNNY FIELDWILLIAMSBURG LNMIDDLE RIDGE NORTHRAWHIDEBRANDING IRON LNEAST VALE ROADPALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTHS=0.0050S=0.0075(502)(503)(501)(500)(499)(497)(495)(496)(498)(493)(492)(506)(505)(504)LARIAT LANE PUMP STATIONPPALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTHA = 28.5 ACA = 5.7 ACA = 3.5 ACA = 19.3 ACMH NO. 21A = 4.4 AC(494)A = 5.6 ACALERT EXIST. 18" RCPPFORCE MAINPUMPSTATION8" VCP SEWERALERT EXIST. 18" RCPALERT EXIST. RCPCITY OF ROLLING HILLSCITY OF ROLLING HILLSOFKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. ®3CONVEY SOUTHEAST TO ROLLING HILLS ROADEXHIBIT 33387 Agenda Item No.: 9.B Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT FROM HQE SYSTEMS (SIREN STUDY) AND DIRECT STAFF CONDUCT A COMMUNITY SURVEY. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: In the FY2019-2020 approved budget, the City Council allocated funding to purchase radios for the Block Captain program. These handheld radios were intended to provide a method of communication between City Hall and the community during emergencies with prolonged power failure. Approximately $500 of the $6,600 budget was used to purchase four test radios. The radios were recommended by the President of the Peninsula Amateur Radio Club. When the Peninsula Amateur Radio Club could not longer serve the City, a qualified professional was needed to get the test radios programmed. In FY2020-2021, the City Council approved budget for the Block Captain Program to purchase 65 communication devices and provided support to continue with the communication project. In February 2021, staff advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified firms to assist the city in designing a turnkey Emergency Communications System to support the Block Captain Program. The city was seeking a proposer who had experience in emergency communication solutions that would meet the needs of the end user in functionality and financial outlays. In lieu of specifying the purchase of handheld radios, the RFP allowed proposers to provide alternative solutions to meet the City's needs. On March 25, 2021, the City received one (1) proposal from HQE Systems, Inc. After reviewing the proposal, staff contacted HQE Systems, Inc. and scheduled an interview to learn more about the firm and discuss the proposal and City project. On April 8, 2021, staff met via video conference with HQE Systems, Inc. and received a presentation on the firm's history and core capabilities. Discussion ensued on the City's needs, the Block Captain Program, and HQE Systems, Inc. proposal and fee proposal. During the course of the interview, HQE Systems, Inc. outlined a recommended system, alternative to the handheld radios, that would meet the City's needs. It was apparent that an analysis of multiple emergency communication systems would not be warranted. On April 26, 2021, staff recommended to the City Council to engage the services of HQE Systems Inc. for the Block Captain Communications project for a feasibility study of the 388 recommended system. City Council decided to delay the item and directed Councilmember Jeff Pieper to work with staff to better understand the evolution of the communication project, from purchasing handheld radios to a siren system and the scope of the feasibility study. As directed, staff met with Councilmember Pieper on four occasions: May 20, 2021, July 15, 2021, July 23, 2021 and August 12, 2021. Some of the meetings with Councilmember Pieper included the Lead Block Captains Arlene and Gene Honbo. In preparation of other meetings with Councilmember Pieper, staff worked with the City's Project Manager Alan Palermo and HQE Systems Inc. to provide technical information requested by Councilmember Pieper. The feasibility study would be comprised of HQE Systems Inc. to identify the hardware, the location of the hardware, software, system integration, and detailed cost estimate to install a siren system for the community. The Lead Block Captains, along with many members of the Block Captains are in support of the project. At the August 23, 2021 City council Meeting, City Council approved a Professional Services agreement with HQE Systems, Inc. to prepare a feasibility study for a city-wide emergency notification system. DISCUSSION: In the fall of 2021, HQE Systems, Inc. prepared and submitted to the City a draft of the feasibility study for installation of a Mass Notification System. The draft feasibility study was reviewed by City staff and returned to HQE Systems, Inc. with comments. HQE updated the feasibility study and submitted the final study for City use and presentation to City Council. This final feasibility study is attached to this staff report. HQE conducted a detailed site survey gathering information to identify constraints that could impact the system's operational and technical performances. HQE assessed power options and locations. Sound engineer assessed buildings in the community to determine the best locations to maximize sound coverage. HQE also conducted a sound propagation analysis to model optimal signal distribution using the company's proprietary outdoor siren planning software. The coverage models took into consideration varying geographical topology and environmental factors such as foliage and building density. HQE provided two options for installation of an outdoor siren system. Solution A is the low visibility installation option that would require nine (9) 30 feet poles throughout the City. The 30 feet poles are mounted with a modern design intelligible speakers. At 30 feet, the outdoor warning speakers will be slightly above the height of the residential homes, allowing for the best sound transmission without placing the poles too high above the roofline. The poles can be covered with tree façade to blend in the with the surrounding vegetation. Solution B is the low cost installation option that would require three (3) 50 feet poles mounted with the intelligible horns positioned in a 360 degree transmission position. The 50 feet pole allows for the sound to be projected from a higher elevation, providing greater coverage and reducing overall number of poles. The genesis of the communication project is the feedback from the 2019 community survey on emergency preparedness and from the Block Captains consistently and frequently asking the question, how will the community be notified by the City in the event of complete power failure. With the feasibility study completed, and high level pricing available on implementing an outdoor siren system, staff recommends that the City Council conduct another community survey and ask the residents if they want an outdoor siren system. 389 FISCAL IMPACT: Solution A recommended by HQE utilized the SiRcom-Vector outdoor speaker arrays. This solution considered aesthetic and the rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution A: $310,602. Solution B recommended by HQE utilizes the SiRcom outdoor warning intelligible sirens. HQE noted that this solution is the lowest in price, and offers the most reliable solution in the market today. The rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution B: $144,573. The FY 2021-2022 adopted budget does not include funding for the outdoor siren project. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report and direct staff to conduct a community survey. ATTACHMENTS: HQE Systems - Mass Notification Systems Installation Report - The City of Rolling Hills - Final JW (Email Version 2).pdf 390 Mass Notification Report Global Headquarters | 42075 Remington Ave. Suite 109 | Temecula, CA 92105 | 800.967.3036 www.HQESystems.com Prepared December 2021 For The City Of Rolling Hills, California 391 Disclaimer of Liability Neither HQE Systems,Inc.,nor its contributors shall be held liable for any improper or incorrect use of the information described and/or contained in this report herein and assumes no responsibility for anyone's use of the information.In no event shall HQE Systems,Inc.or its contributors be liable for any direct,indirect,incidental,special,exemplary,or consequential damages (including,but not limited to: procurement of substitute goods or services;loss of use,data,or profits;or business interruption) however caused and on any theory of liability,whether in contract,strict liability,tort (including negligence or otherwise),or any other theory arising in any way out of the use of this report,even if advised of the possibility of such damage.This disclaimer of liability applies to any damages or injury, whether based on alleged incorrect data,negligence or any other cause of action,including but not limited to damages or injuries caused by any failure of performance,error,omission,interruption, deletion,defect,delay in operation or transmission,computer virus,communication line failure,and/or theft, destruction or unauthorized access to, alteration of, or use of any record. 392 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA HQE Systems,Inc.is a privately owned and operated Minority Owned FEMA Certified Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB). “It is our goal at HQE to continue to serve our veterans through our ‘Hire Veterans Policy HQE-2015-2025’.We appreciate all of 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 amazing veterans. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you and your community!” Thank You from the team of HQE Systems Inc. Qa s A r i Hen r de CEO, Disabled Veteran / Retired COO, Disabled Veteran 2 |Page 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.393 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Background 5 3. The City of Rolling Hills Consideration Factors 6 3.1 General Information 6 3.2 Topographic Information 6 3. Report Development Methodology 7 2.1 Kick-Off Meeting (Clear Project Guidelines)7 2.2 Site Survey (Gathering Information)7 2.3 Sound Propagation Analysis (Data-Driven Planning)7 2.4 Mass Notification Systems Installation Study 8 4. Mass Notifications System Types Overview 9 4.1 Electronic Notification Solutions (ENS) Web & Cellular Alerting 9 4.2 Indoor Notification Solutions 10 4.3 Outdoor Notification Solutions 11 4.3.1 Outdoor Warning Sirens & Speakers 12 4.3.2 The Leading Outdoor Warning Siren System 13 5. Proposed Solution Options 17 5.1 Installation Solution Options 17 5.1.1 Option A: Low Visibility Installation Option Sound Coverage 18 5.1.2 Option B: Lowest Cost Installation Option Sound Coverage 20 5.2 Outdoor Warning Siren Pole Tree Facade 22 5.2.1 Simulated View Of Siren Poles With Tree Facades 24 5.3 Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) Option 25 6.0 Conclusion of Report 27 3 |Page 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.394 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 1. Executive Summary To the distinguished City of Rolling Hills’s City Council Members, HQE Systems,Inc.(HQE)is a Minority-Owned,FEMA Certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)with its global headquarters in Temecula,CA.Since 2014,HQE has been designing, engineering,installing,and maintaining Mass Notification Systems (Central Control Units,Outdoor Sirens,Control Cabinets,Radios,Solar Chargers,and Subcomponents of Mass Notification Systems) solutions for a host of clients worldwide.HQE is a brand agnostic systems integrator that has installed over 1,000+ Mass Notification Systems for all levels of the Government and Federal Agencies. HQE was retained by The City of Rolling Hills,California,to investigate the feasibility of installing an effective Mass Notification System.The intent of the system is to provide Mass Alerting and Warning in the event of natural and manmade disasters including wildfires,terrorist events,and severe weather. HQE’s Mass Notification Systems installation Report would provide the decision-makers with the information needed to identify the ideal solution for The City of Rolling Hills. To develop the report,HQE conducted an installation study.The study includes open-source data research, site survey, and sound propagation analysis. ❖Open Source Data:Researching the latest solution from the key manufacturers.This includes technical/operational features and rough order of magnitude pricing. ❖Site Survey:Study of the local environment/infrastructure to include the availability of power, potential installation points,residential buildings,and topography (manmade and natural).In addition,to analyze the presence and signal capabilities of cellular,radio,and other communications channels. ❖Sound Propagation Analysis:Utilizing the information gathered during the site survey,GIS,and DoD planning maps,HQE utilizes a proprietary machine-learning algorithm Sound Propagation Analysis to determine the ideal locations for the Mass Notification points. With all of the information reviewed and analyzed during the report development,HQE’s Mass Notification Subject Matter Experts have determined two ideal installation options for The City of Rolling Hills.These options were developed with the following priorities (not in order):Alerting Effectiveness, Initial Budget, Sustainment Budget, Project Timeline, and System Installed Visibility. Solution A (Low Visual Signature Installation Option):This solution was developed to provide The City of Rolling Hills with a solution that provides the best visually pleasing option.This option will utilize the SiRcom-Vector outdoor speaker arrays.These modern intelligible speakers will provide the “best-look” for the City. The rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution A is, $310,601.53 Solution B (Lowest Cost Installation Option):This solution was developed to provide the best price while maintaining the highest quality of outdoor warning capabilities.The solution utilizes the SiRcom outdoor warning intelligible sirens.Although lowest in price,SiRcom is determined to be the most reliable solution in the market today.The rough order of magnitude pricing for Solution B is, $144,572.93 4 |Page 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.395 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 2. Background The City of Rolling Hills (City)sought an installation report for Mass Notifications System (MNS).The requirement specifically desired an effective outdoor solution that could operate in any threat event environment. The City of Rolling Hills relies primarily on communication tools that require electricity,cellular signal,or access to the internet during an emergency.These methods include The City of Rolling Hills Website, Alert Southbay,and local television/radio networks.Areas of California regularly experience power outages during adverse,especially windy,weather conditions.The local utility provider utilizes a Public Safety Power Shut-off (PSPS)program during inclement weather conditions.Because of the PSPS program,residents of The City of Rolling Hills could possibly be without power during periods of heightened fire danger,resulting in an increased risk of not receiving important communications, including evacuation orders,via phone,internet,or radio.Unfortunately,disruption to the electrical power also has a negative impact on local cellular towers which have limited generator power to sustain its operational needs from the planned PSPS or electrical systems failures from the hazard (fire,wind, etc).Environmental events like these must be fully understood when planning and designing an MNS, so the system can clearly and effectively communicate alerts to residents and visitors.The MNS must be designed to rely on solar power and have enough battery-backup capacity to send critical alerts,when required, at night, or days when the sun may be blocked by smoke or clouds. The infamous 2020 wildfires that overtook the northern regions of Los Angeles and Ventura County exposed the dangers of only relying on web-based or cellular-based emergency alert systems.With over 33 deaths,many of the Cities and Counties have since implemented a radio-based mass notifications system to mitigate this unnecessary risk in the future. The City of Rolling Hills contracted with HQE Systems,Inc.(HQE)to develop a comprehensive and actionable MNS report to enhance its ability to disseminate emergency alerts,especially in wildfire situations.Since then,HQE has utilized its expertise in Mass Notifications Systems (MNS)to develop this report to assist The City of Rolling Hills in the pursuit to save lives and protect property. 5 |Page 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.396 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 3. The City of Rolling Hills Consideration Factors 3.1 General Information Line Description The City of Rolling Hills Data 1 Access To The City ofRolling Hills Gated Community (Limited Access Roads) 2 Population (2020)1,739 3 Housing Units 702 4 Land Area 2.99 Square Miles 5 Water Area 0.00 Square Miles 6 Geographic Coordinates 33.760016 -118.347164 7 AVG. Annual RainFall 15 Inches 8 AVG. High Wind Speed 7-8.6 MPH (November to May is the high winds season) 9 Fire Season May to October 10 Fire Threat Region Tier 2 (Elevated Fire Threat Identified By:California Public Utilities Company Fire Threat Mat V.3 (08.19.21) 11 Last Large Fire That Impacted The City of Rolling Hills On The Palos Verdes Peninsula Aug.27,2009,burned 235 acres and was of unknown origin according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention website.The fire,which burned for two days,caused minor damage to six Rolling Hills homes and forced 1,200 people to evacuate.Additionally,3,000 customers in the area lost electrical power. 3.2 Topographic Information 6 |Page 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.397 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA HQE has studied The City of Rolling Hills’s general and topographic information.These factors will be taken into careful consideration when developing the final solution options. 3. Report Development Methodology 2.1 Kick-Off Meeting (Clear Project Guidelines) HQE conducted a project kickoff meeting in October 2020 with The City of Rolling Hills that established mutual acquaintance,clarified roles,and confirmed the desired outcomes and deliverables.Utilizing its experience and expertise in MNS,HQE was able to help better understand the constraints of the project and how HQE could best serve The City of Rolling Hills in achieving its ultimate goal of Saving Lives and Protecting Property. 2.2 Site Survey (Gathering Information) HQE conducted a detailed site survey and spent time on-site gathering information to fully understand the constraints that could impact the system’s operational and technical performances.During the on-site interview,HQE reviewed each element of an MNS and documented expectations and requirements of the system.The City of Rolling Hills provided site information based on the current desires of The City of Rolling Hills and potential pitfalls to consider when planning for the new MNS. HQE’s analysis began with the initial City provided project considerations to ensure that HQE’s efforts would be aligned with The City of Rolling Hills’s desires.While on-site,HQE assessed the power options and locations.In addition,HQE’s sound engineer assessed the residential and commercial building layouts to determine the best locations of the new MNS points to maximize sound coverage. 2.3 Sound Propagation Analysis (Data-Driven Planning) HQE conducted a sound propagation analysis to ensure the outdoor emergency alert signal is distributed optimally throughout The City of Rolling Hills.HQE produced sound propagation maps using site collected data and HQE’s proprietary outdoor siren planning software to determine the levels of coverage achieved from potential sites.The coverage models take into consideration varying geographical topology and environmental factors such as foliage and building density. The study considered various environmental factors including: ❖Temperature ❖Humidity & Rainfall ❖Vegetation (types and disbursement) ❖Wind speed and direction ❖Man Made structures (buildings, towers, etc) ❖Topography (elevation changes) 7 |Page 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.398 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Environmental factors that will be present during inclement weather were important when modeling coverage,including understanding the effects of the Santa Ana winds.In addition,much of The City of Rolling Hills has steep hills and canyons, which pose a challenge for proper coverage. The analysis resulted in recommendations for the most efficient outdoor warning alert sound distribution across The City of Rolling Hills, including: ❖A sound coverage area for each proposed siren site, considering environmental data ❖Identification of any areas of The City of Rolling Hills in which sirens will be ineffective due to geography or other characteristics 2.4 Mass Notification Systems Installation Study HQE compiled the data collected into this report, which provides a baseline assessment and includes the following: ❖Solution options available on the market ❖Costs to include initial and long term sustainment ❖Recommended ideal installation options 8 |Page 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.399 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 4. Mass Notifications System Types Overview 4.1 Electronic Notification Solutions (ENS) Web & Cellular Alerting ❖Solution Types:Electronic Notification Systems (ENS)have gained popularity due to the advancement of technology.ENS utilizes the local cellular networks to disseminate emergency alert notifications.These notifications can be accessed from the recipient ’s mobile devices and computers. ➢Hosted Cloud-Based Solution (SaaS):Requires no hardware to deploy the solution. ➢On-Premise Server Solution:Requires a local server to be installed. ❖Alerting Methods:The City of Rolling Hills Utilizes the local cellular towers to transmit the following alerts. ➢Voice Calls:A custom live or pre-recorded voice message can be transmitted to all telephone numbers in the database for the City. ➢SMS Text:A custom drafted or pre-drafted template message can be transmitted as a text to the number in the database for the City.The recipient can also send back an acknowledgment or a specific prompt response to the City. ❖Strengths & Vulnerabilities: ➢Strengths:Fast deployment.Easy to utilize.Requires limited or no hardware installation. ➢Weakness:Completely reliant on the local cellular network.During PSPS or disaster failures,ENS solutions will not work.If the recipients have their phones on silent or off, they will not be alerted by the notification. 9 |Page 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.400 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 4.2 Indoor Notification Solutions ❖Solution Types:Indoor Notification Systems are utilized to provide coverage visually and audibly to ensure that the alerts are clearly received inside buildings.These notifications consist of workstation desktop alerts,overhead paging/intercom alerts,mounted digital displays,and any networked signs and TVs. ➢Indoor audio alerting:Integrates with in-building paging or intercom systems, telephones,and other networked audio devices.This ensures full compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. ➢Indoor visual alerting:Integrates with workstations,digital signs,and other networked displays (TVs,wall mounted tablets).This ensures full compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. ➢Life Safety Systems Integration:Integrates with local fire alarm,earthquake sensors,and electronic security systems to ensure that the legacy alarms are reinforced with intelligible audio and visual alerts (ADA compliance). ❖Strengths & Vulnerabilities: ➢Strengths:Unifies the indoor spaces with the outdoor warning alerts.This ensures that all alerts are instantly received by all residents and the City’s staff. ➢Weakness:Requires indoor wiring and cabling (unless self-powered and wireless solutions are implemented) 10 |Page 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.401 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 4.3 Outdoor Notification Solutions ❖Solution Types:Outdoor Warning Sirens (OWS)are the industry standard and the accepted capability by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).OWS allow for immediate alerting across a large area by utilizing all weather outdoor warning sirens. ➢Intelligible Audio Alerts: Intelligible sirens that can be clearly heard from miles away. ➢Wireless &Self Powered:Siren control cabinet systems configured to operate on wired/wireless communication infrastructure and self-powered/self charging systems. ➢Central Control System:Mass Notifications System management software to quickly and easily create, transmit, and manage all alerts. ❖Alerting Methods:The City of Rolling Hills Utilizes various communications media to transmit the following alerts. ➢Live Custom or Pre-Recorded Voice Alerts:A custom live or pre-recorded voice message can be transmitted to all or selected siren points. ➢Tone Alerts: Transmit pre-established tone alerts. ❖Strengths & Vulnerabilities: ➢Strengths:Self-powered and can communicate on networks not affected by PSPS or other types of power outages. ➢Weakness: Has the highest cost to cover the desired area. 11 |Page 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.402 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 4.3.1 Outdoor Warning Sirens & Speakers Description SiRcom Whelen Federal Signal ATI Sirens Configuration Options 2-36 Omni, Bi, or Directional Better Coverage 1-10 Omni 1-8 Omni, 2-6 Directional 4 or 8 Omni or Directional Directional Capable Yes More Flexibility No Yes Yes Max Output Power 5,400 Watts More Efficient 4,000 Watts 3,200 Watts Omni, 600 Watts Directional 3,200 Watts Max Effective Range @ 70dBc 6,800’ (2,270m) Longer Range 6,100’ (1,859m)4,300’ Omni, 3,400 Directional - Max dB Output @ 30m 137dB Better Intelligible Sound 124dB 124dB 124dB Battery Configuration 12V, 24V Less Maintenance Lower Upfront Cost 48V 48V 48V Capable of Operating on AC Mains ONLY Yes Real Redundancy Fail-Safe PWR System No (Charges from, AC & Operates From Battery Only) No (Charges from, AC & Operates From Battery Only) No (Charges from, AC & Operates From Battery Only) Solar Charging Yes Yes Yes Yes Standby Time 30 Days Longer Standby Time 72 Hours 72 Hours 8 Days Max Alarm Duration No Limit Better Performance 30 Minutes 30 Minutes 30 Minutes Comms IP, VHF, UHF, SATCOM, GPRS, LOS, 4G/5G, Mesh Better Performance IP, VHF, UHF IP, VHF, SATCOM, 4G/5G IP, VHF, UHF, Cellular Cloud-Based and On-Premise Controllers Cloud, On-Premise, or Hybrid Servers More Options Better Performance On-Premise On-Premise On-Premise Cost Per Siren Pole (For Like Capabilities + Labor) $25K Per Pole * Lower Cost For Better Performance $48K Per Pole $45K Per Pole $35K Per Pole 12 |Page 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.403 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Note *:SiRcom launched the SiRcom-Vector Speaker Line in 2021.The new product is lower in profile with a modern look without sacrificing any of the top capabilities and performance features. 4.3.2 The Leading Outdoor Warning Siren System Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed:Intelligible Sound Advantage Higher intelligibility:High Power Speaker Array ’s (HPSA)’s vertical line arrays provide a narrow vertical output pattern for focusing sound at audiences,without wasting output energy on the floor and up in the air;the more narrow the beam,the less distortion due to reflections, resulting in higher intelligibility Equalized intelligibility:HPSA’s vertical line arrays approximate a line source of sound,creating a nearly cylindrical sound propagation pattern,resulting in balanced sound power output; messages are clearly heard at 100 feet as well as 1,500 feet Directing sound where you need it:HPSA speakers can be mounted for omni-directional and directional speaker coverage Intelligibility ratings:0.8 Common Intelligibility Scale (CIS) rating;Phonetically Balanced Word Score Test—better than 95%*This very high intelligibility rating ensures the clearest voice alerts. 1.Energy Efficient HPSAs only need one 100-watt driver per horn;two drivers needed for 360° coverage,equalling a fraction of the number of drivers required for traditional speaker system designs 2.Better Power Management utilizing Class D amplification technology,the HPSA amplifier is better than 90%efficient,enables lower current draw and increased battery life,requiring fewer speakers and significantly less power for a substantially larger range 13 |Page 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.404 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed:Control Cabinet The SiRcom Outdoor Warning System is the world’s most modern and capable solution on the market today.It starts with the SMART engineering design of the SiRcom Control Cabinets.The SiRcom Control Cabinets are compact, efficient, and easy to manage. SiRcom Control Cabinet:Key Advantages Over Other Reviewed OEM Solutions Description SiRcom Whelen Federal Signal ATI Hot Swappable Yes Simple Maintenance No No No Simple Emergency Battery Shut Off Yes Increased Safety No No No Advanced Amplifiers Yes Efficient Power No No No Wireless Proximity Maintenance Report Yes Faster Systems Checks No No No Remote Alert On Site Yes Increased Flexibility Yes Yes Yes Receive Signals VIA Secure Mesh Network From Other Siren Poles Yes Increased Redundancy No No No Note: Other advantages are not listed for brevity of the proposal. 14 |Page 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.405 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed:Battery Requirement The SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren System’s control cabinet and the sirens are highly efficient and utilize less power to perform better.A single 12VDC battery will operate the entire siren system which only requires once a year checks for annual preventative maintenance that has a 5-7 year shelf life (depending on use).In addition,the SiRcom back single 12VDC battery can power an entire multi-siren pole for up to 30 days during power source failure (AC or Solar).This is due to the advanced amplification and power management system prebuilt into the solution being provided to The City of Rolling Hills. Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed:Local Control Units The SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren System’s local control units mimic the same features and capabilities of the Central Control Unit.This familiarity to the controls builds confidence for the Controllers.The SiRcom Local Control Unit is Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)compliant and secure.The unit allows for the Controllers to quickly utilize the local alerting without limited hot keys or functions. 15 |Page 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.406 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Outdoor Warning Sirens Reviewed:SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) The SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA)is the control software for the outdoor warning sirens.The software can manage the outdoor warning sirens and transmit electronic notifications via voice calls,SMS text, emails, and social media page updates. The SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA)was developed utilizing deep machine learning algorithms.This is the core baseline for the SMART software technology.Due to this,SiSA is able to provide the following features: ❖Access The Solution From Anywhere ➢Mobile Devices ➢Workstations ❖Secure Software ➢Advance Encryption Security (AES) 256 BIT ➢At Rest & In Transit (Military Grade Encryption) ➢Secure Server Site (Military Approved) ➢Encrypted Log-in & Single Sign On (SSO) ❖Easy To Operate ➢Three Interactive Map Options ➢Easy To Use Quick Menu To Save You Time ➢Quick Menu & Standard Menu ➢Easy 1-2-3 Send Functionality ➢Automatic User List Updates ❖SMART Functions ➢Real-Time Systems Status of All Alert Points ➢Life like Text-To-Speech ➢Real-Time Historical Reporting 16 |Page 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.407 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5. Proposed Solution Options 5.1 Installation Solution Options HQE has developed the below two (2)options for The City of Rolling Hills’s considerations.Both options provide the desired intelligible emergency voice alert coverage. ❖Option A:The Low Visibility Installation Option utilizes nine (9)30’poles throughout the City (see image below).The 30’poles are mounted with the modern designed intelligible speakers. At 30’,the outdoor warning speakers will be slightly above the height of the residential homes. This will allow for the best sound transmission without placing the poles too high above the roofline.In addition,these 30’poles can be covered with tree facades that will blend in with the local vegetation. ❖Option B:The Low Cost Installation Option utilizes the standard 50’poles mounted with the intelligible horns positioned in a 360 degree transmission position.The 50’pole allows for the sound to be projected from a higher elevation.This allows for a greater coverage area which reduces overall equipment requirements. 17 |Page 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.408 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.1.1 Option A: Low Visibility Installation Option Sound Coverage This option takes into consideration that the community desires to have a low visibility outdoor warning system.This option utilizes the nine (9)SiRcom Vector speaker option mounted on shorter 30’poles to provide the required emergency alert notification coverage. 18 |Page 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.409 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA ❖Cost: $310,601.53 ❖Installation Time: ~30 Workdays Equipment Required ❖(1) SiRcom Central Control Unit ➢Includes ■(1) SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) - Annual Subscription ■Dell Server ■LCD Monitor ■Keyboard, Mouse, Mouse Pad ❖(9) SiRcom Outdoor Warning Vertical Speaker Arrays ➢Mounted on 30’ poles (Poles With Life-Like Tree Facades) ❖(9) SiRcom Control Cabinets ➢Each Control Cabinet Includes ■Motorola VHF Radio, and GSM Integration Module ■Solar Power Module ■(1) 12VDC Sealed Battery ■Local Activation Module 19 |Page 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.410 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.1.2 Option B: Lowest Cost Installation Option Sound Coverage This option takes into consideration providing The City of Rolling Hills with the lowest cost option available on the market.This option utilizes the three (3)SiRcom omni-directional horn option mounted on 50’ poles to provide the maximum coverage utilizing the least amount of poles for the City. 20 |Page 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.411 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA ❖Cost: $144,572.93 ❖Installation Time: ~14 Workdays Equipment Required ❖(1) SiRcom Central Control Unit ➢Includes ■(1) SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA) - Annual Subscription ■Dell Server ■LCD Monitor ■Keyboard, Mouse, Mouse Pad ❖(3) SiRcom Outdoor Warning Sirens ➢SiRcom SPT (16 Speakers Per Pole) ➢Mounted on 50’ poles (Poles With Life-Like Tree Facades) ❖(3) SiRcom Control Cabinets ➢Each Control Cabinet Includes ■Motorola VHF Radio, and GSM Integration Module ■Solar Power Module ■(1) 12VDC Sealed Battery ■Local Activation Module 21 |Page 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.412 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.2 Outdoor Warning Siren Pole Tree Facade The following are HQE’s proposed life-like tree facades included with Low Visibility Installation Option. The facades do not require maintenance and will be installed by HQE. 22 |Page 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.413 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 23 |Page 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.414 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.2.1 Simulated View Of Siren Poles With Tree Facades Below: SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren Poles mounted with no tree facade. Below:SiRcom Outdoor Warning Siren Poles mounted with tree facade.The tree facade will provide a lower visual signature of the poles and sirens.In addition to the tree facades,when taking into consideration the final installation points,when possible the hills will be used to mask the silhouette of the sirens. 24 |Page 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.415 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 5.3 Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) Option The SiRcom Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX)and the Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit Lite (Si-MAX Lite) are two way emergency mass notification devices. Si-MAX Unit operates on the SiRcom SMART Alert Software (SiSA).All of the features found on the standard SiSA Emergency Alert Menu will be available on the Si-MAX display.This ensures that any authorized user can access,draft,and transmit emergency notifications while on the move.Si-MAX will communicate the alert message via any WiFi,Cellular,or VHF communications network.(Not included in the proposal pricing) Key Features of the SiRcom Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) ❖Control Features Alert All Outdoor Sirens 10” Digital Color Display Touch Screen Easy To See In Daylight Digital Keyboard Secure Log-In Encrypted Software Integrated Speaker GPS Tracking Continuous SOS Signal Camera & Mic ❖Power 110VAC (House Power)12VDC (Car Outlet)Internal 20 Hour Battery Solar Battery Panel (Option) ❖Communications WiFI (Local Internet)Cellular (4G/5G)Radio (VHF/UHF) NFC Bluetooth RFID ❖Commercial Info MSRP $2295 / EA 1 YR Warranty Free Updates 25 |Page 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.416 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Si-MAX Lite is a two way emergency communications device that each residential home can possess. The Si-MAX Lite can be plugged into the residents home power while not in use.Once an emergency alert notification is transmitted by the local emergency managers and received by the Si-MAX Lite Unit, the resident can take the Si-MAX Lite Unit with them to maintain real-time situational awareness as the emergency event progresses.This device also allows each resident to transmit a GPS signal that can be tracked by The City of Rolling Hills’s emergency managers during the emergency.This feature can assist the The City of Rolling Hills’s emergency response team to get to the resident quickly to provide assistance or to ensure they are on the safest path out of the danger area.(Not included in the proposal pricing) Key Features of the SiRcom Mobile Alert Expeditionary Unit (Si-MAX) ❖Control Features 3.5” Digital Color Display Rugged Screen Easy To See In Daylight Easy Navigation Button All Environments Encrypted Software Integrated Speaker GPS Tracking Continuous SOS Signal ❖Power 110VAC (House Power)12VDC (Car Outlet)Internal 7 Hour Battery Solar Battery Panel (Option) ❖Communications WiFI (Local Internet)Cellular (4G/5G)Radio (VHF/UHF) NFC Bluetooth RFID ❖Commercial Info MSRP $395 / EA 1 YR Warranty Free Updates 26 |Page 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.417 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA 6.0 Conclusion of Report HQE is pleased to conclude this report for The City of Rolling Hills.Although The City of Rolling Hills faces several challenges that were identified by HQE,the solutions being proposed mitigates all of the challenges.The report proposes two (2)unique outdoor warning systems installation options for the City.These options were designed and proposed after careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all of the current options in the market today.The SiRcom Mass Notifications System allows The City of Rolling Hills to meet the initial mass alerting requirements and to scale later with any indoor alerting and security systems integrations that the City may require.This solution being proposed is truly a capability that will allow The City of Rolling Hills to install a solution that will not be outdated due to the modern unified mass notifications system design. The proposed Mass Notifications System is the world’s most comprehensive solution with multiple redundant alerting channels pre-built into the system.The SiRcom SMART Alert System enables The City of Rolling Hills to provide the desired emergency response alerting in the event that the power or cellular communications have failed.It is a Fully Certified Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) System.The above Unified Mass Notifications System solution ensures that The City of Rolling Hills is able to maximize the resources available in the mission to Save Lives and Protect Property.The unified solution doesn’t rely on a single network but a family of networks to ensure that when the Emergency System is required to perform its purpose, even in the event of power outages, the system WILL WORK! The proposed solution installed will provide The City of Rolling Hills with the solution to mitigate the risks faced by the Cities and Counties of California in the infamous 2019 wildfires.In addition to the actual installation options for the outdoor warning system,HQE would suggest a community outreach program that would allow the residents of the community to talk directly with Mass Notification Systems experts. This will allow The City of Rolling Hills to help the residents better understand why the solution is so important for the life safety program of The City of Rolling Hills. 27 |Page 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.418 Mass Notifications Systems Installation Report The City of Rolling Hills, CA Thank You For Your Continued Support of HQE Systems, Inc. A Minority Owned, FEMA Certified Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business End of Mass Notifications System Installation Report 28 |Page 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.419 42075 Remington Ave. Suite 109 Temecula, CA 92105 800.967.3036 www.HQESystems.com 420 Agenda Item No.: 10.A Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:DISCUSS THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST RELATING TO THE CITY HALL CAMPUS EMERGENCY POWER PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: To replace the non-functioning standby generator that provides emergency power to City Hall and the Rolling Hills Community Association, the City Council authorized an assessment report and considered three options for replacement at the May 10, 2021 City Council meeting. On May 24, 2021, after City Council discussed the three options, staff was directed to: 1) design the solar option; 2) consider leasing portable generator to provide emergency if necessary; and 3) remove the existing non-functioning emergency standby generator, and repair the water intrusion problem at the existing generator structure. At the June 14, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council approved a second amendment with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. for preparing plans to remove the existing standby generator including repairing of the water intrusion at the generator housing and prepare design plans to implement the solar option.. The second amendment with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. (PAE) was executed in July 2021 and PAE proceeded with preliminary design. City Staff and PAE held several meetings to discuss the proposed solar option and layout. After a period of research and information gathering, PAE provided preliminary design plans for layout of the solar panels in November 2021. The preliminary design plan was reviewed by staff. The available roof surface area, the orientation of the surface area to the sun, and other design/cost factors were considered. The most efficient and cost effective design was to position all the solar panels on the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) building. The preliminary design was provided to RHCA and the plans were reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee on December 7, 2021. The Architectural Committee requested to have solar panels over the entry of the RHCA building be removed and placed on the City Hall Building. The preliminary design plans submitted to the Architectural Review meeting and the meeting minutes are attached to this report. 421 DISCUSSION: Removing solar panels from the RHCA Building and placing them on the City Hall building will have several impacts/issues to consider: There is a tree at City Hall making the panels less efficient. The city could consider cutting this tree down so that the panels would have more exposure to the sun. There is space for 29 panels on the City Hall roof versus 66 panels on the RHCA building. Panels on both buildings will drive up the cost of the project. Cost of re-roofing one roof vs two roofs (roughly savings of $20,000 just for roof and waterproofing, and additional $30,000-$50,000 if structural reinforcement is needed). FISCAL IMPACT: The overall project cost will be impacted if the solar panels are divided between roofs of City Hall and the RHCA building. High level estimation shows the cost differential between placing all solar panels on the RHCA building and dividing the panels is approximately $20,000 to $60,000. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: Rolling Hill Maintenance Buildings One Two- SFR V3_Review.pdf 2021.12.07 RH Architectural Review_Solar Panels.pdf 422 % $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7 ' #()&NBUILDINGTWOBUILDINGONE 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/ " &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+7./).1, 1* &19-& ! *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $ "%18*46*4 :+'( :+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G :+7 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+ &19-& ! *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $ "%18*46*45 :+'( :+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G :+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>= Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4 8BG>5&>;;8=6 8;;A %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A '(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !! >>B78;;;D3'C8B4 @20380 !82 C= C98B0 0;; INVERTER&BATTERYSTORAGEEQUIPMENTLOCATIONINVERTER&BATTERYSTORAGE EQUIPMENTLOCATION2IN SCHEDULE90PVCCONDUIT TO BECONNECTED BETWEENTHE TWO BUILDING FORSOLAR ARRAY423 % $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7 ' #()& 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/ " &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+7./).1, 1* &19-& ! 2/&43&1*/562'*/2(&6*)21422+2+7./).1, 92 *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $ "%18*46*4 :+'( :+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G :+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>= Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4 8BG>5&>;;8=6 8;;A3<8=8AB@0B8>=C8;38=6 %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A :+'(%7>B>D>;B082&>>5'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !! >>B78;;;D3'C8B4 @20380 !82 C= C98B0 0;; NBUILDING ONEINVERTER&BATTERY STORAGEEQUIPMENT LOCATION424 % $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7 ' #()& 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/ " &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0/2(&6*)217./).1, 92 &19-& ! *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $ "%18*46*4 :+'( :+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G :+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>= Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4 8BG"08=B4=0=24C8;38=6 %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A '(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !! >>B78;;;D3'C8B4 @20380 !82 C= C98B0 0;; NBUILDINGTWOINVERTER&BATTERYSTORAGEEQUIPMENTLOCATION425 % $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7 ' #()& 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/ " &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+7./).1, 1* &19-& ! *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $ "%18*46*4 :+'( :+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G :+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>= Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4 8BG"08=B4=0=24C8;38=6 %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A '(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !! >>B78;;;D3'C8B4 @20380 !82 C= C98B0 0;; 8= 8= #&%+&!!A<0@B10BB4@G :+720?028BG0=3 :+7CA01;44=4@6G$)($$&&(#" & "#' $#'!F+F F F 8= 8= #&%+&4;; 4=4@02%>E4@'GAB4<A,*( . */ "#' $#'!F+F F F '$!& '$##( #&%+&4;;CB><0B82(@0=A54@'E8B2717.1 kwh City Hall 8 kwh Community Association Building When batteries are used in a black out event: 42 cells dedicated to City Hall 24 cells dedicated to Community Association Buildings426 427 Agenda Item No.: 10.B Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO TEMPORARILY STAFF THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: On October 8, 2021, the Director of Planning and Community Services resigned from the City. On October 11, 2021, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Michael Baker International (MBI) for $10,000 to provide planning services in the absence of a director. On November 22, 2021, the City Council approved an amendment for an additional $10,240 to continue with MBI. The amendment allowed MBI to serve until December 3, 2021, and provided an overlap between MBI and the new director who was hired on November 22, 2021. On December 17, 2021, the Code Enforcement Officer/Planner, Stephanie Grant, gave her resignation from the City. Her last day was December 31, 2021. DISCUSSION: The new director, who has been with the City for just over a month, is currently operating the department without staff. The Department is also working on finalizing the 6th cycle Housing Element, and the Safety Element (grant funded). Both plans have strict deadlines. In order to effectively operate the City's planning and community services, it is imperative to hire experienced staff who can continue processing planning projects and code enforcement cases. While considerations are being made for permanent staff, MBI can provide planning services since its planner is already familiar with the requirements and procedures of the City. This will help provide customer service and keep development projects from being delayed. MBI has staff specialized in specific areas, so if the contract planner has a question on environmental impacts, new legislation, or common practices then the planner can reach out to others within the organization. This breadth of expertise would be beneficial for the City. Staff is confident the contract employees will be able to provide services while the City considers options for permanent employees. Staff is also considering a contract code enforcement officer to handle code cases related to illegal construction, dead vegetation, and nuisance complaints. Staff is opting for contract employees at this time because they can be hired more quickly than regular employees. 428 FISCAL IMPACT: Professional service agreements will be paid using salary savings from the Planning Department. A total of approximately $39,000 of salary savings are available for contract services for the next two to three months. Of the total, approximately $22,000 will be dedicated to a contract planner and the remaining $17,000 will be dedicated to code enforcement services. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to engage professional services. ATTACHMENTS: PSA_with_MICHAEL_BAKER-_executed_10.13.21.pdf Rolling Hills First Amendment Michael Baker-c1_12.01.21_executed.pdf Michael Baker Letter Proposal for additional hours Updated_11.29.21.pdf Rolling Hills Second Amendment Michael Baker_01.10.22-c1.pdf 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 99999.91799\34571294.1 Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement Planning Services This Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is made and entered into this 10th day of January 2022 by and between the City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Michael Baker International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (“Consultant”). BACKGROUND A. On October 13, 2021, the City and Consultant entered into an Agreement for on call land use planning services (“Agreement”). B. On November 22, 2021, the City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to increase the original scope of work and the do not exceed amount to address City needs (“First Amendment”). C. The City and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement a second time to increase the original scope of work and the do not exceed amount and extend the term of the Agreement to address City needs (“Second Amendment”). D. The Consultant warrants to the City that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities to perform properly and timely the services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements set forth below, the City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 1.0 (SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANT’S SERVICES) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.0 SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANT'S SERVICES. The Consultant agrees to provide the services and perform the tasks set forth in the Scope of Work, attached to and made part of this Agreement as Exhibit A, except that, to the extent that any provision in Exhibit A conflicts with this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern. The Consultant shall provide 224 hours of service. The Consultant shall begin work upon a written notice to proceed from the City and shall stop work upon any written notice to stop from the City. The Scope of Work may be amended from time to time in writing and signed by both parties by way of written amendment to this Agreement. The location where services are to be performed shall be determined by mutual agreement of the parties' representatives. To the extent that services are performed in City Hall, Consultant agrees that its employees will abide by any COVID-19 protocols then in effect. Consultant shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 457 99999.91799\34571294.1 2. Paragraph 2.0 (TERM OF THE AGREEMENT) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement will become effective upon execution by both parties and will remain in effect for a period of one year from said date unless otherwise expressly extended and agreed to by both parties in writing through written amendment to this Agreement or terminated by either party as provided herein. 3. Paragraph 3.0 (COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.0 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. The City shall pay the Consultant for its professional services rendered and costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit A subject to a do not exceed amount in the amount of $42,640. Compensation shall under no circumstances be increased except by written amendment of this Agreement. The Consultant shall be paid within forty-five (45) days of presentation of an invoice to the City for services performed to the City's reasonable satisfaction. The Consultant shall submit invoices monthly describing the services performed, the date services were performed, and any other information requested by the City. 4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment remain in full force and effect. (Signatures on following page) 458 99999.91799\34571294.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on the date and year first above written, and it is effective as of January 10, 2022. CITY City of Rolling Hills By: Elaine Jeng, City Manager Attest: By: Christian Horvath, City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney CONSULTANT Michael Baker International, Inc. By: William Hoose, Associate Vice President 459 Agenda Item No.: 10.C Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDER HIRING A PENINSULA CITIES JOINT HOUSING/LOCAL CONTROL LOBBYIST. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: Rolling Hills recognizes the State of California’s efforts in addressing the housing crisis and support initiatives in achieving workable solutions, but believe SB 9 will have significant impacts on how the cities effectively regulate and develop. Senate Bill (SB) 9 eliminates single-family zoning across California by allowing lot splits and multiple units on each split. With the possibility of more state housing bills in the future, the Peninsula cities have been collaborating on how to bolster our combined voices by seeking the expertise of state lobbyist. This joint effort started with all four Peninsula cities. Along the process, Rolling Hills Estates expressed they will continue to seek the services of the Cal Cities on the legislation front. The three Peninsula cities jointly issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on 9/10/2021 for lobbyists services for housing and local control issues. The effort resulted in two proposals from Renne Public Policy Law Group (RPPG) and Joe A. Gonsalves & Son. In November 2021, Palos Verdes Estates decided not to participate in the effort. DISCUSSION: Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes scheduled/conducted interviews with proposers. After a thorough evaluation, RPPG was selected. In December 2021, Rancho Palos Verdes presented the solicitation effort to the Council subcommittee and the subcommittee will recommend to the Council to engage the services of RPPG. Both proposers provided the ability for individual cities to contract for services independently. 460 Each staff member involved in the assessment process of both firms filled out objective scoring criteria evaluating the firms approach to meet the project scope of work, ability to demonstrate effective use of resources, qualifications, credentials and relevant experience, and dedication to complete the project in a timely manner. Through this assessment and interview interaction our cities determined RPPG would better fit the cities needs. Rolling Hills can collaborate with Rancho Palos Verdes via a joint contract for service with RPPG, or contract independent with RPPG for service or not engage service. FISCAL IMPACT: The adopted FY 2021-2022 budget did not include funds to engage the services of a lobbyist. Renne Public Policy Law Group (RPPG) Fees: $6,500.00/ monthly flat fee retainer agreement ($3,250 per month, per agency, 2 agencies) $39,000.00 Rolling Hills Annual Fee RECOMMENDATION: Consider and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: RFP_JointPeninsulaLobbyist_2021-08-27_assembled.pdf Renne Public Policy Law Group Proposal.pdf Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Lobbyist Proposal- Received 9.10.21.pdf 461 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STATE LOBBYIST ON LEGISLATIONS RELATING TO LOCAL CONTROL AND HOUSING FOR THE THREE PENINSULA CITIES PROPOSALS DUE 3 PM, SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 BACKGROUND The Palos Verdes Peninsula is comprised four cities: Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. This Request for Proposal is a joint effort between three of the four Peninsula cities: Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills with Rolling Hills leading the solicitation effort. The Peninsula is located southwest of the City of Los Angeles with an approximate population of 65,000. The Peninsula is primarily comprised of residential zones and open space. The area is entirely located within a Cal Fire designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Residential activities are the major land use in the Peninsula. The State of California is focusing on the housing crisis. In recent years, state legislators have drafted numerous housing bills that have or will dramatically change unique characteristics of communities without consideration for local constraints with respect to public health and safety. The Peninsula cities recognize the State of California’s efforts in addressing the housing crisis and support initiatives in achieving workable solutions. Eroding land use authority and local control however, is a one-size-fits all approach that only removes checks and balances on development projects but not address the affordability of housing. The three Peninsula cities (Joint Cities) believe densification must be balanced by local capacity assessments including utility infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, natural disaster risks, and proximity to job centers. The Joint Cities are seeking to leverage resources to share a state lobbyist to preserve the characteristics of the Peninsula community and have a voice at the State level to offer solutions from a local perspective. 462 SECTION 1 Purpose / Scope of Work Through this Request for Proposal, the Joint Cities are seeking proposals from firms to provide government relations and lobbying services in order to assist the Joint Cities to: (1) build relationships with state elected and appointed officials; (2) advance the joint cities legislative priorities in Attachment A (Rancho Palos Verdes Policy Platform); and (3) provide political communication and coalition support. SECTION 2 Scope of Work • Review and analyze legislations affecting the interests, business and affairs of the Joint Cities related to housing and local land use and keep the joint cities advised of the status of all such legislation. • Seek to influence legislative and administrative action taken by the State in connection with local government issues with an emphasis on protecting local land use control. • Perform duties customarily performed by legislative advocates and governmental affairs representatives on behalf of the Joint Cities to the best of the consultant’s ability, experience and expertise. • Work closely with the City Councils, City Managers, and key staff to develop a detailed legislative strategic plan. • Develop and evaluate strategies for the support, opposition, or amending of pending legislation and regulations. • Review all existing and proposed state policies, programs and legislations, including bills and amendments, and identify those issues that may affect the Joint Cities, or its citizens and regularly inform the joint cities on these matters. • Advise the Joint Cities of significant actions taken by the California Legislature in matters of interest to the client and recommend appropriate actions for the joint cities. • Respond to issues and assist the Joint Cities in providing appropriate communication to key legislators and regulators including individual and joint communications on bills that one or all three cities take a position on. • Engage in advocacy on behalf of the Joint Cities on state matters and on client sponsored legislative proposals. • Meet with members of the Legislature and officers of state government when necessary to advocate the Joint Cities legislative policies and objectives. • Schedule meetings between City Councils, City Mangers, and members of the Legislature and officers of state government when necessary to advocate the Joint Cities legislative policies and objectives. • Assume full responsibility for preparation of reports required by lobbyist pursuant to the Fair Political Practice Act. • Concurrent with monthly invoices and in order to process monthly invoices, submit timely periodic reports (either monthly, quarterly, or as circumstance demand, more frequently) summarizing significant legislative and governmental developments affecting the joint cities and describing specific activities of lobbyist on the Joint Cities’ behalf. 463 SECTION 3 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Understanding of the Scope of Work: Firms shall provide a narrative to the approach to complete the Scope of Work efficiently and economically. 2. Organization, Credentials and Experience: Provide a summary of the Firm’s qualifications, credentials, and related past experience. Describe the firm, including the personnel who will be assigned to the contract. Provide a list of three of the firm’s projects within the last five years of similar scope and content. 3. Fees: Under separate cover, provide a rate proposal for the scope of work. The cost proposal shall be identified for each task. The proposed cost budget shall present the labor rates and proposed labor hours of proposed staff for each work task described in the consultant’s proposal, as well as other direct costs. 4. Additional Information: Firms are to review the sample Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 5) and provide comments and or questions as a part of the firm’s proposal. See Section 6 of this RFP. SECTION 4 PROPOSAL PROCEDURE All proposals are due no later than 3pm on September 23, 2021. The Joint Cities reserve the right to extend the deadline. The Joint Cities will respond to request for clarification in written RFP addendum(s) as needed. All inquiries for clarification shall submitted in writing via email to the City of Rolling Hills Senior Management Analyst by 12pm on September 15, 2021. The City will post any addendums to the RPF to the City of Rolling Hills website. Consultants planning to submit a proposal are required to refer to the website to verify that they have received all addendums issued for this RFP. Proposals shall be emailed to the Senior Management Analyst. Ashford Ball Senior Management Analyst City of Rolling Hills aball@cityofrh.net 310 377-1521 Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposal unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the agreement between the City of Rolling Hills and the firm selected. The Joint 464 Cities reserve the right without prejudice to reject any or all proposals. No reimbursement will be made by the Joint Cities for costs incurred in the preparation of the response to this Request for Proposal. Submitted materials will not be returned and become the property of the Joint Cities. SECTION 5 SELECTION CRITERIA Proposals will be selected based on sound approach to meeting the scope of work, the ability to demonstrate efficiency use of resources, the relevant experience of proposed personnel, and dedication of personnel to complete the project within the specified timeframe. Firms may be asked to participate in an interview with the Joint Cities. If necessary, interviews are tentatively scheduled for the week of October 4, 2021. SECTION 6 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution on Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Attachment B Sample Professional Services Agreement 465 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY'S HOUSING AND LOCAL LAND USE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM WHEREAS, the City Council has an interest in weighing in on state, federal, and regional legislative issues that impact the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the Council annually takes action on numerous legislative proposals brought forward throughout the year; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes the State of California is in a housing crisis due to reduced housing stock as well as lack of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has proposed a number of bills addressing a range of planning and zoning issues that are typically addressed by local jurisdictions' general plan and zoning code to attempt to mitigate the housing crisis; and WHEREAS, the majority of these planning and zoning bills usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the local land use practices that best suit their cities and residents, as well as imposing unfunded mandates on jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the City has the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to continue to plan and develop innovative solutions to mitigate the housing crisis that, with the preservation of local land use authority, consider the City's unique geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints; and, WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2020-46, expressing opposition to proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates, and expressing support for actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority and control; and WHEREAS, the City Council continues to take an active advocacy role relating to housing and local land use legislative policies proposed by the State Legislature. 466 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The City Council hereby adopts and approves the City's Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform attached and incorporated herein by this reference (Attachment A), as the official housing and local land use legislative policy of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This Platform may be used to build a coalition intended to protect local control. Section 3: The City Council therefore hereby adopts the following findings: A. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates. B. The City supports actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and control. C. The City would support housing policies which include funded mandates or created funded programs such as Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) to assist local planning efforts. D. The City would support policies that provide incentives to cities such as additional tax revenue or tax breaks and policies which grant concessions to existing policies for adoption of pro-housing policies. E. The City would support policies or grants directed toward developers to incentivize the creation of affordable housing. F. The City would support policies which expand programs such as Project Homekey, which repurpose existing buildings into an affordable housing option. G. The City would support policies and programs which provide social services and mental health services to help unhoused persons be eligible for, acquire, and maintain affordable housing. H. The City would support policies or programs that allow city and state collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas to support our communities. Resolution No. 2021-31 Page 2 of 3 467 Section 4: The Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform will be used to guide legislative advocacy related to housing and local land use authority. Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and its certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council of the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021. Eric Alegria,Mayor ATTEST: ~€1¼ c3~ Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angele s ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2021 -31 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6, 2021. ~ Tere~oka, City Clerk Resolution No . 2021 -31 Page 3 of 3 468 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HOUSING AND LOCAL LAND USE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM DATE ADOPTED: Resolution No. 2021-31 on July 6, 2021. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to the housing crisis and recent legislation proposed by the California Legislature: • The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates. • The City supports actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and control. • The City would support housing policies which include funded mandates or create funded programs such as Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) to assist local planning efforts. • The City would support policies that provide incentives to cities such as additional tax revenue or tax breaks and policies which grant concessions to existing policies for adoption of pro-housing policies. • The City would support policies or grants directed toward developers to incentivize the creation of affordable housing. • The City would support policies which expand programs such as Project Homekey, which repurpose existing buildings into an affordable housing option. • The City would support policies and programs which provide social services and mental health services to help unhoused persons be eligible for, acquire, and maintain affordable housing. • The City would support policies or programs that allow city and state collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas to support our communities. BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County, California, and incorporated in 1973. The City is primarily comprised of 469 Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Page 2 residential zones and open space, is nearly entirely located within a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), and is partially located in the state- designated coastal zone. Moreover, approximately 1,200 acres of the City is within the Portuguese Bend Landslide complex, the largest and fastest moving landslide in North America. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes that California is in the middle of a housing crisis. Housing stock cannot meet present demand and lack of affordable housing makes existing stock cost prohibitive. The Legislature has an apparent focus on passing laws which aim to mitigate the housing crisis through rescission of local land use authority and oversight to streamline the process of constructing additional units. These laws create a one-size-fits-all approach that fail to consider local authority and essential local oversight, including constraints faced by local agencies such as infrastructure limitations. The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents as reflected in its General Plan, updated as of 2018. Local land use authority is essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community, and to allow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial arrangement for all residents in the City. Development within the City faces a number of unique challenges. Despite this, the City has a vibrant and well-planned mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. There are 8,274 acres of land within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City has determined that 1,710 acres (or 20%) of land are not suitable for development. These include Natural Environment/Hazard Areas which are lands designated as “Hazard,” “Open Space Hillside” and “Open Space Preserve” by the Land Use Element. The areas designated “Hazard” possess extreme physical constraints, s uch as active landslide1, sea cliff erosion hazard, and extreme slopes of 35 percent and greater. The areas designated “Open Space Hillside” are subject to extreme physical constraints and are maintained as open space, with very light -intensity uses permitted, such as landscaping, agriculture, passive recreational activities, and very minor structures, for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The areas designated “Open Space Preserve” encompass the City’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, which is approximately 1,400 acres of permanent open space. The City’s Preserve is enrolled in the State’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan and the 1 The Portuguese Bend Landslide is one of the largest and most active landslides in the country and encompasses over two of the City's roughly 14 square miles, moves at a rate between hundredths of an inch per year and tens of feet per year. This movement is especially noticed by motorists, cyclists and pedestrians who travel along Palos Verdes Drive South. The City continuously maintains a safe roadway through the area at a cost of about a half million dollars per year. An above-ground sewer trunk line is in jeopardy of failing with land movement that has the potential to cause a significant environmental catastrophe due to its close proximity to the Pacific Ocean. 470 Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Page 3 Federal Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and is encumbered with restrictions, held in perpetuity, for the preservation and protection of natural resources and habitat. Residential activities are the major land use in the City , with existing and proposed residential uses encompassing approximately 5,500 acres (66.5% of the total land area). The predominance of residential use and related density ranges is based on several factors: the ability of residential activity to produce low environmental stress, the geographic location of the community with no major transportation facilities, the geology of the site, lack of market potential for any major commercial development, and need for support facilities to meet the community’s demand. As such, it is vital that local control be maintained to ensure public health and safety. One- size-fits-all legislation with ministerial review requirements cannot take into account the unique geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints required for a project to be successful and to maintain or enhance public safety. RECENT LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS On August 4, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-46 expressing opposition to proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates and expressing support for actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and control. It furthermore declares that, should the state continue to pass legislation that attacks local municipal authority, control and revenue, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will support actions such as a ballot measure that would limit the state’s ability to control local activities and strengthen local democracy and authority. The City has registered its strong opposition to the current practice of the Legislature of proposing and passing multitudes of bills that directly impact and interfere with the ability of cities to control their own destiny through use of zoning authority that has been granted to them. While the City appreciates the work of the Legislature to propose policies intended to mitigate the housing crisis, sweeping and ministerial measures cannot properly assess their impact on individual communities and their general plans. Streamlined ministerial approval may be a preferred housing solution for the Legislature, but such development may have significantly detrimental effects on public health and safety. The City is concerned that increasing density by-right will not allow sufficient oversight of infrastructure to ensure that capacities can meet increased residential populations. In local land use planning and zoning, many factors must be considered. The City must maintain its local land use authority to ensure that all developments meet all safety standards and that related traffic changes do not have undue influence on egress paths in the event of an evacuation, particularly within the VHFHSZ and the Portuguese Bend Landslide complex, and with considerations for limitations on existing infrastructure. 471 Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Page 4 During the 2020-2021 legislative session, as of June 15, 2021, the City has taken positions on nine bills relating to housing and land use (see Attachment A). In general, the City has supported housing legislation which seeks to increase local oversight and flexibility, such as Assemblymember Muratsuchi’s Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 which would amend the State Constitution to require certain local la nd use controls and zoning regulations remain within incorporated communities when in conflict with general laws. The City also supported Senator Allen’s Senate Bill No. 809, which would allow cities and counties to exchange land for regional housing need allocation (RHNA) shares for compensation of the development of that land. The City has opposed legislation that erodes local land use authority, such as Senator Atkins’ SB 9, which would require ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes in single - family residential zoned areas. The City is deeply concerned that bills such as SB 9, which would potentially quadruple density in single-family zoning by-right would have detrimental effects on the City’s infrastructure capacity, particularly in the event of an emergency. Increasing density without the ability for the City to properly plan for it will negatively impact public safety in a community like Rancho Palos Verdes, and its residents’ quality of life. One-size-fits all laws inherently fail to consider the needs of individual communities and their general plans. Furthermore, the current practice of mandating streamlined local processes does nothing to address encouraging actual affordable development of those properties. The Legislature should consider bills that incentivize affordable developments and provide local agencies the ability to zone for such developments. The tone of recent bills, such as making it easier to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a property , does not guarantee that it will be sold below market rate, thereby affordable. In fact, it appears ADU’s are being rented above market rates throughout Los Angeles or being used for other uses than housing (i.e. gyms, studios, pool cabanas, etc. because of State- mandated relaxed zoning laws). Upzoning parcels is likely to increase the value of the underlying land, which then makes new construction unnecessarily more expensive and over time, raises the values and rents throughout the neighborhoods, making affordable housing even less likely to be built. The current legislative preference for by-right approvals in favor of increasing density, fails to consider the nuances in individual communities, potentially risking public safety, and does nothing to inherently promote affordable housing, which is vital to recover from the housing crisis and is the purported aim of this approach. POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS The City is supportive of legislation which seeks to preserve local land use authority and flexibility, giving choices and incentives to cities. Ultimately, the City would support legislation which would allow local governments to adopt proposed legislation if the requirements are suitable in their individual jurisdictions. Local planning departments have the knowledge and skills to prepare creative solutions to the housing crisis that best 472 Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Page 5 serve their communities. By-right zoning legislation undermines their ability to exercise the city’s local land use authority and problem-solve based on their city’s unique geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints, but with state support, they have the capacity to help alleviate the housing crisis. The City would additionally continue to support legislation that provides financial assistance to implement new directives, or programs similar to Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) that provide funding to help cities accelerate housing production. The City would also support legislation that provides incentives to cities, such as additional tax revenue or tax breaks. Unfunded mandates are a financial burden to cities which make them difficult to implement successfully. The Legislature may also consider adopting policies which grant concessions to cities based on adoption of pro-housing policies. For example, if a city were to utilize their local land use authority to upzone a certain amount of land in a commercial corridor, they could be exempt from policies such as requiring ministerial approval of ADUs. This will further local land use flexibility and grants additional incentives to local governments to adopt pro-housing policies. The City is supportive of legislation that increases land use flexibility such as regional trust and/or trade policies, similar to Senator Allen’s SB 809. The City would also support legislation aimed at developers to encourage sustainable, cost-effective development of affordable housing in safe locations across the state. Legislation which seeks to expand existing programs such as Project Homekey, or similar programs that repurpose existing buildings or underutilized commercial property (i.e. surface parking lots or single-story shopping centers) into affordable housing are also viable solutions. Additionally, the Legislature should consider policies and programs which provide social services and mental health resources to help unhoused persons be eligible for, acquire, and maintain affordable housing. Cities have the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to continue to plan and develop innovative solutions to mitigate the housing crisis: solutions that best serve the city and the residents. If, for example, a city observes that there seems to be a surplus of parking spaces in shopping centers, they could re-zone the land to be mixed-use residential. The city may also determine that they could lower their parking requirements in certain areas due to traffic patterns and/or location of transit. When cities are allowed to keep their local land use authority, they will continue to plan and develop new solutions that address their specific constraints, and the state could reward cities for taking such actions with additional tax revenue or tax breaks or policy concenssions. Regional housing needs and legislation increasing density must be balanced by local capacity assessments including traffic conditions, sewer conditions, school district capacity, ingress/egress capacity, and water supply, among others. Legislation should re- focus efforts toward developing programs for cities and state collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas that can support our communities. 473 Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Page 6 CONCLUSION During recent legislative sessions, the City has opposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates. The City was founded to protect local authority and to preserve the character of Rancho Palos Verdes. Local oversight of planning and zoning is essential to ensure that every development is suitable and safe for the community, to protect the health and safety of all residents. The City is supportive of policies which strengthen local democracy, authority, and control. The City would additionally consider supporting policies which include funded mandates, legislation aimed at developers to encourage creation of affordable housing, the expansion of programs such as Project Homekey, and the creation of programs to improve social and mental health services for unhoused persons. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes looks forward to working with the Legislature to have an open dialogue about viable solutions to the state’s housing crisis, while maintaining all residents’ high quality of life. 474 Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Page A-1 ATTACHMENT A: CITY POSITIONS ON HOUSING BILLS As of July 6, 2021, for 2021 Legislative Session AB 215 (Chiu) would require a jurisdiction with low regional housing needs progress to have a mid-cycle consultation with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City opposed this bill because it is an intrusion into local control and self-determination, most specifically with the usage of the pro-housing designation as a mandatory requirement for low RHNA compliance, and by unn ecessarily adding assessments of jurisdictions’ compliance with RHNA. AB 989 (Gabriel) would create a state appeals board that could overturn local government’s denial of certain housing projects. The City opposed this bill because it would establish a new procedural enforcement mechanism that is exempt from public oversight and review. The state appeals board would allow one hearing officer to substitute their judgement about the public health or safety of a community and overturn the City’s denial following procedures that are not subject to public review and comment. AB 1258 (Nguyen) would subject final RHNA plans to judicial review. The City supported this bill, given the significant impact a housing element has on local governments’ planning and development, it is reasonable to have an opportunity for judicial review of RHNA decisions. AB 1295 (Muratsuchi) would prohibit cities or counties from entering into residential development agreements in VHFHSZs. The City commented on this bill, as the City supported the goal of the bill to enhance safety standards in VHFHSZs, though more information is needed about the definition of “development” pertaining to reconstru ction of existing structures, and for clarification of the effect of the bill on RHNA. ACA 7 (Muratsuchi) would amend the State Constitution to allow certain land use controls and zoning regulations to supersede general law, preserving local land use authority. The City supported this bill for the recognition of local and use authority and flexibility for municipalities, as ACA 7 would allow cities’ local ordinances to prevail over general law if they are in conflict. SB 9 (Atkins) would require ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes in single-family residential zoning. The City opposed this bill on the grounds that it overrides local control of zoning codes and circumvents the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to allow such subdivision ministerially without public input or consideration. Such development may have severe consequences for public safety, especially in a VHFHSZ. SB 10 (Wiener) would allow cities to upzone by ordinance in transit-rich areas or urban infill sites. The City opposed this bill because it waives CEQA requirements and may allow cities to supersede voter approved initiatives. SB 12 (McGuire) would impose significant fire hazard planning responsibilities on local governments. The City opposed this bill because of its effect on local land use authority. 475 Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform Page A-2 SB 55 (Stern) would prohibit the creation or approval of a new commercial or residential development in a VHFHSZ. The City opposed this bill because while the City supports fire safety measures, such a prohibition infringes on local land use authority. SB 556 (Dodd) would require cities to make streetlight poles, traffic signal poles, utility poles, and support structures available to telecommunications providers. The City opposed this bill because it would circumvent City oversight, and to protect the public’s investment through City infrastructure, oversight and control of the public rights-of-way must remain local. Additionally, the bill does not encourage or incentivize telecommunications companies to service unserved and underserved communities and inherently conflicts with federally-mandated local authority to manage the right-of-way and to comply with existing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decisions. SB 809 (Allen) would allow cities and counties to enter into multijurisdictional agreements to assist with meeting RHNA shares whereby one jurisdiction exchanges land in return for financial compensation to develop that land. The City supported this bill because it grants cities flexibility in meeting RHNA shares. 476 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _____day of ________ 2019 between the City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY'' and ______________ with principal offices at __________________-, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." 1. RECITALS: A. The CITY desires to contract the CONSULTANT for __________________________ B. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education and experience to perform such services; and C. CONSULTANT is willing to render such __________ services as hereinafter defined. Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agrees to perform the services set forth in this AGREEMENT. 2. SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in the specifications and the scope of work described in the Proposal for ___________________ Services, attached herein as Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as “SERVICES”). 3. COST The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work performed under this AGREEMENT at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Scope of Work, attached herein as Exhibit A. Total contract shall not exceed the sum of _________________ during the term of the AGREEMENT. This fee includes all expenses, consisting of all local travel, attendance at meetings, printing and submission of grants, which are accrued during that period. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated. Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be approved by expressed written amendment executed by the CITY and CONSULTANT. 477 ATTACHMENT 3 4. METHOD OF PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed within 30 (thirty) days of submitting an invoice to City for the SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall submit an invoice for the SERVICES within 10 (ten) days of completing each task or portion thereof identified in Exhibit A to this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices electronically to the City Manager of the CITY and shall also provide a courtesy copy by U.S. Mail addressed to the City Manager of the CITY. 5. SUBCONTRACTING CONSULTANT may employ qualified independent subcontractor(s) to assist CONSULTANT in the performance of SERVICES with CITY’s prior written approval. 6. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK CONSULTANT shall commence work under this AGREEMENT upon execution of this AGREEMENT. 7. PERFORMANCE TO SATISFACTION OF CITY CONSULTANT agrees to perform all work to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY and within the time hereinafter specified. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW All SERVICES rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of relevant local, State and Federal Law. 9. ACCOUNTING RECORDS CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the CONSULTANT’s California office during the contract period and thereafter for five years from the date of final payment. 10. OWNERSHIP OF DATA All data, maps, photographs, and other material collected or prepared under the contract shall become the property of the CITY. 11. TERM OF CONTRACT This contract shall be valid for _____________ from execution of this AGREEMENT. 478 ATTACHMENT 3 12. TERMINATION This contract may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon seven (7) days written notice to the other party. All work satisfactorily performed pursuant to the contract and prior to the date of termination may be claimed for reimbursement. 13. ASSIGNABILITY CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the prior written consent of the CITY. 14. AMENDMENT It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract, or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary parties. 15. NON-SOLICITATION CLAUSE The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any company or persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 16. INDEMNITY CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officers and employees from all claims, damages, suits, cost or actions of every name, kind or description, brought for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of any person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from performance of this AGREEMENT in any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, it officers, agents, employees and/or servants in connection with this AGREEMENT. CITY shall indemnify and save harmless CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, and servants from all claims, damages, suits, costs or actions of every name, kind, or description, brought for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of any person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from performance of this AGREEMENT in any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, and/or servants in connection with this AGREEMENT. If CONSULTANT should subcontract all or any portion of the SERVICES to be performed under this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall require each subcontractor to indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY and each of its officers, officials, employees, 479 ATTACHMENT 3 agents and volunteers in accordance with the term of the preceding paragraph. This section shall survive termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT. 17. INSURANCE A. Without limiting CONSULTANT’S obligations arising under paragraph 16 - Indemnity, CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this AGREEMENT until it obtains policies of insurance required under this section. The insurance shall cover CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives and employees in connection with the performance of work under this AGREEMENT, and shall be maintained throughout the term of this AGREEMENT. Insurance coverage shall be as follows: i. Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverage of $300,000 for property damage, $300,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence, and $300,000 for injury to more than one person/single occurrence. ii. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, insuring CITY its elected and appointed officers and employees from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from CONSULTANT’S actions under this AGREEMENT, whether or not done by CONSULTANT or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such insurance shall have a combined single limit of not less than $500,000. iii. Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT’S employees to the extent required by the State of California. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors who are hired by CONSULTANT to perform the SERVICES and who have employees to similarly obtain Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all of the subcontractor’s employees. iv. Professional Liability Insurance for CONSULTANT that at a minimum covers professional misconduct or lack of the requisite skill required for the performances of SERVICES in an amount of not less than $500,000 per occurrence. B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and (iii) shall not exceed $5,000 per occurrence. C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers and employees shall be named as additional insured on policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) and (ii). D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) and (ii) shall be primary and not excess coverage. E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the execution of this AGREEMENT, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued by an insurer authorized to do business in California, and an endorsement to each such 480 ATTACHMENT 3 policy of insurance evidencing that each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of the AGREEMENT. All required insurance policies are subject to approval of the City Attorney. Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to procure or maintain said insurance in full force and effect shall constitute a material breach of this AGREEMENT or procure or renew such insurance, and pay any premiums therefore at CONSULTANT’S expense. 18. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount to be determined by the court. 19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this AGREEMENT; and the CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this AGREEMENT, no person having any such interest shall be employed. 20. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly independent contractor. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT’s employees or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. The CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY. 21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES This AGREEMENT supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this AGREEMENT acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT. 22. NOTICES. All written notices required by, or related to this AGREEMENT shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid and addressed as listed 481 ATTACHMENT 3 below. Neither party to this AGREEMENT shall refuse to accept such mail; the parties to this AGREEMENT shall promptly inform the other party of any change of address. All notices required by this AGREEMENT are effective on the day of receipt, unless otherwise indicated herein. The mailing address of each party to this AGREEMENT is as follows: CITY: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 CONSULTANT: ____________________________ 23. GOVERNING LAW This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the date and year first above written. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSULTANT CITY MANAGER ______ _____ ________ ELAINE JENG, PE DATE:___________ DATE:_____________ ATTEST: ______ _____ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______ _____ MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY 482 Proposal for State Lobbyist on Legislation Relating to Local Control and Housing Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Renne Public Law Group, LLP [DBA Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG)] Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Government Affairs 1100 11th Street, Suite 231 Sacramento, CA 95814 sgonsalves@publicpolicygroup.com (916) 849-5536 483 Table of Contents I. Transmittal Letter II. Firm Profile a. Firm Resources b. RPPG Current Client List and Conflicts Check III. Approach and Work Plan a. The RPPG Approach b. Relationships c. Scope of Services d. Sample Project Plan IV. Proposed Staff and Staff Background a. RPPG Strategic Advisors b. Specific Roles and Responsibilities: Advisors and Support c. Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Organizational Chart V. Firm Qualifications VI. Fees VII. Review of Professional Services Agreement VIII. Sample Work Product 484 Transmittal Letter September 23, 2021 Ashford Ball Senior Management Analyst 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Ball On behalf of Renne Public Law Group [DBA: Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG)], we are pleased to submit our proposal for state lobbyist services on legislation relating to local control and housing for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills (Joint Cities). Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) is a full-service state lobbying and consulting practice that strives to advance the interests of California local public agencies and the companies that align with public entities. We do so effectively and efficiently, without compromising on ethics or integrity. RPPG is a division of Renne Public Law Group (RPLG), founded by Louise Renne, the City of San Francisco’s elected City Attorney for 16 years. RPPG provides our clients with a keen understanding of California’s evolving legislative and political landscape, which is critical when making policy, legal and operational decisions. RPPG is a fairly young practice of the Renne Public Law Group. Since we launched in 2019, we wanted to take a different approach from how we saw other firms representing their clients. This has enabled us to do things differently—to be proactive, creative, and nimble. To build a culture of likeminded professionals from diverse backgrounds who want to come to work and where clients feel valued. Our goal is to provide our clients a holistic approach of legislative, political, communications, grant writing, research and operational counsel. We refer to it as the “wraparound service approach”. We have brought in a former legislative staffer and seasoned legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves and one of the League of California Cities’ (LCC) top lobbyists, Dane Hutchings and have paired them with a team of Policy and Strategic Advisors made up of senior RPLG lawyers, municipal policy experts, and senior local government officials. Most notably, former LCC, Deputy Executive and Legislative Director, Dan Carrigg. At RPPG, we understand the reasons that your cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, communities with beautiful open spaces and residents who prize their quality of life, are concerned about threats to local control and land use authority. These concerns are reinforced with the Governor’s recent signature of Senate Bills (SB) 8,9 and 10. While California has many housing challenges, they are certainly not all the fault of local government. Local governments have a responsibility to set the planning table, but this has already been addressed by layers of state laws. Yet, legislators and state officials often find it easier to focus on local planning and land use, rather than grappling with the broader realities of private markets; identifying billions needed for subsidized housing; taking on developers, labor, environmental and other powerful interest groups, or addressing the state’s own policy failings. 485 Policymakers should recognize that each California community is different, and overriding local authority deprives every resident and local elected official their opportunity to craft solutions that fit their unique needs. With this influx of new housing laws, and more to come, it is difficult for any agency to be able to track and assess the impacts that these measures may have on your communities. While associations such as the League of California Cities have and continue to serve a valuable purpose, as a statewide organization, their level of focus on specific issues can vary. This is why we feel it is so important that the Joint Cities partners with a firm that can provide a uniquely tailored wraparound service approach with its strengths rooted in Council relations, public affairs, housing, land use policy. The halls of the California State Capitol are a constant whirl of activity as legislators, staff, and lobbyists for a multitude of interest groups engage in crafting laws and the state budget. In this fast- paced environment, opportunities and threats to local agencies can quickly emerge. RPPG recognizes that advocating for the interests of public agencies requires policy expertise, active engagement, and multi-pronged actions which includes monitoring pending legislation, developing legislative proposals, negotiating amendments, and, when necessary, a coordinated public affairs campaign. These tactics form the foundation for an effective legislative advocacy strategy. As outlined in this proposal, our advocacy approach recognizes California’s evolving political and operational landscape, shifting policies, and volatile fiscal environment to best position our clients for successful outcomes. We propose to work closely with the Joint Cities’ staff to devise a comprehensive strategy that advances your legislative priorities. It is our sincere hope that we can partner with the Joint Cities and serve as your voice in Sacramento. Sharon Gonsalves, RPPG’s Director of Government Affairs will act as the Project Manager and primary contact for this proposal. Sharon may be reached at (916) 849-5536 and is located at 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, CA. As the founding partner of our firm, Jon Holtzman has the authority to negotiate on behalf of and bind the firm in an agreement. Jon may be reached at (415) 848-7200 and is located at 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA. Regards, Jon Holtzman, Founding Partner Renne Public Law Group, LLP © Sharon Gonsalves Director of Government Affairs Renne Public Policy Group, A Division of Renne Public Law Group, LLP © 486 Firm Profile Effective March 1, 2018, the well-established law firm Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, Public Law Group (of 17 years) divided into two separate firms, one of which is Renne Public Law Group, LLP (RPLG). Specifically, as part of the firm’s separation, RPLG was required to obtain a new federal tax ID number. Renne Public Law Group’s mission is to advocate for local public agencies and nonprofits. Louise Renne, who served for 16 years as San Francisco’s elected City Attorney, serves as the Chair of our firm. We represent a myriad of public agencies throughout the State of California on legal matters, and legislative matters including large agencies such as the San Diego Regional Airport Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority, City and County of San Francisco and the City of Los Angeles, to smaller entities such as the Town of Corte Madera and City of Belmont. For a full list of RPLG legal clients please visit our website at https://rennepubliclawgroup.com/clients/ . Firm Resources RPLG and RPPG have a combined team of 38 legal and legislative professionals comprised of attorneys, lobbyists, senior advisors as well as administrative, legislative, and operational support staff. A full list of our team members can be found on the RPPG and RPLG websites. We have two offices, located in San Francisco and Sacramento, respectively. As detailed throughout this proposal, the RPPG practice area is led by our Managing Director, Dane Hutchings who has over 12 years of direct legislative experience. He is supported by legislative advocate and Director of Government Affairs, Sharon Gonsalves (Proposed Project Manager) as well as by our firm’s Policy and Strategic Advisors. RPPG’s group of Policy and Strategic Advisors support our clients’ overall advocacy strategy by providing unique and experienced perspectives on the real- world impacts of pending legislative, regulatory and administrative proposals—leveraging their experience for the betterment of our clients. Moreover, having Dan Carrigg, the former League Legislative Director and Land Use Lobbyist with decades of experience on housing and land use issues, on our team uniquely positions RPPG to be an asset to the Joint Cities. RPPG Current Client List and Conflicts Check (as of September 21, 2021) RPPG operates with the highest level of transparency, ethics, and standards. As such, we are providing the Joint Cities with a full list of our current lobby and/or political consulting clients. As a boutique firm and a newly established practice area, our success stories will continue to grow as we continue to grow our business. At present time RPPG currently represents the following clients in either direct legislative advocacy, general consulting and/or grant writing and research: • City of Redwood City • City of Belmont • City of Foster City • City of Corona • City of Carlsbad • City of Eastvale • City of Menlo Park • City of Bakersfield • City of Mountain View • Town of Hillsborough • Town of Atherton • City of Santa Rosa • California Association of Code Enforcement Officers • City Clerks Association of California • San Diego County Regional Airport Authority • Interwest Consulting Group • GovInvest Inc. • San Bernardino Community College District • California Public Private Alliance 487 In assessing our current list of clients, we do not foresee any current or potential conflicts. Should a potential conflict arise, RPPG will run a “conflict” check with the Joint Cities prior to accepting the legislative advocacy/political consulting client work in question. Approach and Work Plan The RPPG Approach At RPPG we strive to be a necessity for our clients, not a luxury. This means finding ways to show true return on investment. However, ‘value’ itself is dependent on the individual needs of the client. Whether it be advancing a beneficial state policy, stopping a piece of determinantal legislation, advocating for increased General Fund or grant dollars—or by providing detailed policy and political information that informs the client. Whatever the need, we pride ourselves on creating a custom approach to each client that we have the honor of representing. We work incredibly hard for our clients because each client that partners with RPPG has placed their trust in us—not just to represent their interests in Sacramento, but to be a trusted messenger of their brand and story. As detailed by the examples below, we do the work, and we take nothing for granted. While that may sound oversimplistic, in our experience there are a lot of firms that solely rely on their “relationships” to advance their clients’ interests. While relationships are critical, politics is an environment that rewards tenacity and hard work. As we have seen in 2020 and 2021, policy proposals can move rapidly, often with little notice or transparency. The RPPG team’s decades of experience provides a unique understanding of the political process. We stay in close contact with state lawmakers, Capitol consultants and legislative staff, are always watching for new amendments and monitoring the actions of other stakeholders, legislators, and administration officials—so we know what is coming before it surfaces publicly. Staying active, nimble, and persistent allows our team to successfully advocate for our client’s interests during this trying time. RPPG is a “boots-on-the-ground” lobbying firm. We spend significant time in the halls of the Capitol, consistently meeting with decision-makers, educating legislators about our client’s needs and interests, and monitoring activity so that we know what’s coming before it surfaces. We also have significant experience navigating the Appropriation and Budget process and making direct contact with key Legislators and the appropriate members of their staff. However, in this era of uncertainty and confusion stemmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, advocates must stay vigilant in representing their clients. In 2020 the “halls” of the Capitol remained empty throughout the last nights of the legislative session. As COVID-19 continues to be a threat, we have seen this trend continue throughout 2021. This is important to highlight as the Joint Cities considers what type of firm, they want looking out for their interests. By maintaining regular contact with the Joint Cities, staff will have real-time accounts of what is happening in Sacramento. We will ensure the Joint Cities’ interests are represented by forming coalitions with like-minded interest groups such as other local governments and stakeholders as needed. We also will utilize our close working relationships with a variety of business groups, environmental groups, and labor – both public employee and private construction unions – to help the Joint Cities meet its legislative needs and further its interests. 488 Relationships Relationships are central to every outcome in government affairs, and none more so than direct relationships with Legislators, policy committee consultants, administrative leaders, and the Governor’s office. It is no secret that some of the most aggressive polices being pushed statewide in areas of housing, homelessness, and land use come from a contingent of Bay Area lawmakers. It is important that the Joint Cities partner with a firm that has strong ties not only those who represent your communities, but those Northern California legislators and the Administration that continue to advance these polices. The RPPG team is confident in our deep and personal relationships with an overwhelming majority of legislative offices, policy committee consultants, as well as, with members of the Governor’s Administration. These relationships have been established not only through our firm’s partners, who have deep ties to the Newsom Administration dating back to when the Governor served in local government—but through each of our team member’s direct work with legislators and staff. These relationships have been established over time and built upon a strong reputation of being hard working and honest policy brokers. With her history working both inside and out of the Capitol, Sharon has built a strong network of reliable legislative, regulatory, and administrative contacts. Between RPPG’s current clients and combined experience working with virtually every legislative office while at the League of California Cities, both Dane and Dan have established and maintained strong working relationships with most legislative offices in the Capitol including key legislative committee staff, consultants, and administration officials. Collectively, our team utilizes our specific networks to advance the interest of our clients. It will be important to identify those critical legislative members, policy committee consultants and department/agency leads to meet with on a regular basis. Waiting until an issue is present to build a relationship typically means you are too late, which is why the RPPG team will create a list of individuals to meet with early. Additionally, it will also be critical that the City Councils are provided the resources, information, and tools to develop their own relationship with state elected officials. Additionally, we would inventory individual political relationships of local officials with state legislative and administration officials. Having a clear understanding of the strengths of current relationships allows your advocacy team to better develop bill specific strategy. This is vital to success at the critical moment a vote on a controversial bill takes place. Scope of Services Our proposal for consulting services on legislations relating to local control and housing offers a communicative and responsive team approach to representing the Joint Cities before the State Legislature, Administration, and Executive Branch. We propose to provide regular written and verbal communications to the City Councils and staff to ensure that the Joint Cities are up to date on our advocacy efforts, individual tasks, and timelines for meeting milestones. Regular communication is a critical part of helping the Joint Cities stay informed and involved throughout the entire state budget and legislative processes. RPPG can also offer federal monitoring, review and letter writing as well as state and federal grant writing and research services, but given that the RFP’s Scope of Work focuses primarily on state advocacy, we have not included here. 489 Our team’s wide breadth of experience with local governments, coupled with our extensive network of strong relationships with key legislators, staff, and organizations, positions RPPG well to represent the Joint Cities. Under this proposal, our services include but are not limited to: • Legislative Review, Tracking and Advocacy: Track, review and analyze any introduced and amended legislation and regulatory proposals. Advocate on legislation, regulatory proposals of interest to the Joint Cities and any state budget issues impacting the cities. • Annual “Deep Dive” Review: RPPG understands the importance that Agency staff plays in fully understanding the intricacies of operations, funding, and legislative priorities. RPPG will conduct an annual “Deep Dive” meeting (in person or via Zoom in accordance with COVID-19 restrictions) with key Joint Cities staff to gain a deeper legislative, political, and funding priority insight. This approach helps your advocacy team best position the Joint Cities for success. • Assist in further developing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform: Should the Joint Cities seek to modify a State Legislative Platform, RPPG would work with each City Council and staff in an inclusive process to develop and execute a legislative platform that adequately reflects the Council’s policy positions. The purpose of a legislative platform is to clearly outline policy positions on various State legislative issues that have a direct impact on the Joint Cities. The priorities throughout the platform are intended to assist the Mayor, Council Members, and staff to proactively and appropriately address legislation, to promote the Joint Cities interests, and preserve local legislative authority if and when necessary. This document would also provide your advocacy team direction on priority issues and matters that impact the Joint Cities ability to operate effectively, while allowing your team to be proactive and nimble throughout the legislative session. Once adopted, a legislative platform serves as a living document that should be amended as policies and priorities change. • Representation: Represent the Joint Cities at policy-related meetings, conferences, events, regulatory proceedings, legislative hearings, and other appropriate venues to deliver comments, testimony, and provide the Joint Cities with a consistent presence in Sacramento. RPPG will also present to the Joint Cities’ City Council meetings to provide legislative updates as requested. • Relationship Building: Continue fostering relationships with legislators and administration officials. Our firm will make meeting recommendations, schedule arrangements, and strategize on messaging in advance. This approach ensures that we have laid the groundwork for to advance your policy goals and any bill proposals throughout the year. • Education Tour: RPPG is prepared to conduct an education tour in the Capitol to drive awareness on the issues that matter to you most. This will ensure that the appropriate 490 communication channels with legislative staff and legislators remain open throughout the 2021-2022 legislative session and beyond. • Targeted Engagement with Statewide Local Government Association and Local Agency Partners: Our proven working relationship with the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special District’s Association, the California Fire and Police Chiefs’ Associations, and other statewide local government advocacy organizations will ensure that RPPG can communicate the Joint Cities’ policy positions—and when appropriate, work in a blended strategy to achieve success. • Document Creation and Review: Consult and develop strategic documents, draft policy position, regulatory and budgetary letters, customized priority legislative tracking matrix, budget analysis, and background papers for the Joint Cities to ensure the Joint Cities are up to speed and its voice is consistently heard by policymakers and stakeholders. Sample Project Plan Below is a detailed timeline that outlines how and when we would implement our workplan and work with City staff to develop a custom plan to meet the needs of the Joint Cities. Specific dates and deliverables are subject to change should the Legislative calendar be modified. Action Deliverable/Goal Upon Contract award – Dec. 2021 Collaborate with Joint Cities’ staff to develop an annual legislative advocacy plan to guide our efforts during the legislative session, using as an initial base the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Legislative Policy Guidelines. Foster new and established relationships with Legislators and key Administration officials shortly after contract commencement. Our firm will make recommendations for meetings, schedule arrangements, and strategize on the messaging in advance. Develop an advocacy strategy that identifies legislative champions and key stakeholders, including coordination with other municipalities and organizations with similar legislative objectives. Advocacy plan Develop target list of key policy committee staff, the executive branch, and other key elected officials for engagement. Upon Contract award – Dec. 2021 Develop language and supporting materials. Develop a clear communication plan, including a regularly scheduled conference call, along with written reports. Legislative Tracking Matrix 491 Meet with each City department to establish the Joint Cities’ legislative priorities. Devise a matrix for timely reporting of bills relevant to the Joint Cities. Oct. -Dec. 2021 Develop ideas for sponsored bills and shop for authors to carry legislation on behalf of the Joint Cities. Collaborate with the Joint Cities to modify annual legislative advocacy plan to reflect changing priorities. This will guide our efforts during the legislative season, focusing on key issues of importance to the Joint Cities. 2022 Advocacy Plan Sponsored Legislation (2022) January – February 2022 Identify and secure authors for sponsored legislation. Meet with policy and fiscal committee staff and/or Administration or Executive Branch staff to build an understanding and support for sponsored legislation. Review Governor’s January Budget Proposal and identify possible funding opportunities for the Joint Cities. Build a coalition for sponsored bills Draft fact sheets, background materials, talking points, and other materials as needed City specific detailed budget analysis. 492 February – December 2022 Meet with potential opposition to understand and mitigate potential concerns about bills relevant to the Joint Cities. Draft letters of support, opposition, and/or amendments to address our concerns. Track and analyze proposed new laws and regulations; and provide general advocacy on legislation important to the Joint Cities. This includes proactive information-gathering that keeps the Joint Cities up to date on relevant state agency/department regulations and administrative policies. Monitor budget process for potential positive/negative impacts. Engage when needed. Testify in policy committees on bills for which the Joint Cities have an active position, or recruit and prepare City personnel to testify where appropriate. Draft end of session report providing progress on legislative activities, results on targeted legislation. Develop recommended positions on legislation and state budget proposals Usher sponsored bills successfully through legislative process Produce regular legislative reports Negotiate with authors and sponsors to resolve concerns or stop bills where resolution is not possible Bill position letters and televised testimony Annual Report Attached to this proposal you will find samples of the work product that we provide our clients. We strive to produce quality analysis on pending legislation and amendments that is timely, thorough, and straightforward. In our experience our analysis has not only been used as a tool for legislators to learn about the operational effects of a bill, it allows the City Council and staff to truly understand the implications of legislation to their city. Proposed Staff and Staff Background Project Manager: Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Government Affairs— Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills RPPG proposes that Sharon Gonsalves, a registered lobbyist with the State of California serve as Project Manager and primary contact for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. In this capacity, Sharon will direct the Joint Cities’ legislative focus and priorities. She will represent the Joint Cities in meetings with the State Legislature, state agencies, applicable boards and commissions, and the Governor’s office. Specific activities include but are not limited to, testifying on behalf of the Joint Cities in all applicable legislative policy committees, regulatory 493 boards and commissions and working directly with the Southern California legislative delegations and office of the Governor. Sharon, with assistance from RPPG legislative and advisory staff, will conduct legislative review, analysis, and technical expertise in all policy areas important to the Joint Cities in order to provide full policy and political counsel. As project lead, Sharon will ensure transparent communications and information sharing with Joint Cities’ staff. Sharon’s approach and established relationships have proven successful in both advancing beneficial legislative efforts as well as stopping legislation detrimental to clients. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • Over 15 years of Legislative Advocacy and Capitol Staff Experience • Strong Policy Background in Natural Resources, Public Safety, Housing and Transportation • Proven Success in Navigating State Budget Process • Strong Relationships with Key Legislative, Administrative and Executive Officials More About Sharon: Sharon has spent her career advocating for legislative and funding priorities of municipalities throughout California—brining over fifteen years of state legislative and local government advocacy experience to the City’s advocacy team. Specializing in the complex legislative process, Sharon has a proven track record of leveraging her strong relationships in the Capitol, Administration, and key government agencies to advance the goals of her clients. Sharon has expertise in the policy sectors of housing, transportation, local governance, and natural resources both as a former legislative staff member and as a local government lobbyist. Spending nearly a decade working in both houses of the State Legislature, Sharon has a unique understanding and experience in navigating the State’s complex budget process. She has been able to leverage her relationships within the California Legislature to secure California State Budget earmarks—providing local fire districts and police departments much needed funding for those communities. Sharon served as Legislative Director for State Senator Anthony Cannella (R, Ceres). Senator Cannella served as Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. During Senator Cannella’s tenure, Sharon was instrumental in negotiating on major statewide environmental and transportation issues important to the District, including Proposition 1, The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 and SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased transportation funding and instituted some much- needed reforms. SB 1 provided the first significant, stable, and on-going increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades. During her time as a legislative staffer, Sharon developed an intricate understanding of the legislative and budget process and maintained an extensive bi-partisan network of relationships with Members of the California Legislature. Prior to joining RPPG in September of 2020, Sharon was a Senior Associate at Townsend Public Affairs representing a number of local public agency clients—specializing in those from the Central Valley and Inland Empire. Sharon has helped secure millions of dollars by advocating for the creation of funding opportunities and writing successful grant applications. For two years prior to the passage 494 of SB 5 by Senator DeLeon in 2018, Sharon worked with the author and stakeholders to advocate for funding specifically for the operations and maintenance of existing parks. Ultimately, Proposition 68, the Park, Environment, and Water Bond Act of 2018, included $425 million for public agencies on a per capital basis specifically for park improvements. After years of discussion and debate, Senate Bill 200 (Monning) was signed in 2019 by Governor Newsom and created the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. Initially the original version of SB 200 contained a fee on agriculture entities which would create a fund to help these troubled water systems. Sharon’s clients, the cities of Turlock, Reedley and Parlier, had long struggled to update their water wells to address contamination. Though efforts had been made by the State Water Board, over 300 communities still lacked access to safe and affordable drinking water. Most of these communities are served by small water systems that are unable to provide water that meets public health standards for contaminants such as arsenic, nitrates, and uranium. After multi-year negotiations the bill in its current form, SB 200, was amended to remove the fee and create the fund using a yearly appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). In her commitment to advocate for local agency funding opportunities, Sharon has also written several successful grants for fire departments that benefit operations and improve the health and wellness of firefighters. Some examples include: Client Grant Program Award Amount City of Orange Cove FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Vehicle Acquisition $541,615 City of Sanger FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Implementation of a comprehensive health and wellness program for Department Firefighters. $26,940 North Central Fire Protection District FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Regional request to purchase new SCBA equipment $282,189 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District FEMA Fire Prevention and Safety Purchase of Fire Trailer for Community Education $13,894 In an effort to further regional partnerships from all areas of government, Sharon participated in several advocacy trips with the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) and the County of Fresno Council of Government (CFCOG). She has also worked with Congressional and federal agency officials to advance the funding and infrastructure priorities of her clients. Sharon has utilized the relationships she has built over the years in her work advocating for local governments. Under Governor Newsom’s administration she has worked with key members of his leadership team both in his legislative office and various agencies to move the policy and funding priorities of her clients forward. 495 Secondary Contact: Dane Hutchings— Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills RPPG proposes that Dane Hutchings, a registered lobbyist with the State of California, serve as a legislative advocate and secondary contact for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. In this capacity, Dane will work in collaboration with the Project Manager, to represent the Joint Cities in meetings with the State Legislature, state agencies, applicable boards and commissions, and the Governor’s office. Dane will also, review and track legislation, provide analysis and leverage his close working relationships with legislative members, staff, policy consultants and agency officials to advance the Joint Cities’ legislative priorities. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • Over a Decade of Legislative Advocacy and Public Affairs Expertise • Former Federal Policy Liaison and Lobbyist, League of California Cities • Strong Council Relations Background • Proven Background in Coalition Building • Strong Relationships with Key Legislative, Administrative and Executive Officials More About Dane: For over a decade, Dane Hutchings has been advocating for the best interests of both public and private entities. He is a seasoned legislative advocate and political strategist with a keen understanding of the California political process and landscape. Dane brings a unique understanding of California local government operations, service delivery methods and revenue sources. Prior to leading the Renne Public Policy Group, Dane worked for the League of California Cities as a Legislative Representative and Federal Policy Liaison. He acted as the key strategist, advisor and advocate on issues including areas labor relations policies, privacy and technology, governmental transparency, workers compensation and other issues related to local government operations. As an expert and thought leader in California public sector retirement, Dane has been asked to work directly with local agencies to help them understand the implications of rising pensions and OPEB liabilities. In 2019, Dane presented to the Modesto City Council during a Council budget workshop, providing a statewide overview of the California Public Retirement System (CalPERS). Moreover, Dane was asked to work with City staff and employee bargaining units on CalPERS related issues. As the Federal Policy Liaison, Dane worked across multiple policy areas of importance to local government, including housing, tax, infrastructure, transportation, public safety and environmental policy. Working in conjunction with the National League of Cities, Dane fought to protect federal programs critical to local governments, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships, Choice Neighborhoods and Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). Upon his departure from the League of California Cities, Dane received a career achievement award for his “…leadership, dedication and tenacity in advancing the quality of life for all California cities”. 496 While at the California Grocers Association, Dane represented over 300 members in the retail food and supplier industry. He specialized in labor and employment, healthcare, retail food and general business issues. Dane worked directly with local governmental bodies, staff and their organizations on local and statewide polices that ensured continuity for his clients while preserving local government authority. Dane’s direct experience in public affairs provides a distinctive approach on how an effective issue- based “inside-outside” communications/advocacy strategy can support legislative priorities by providing political cover for legislators as well as the governor’s office. Dane ‘cut his teeth’ working as an Account Executive and Government Relations Advocate at Ogilvy—a premier and influential multi-national public affairs and advocacy firm. Dane engaged in multiple issue-based campaigns specifically designed to support legislative strategies for both public and private sector clients. RPPG Strategic Advisors With 2,000 or more pieces of legislation introduced by the California Legislature each year, it is critical that our clients have a complete understanding of the potential impacts that these measures may have on their agencies. Our Policy Advisors are a dedicated team of municipal policy experts, seasoned legislative advocates and former high-ranking local agency staff that will provide a holistic policy and political perspective to best position the Joint Cites with the information needed for success. Under the direction of the Project Manager, RPPG proposes the following Policy and Strategic Advisor for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills state legislative advocacy and advisory team: • Dan Carrigg, former League of California Cities Deputy Executive and Legislative Director More details regarding specific roles, responsibilities, and qualifications for each RPPG Advisor are outlined below. Collectively, the RPPG team and Advisors have represented and/or advised local agencies in policy issues including but not limited to: • Land use, housing, planning, zoning, water, and sewer utility matters • Transportation and infrastructure legislation and funding • Privacy, technology, and consumer protection issues • Environmental policy including, clean air and CEQA policy • California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) consulting and advisory services • Public sector contracting policy • Various labor relations policies including anti-contracting, employer paid release time, union- agent evidentiary privilege • The Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, sunshine legislation, and other laws governing local government decision-making and operations 497 Specific Roles and Responsibilities: Advisors and Support Dan Carrigg—Senior Advisor: Policy and Legislative Strategy RPPG proposes that former League of California Cities, Deputy Executive and Legislative Director Dan Carrigg, act as the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills’ Policy and Legislative Advisor. Under the direction of the Project Manager, Dan will analyze, and draft legislation as well advise the Joint Cities on strategies for engagement. Dan’s distinguished career and relationships with Administrative agencies, policy committee chairs and consultants will be leveraged to complement the Joint Cities’ advocacy strategy. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • 30 years of Legislative Advocacy Experience • 25 years Specifically Advocating for Local Government • Strong Relationships with Agency Officials and Policy Committee Members • Seasoned Legislative Advocate and Expert in California’s Legislative, Political, and Budget Process More About Dan: Dan Carrigg is a political consultant and thought leader in California public policy directly impacting local government. With extensive experience in legislative analysis, strategy, and advocacy, and an excellent reputation for hard work and tenacity, Dan spent nearly 25 years with the League of California Cities—beginning as the League’s housing and land use lobbyist, then holding increasingly responsible advocacy roles including both Legislative Director and Deputy Executive Director of this prominent statewide local government organization. Until retiring from the League in October of 2019, Dan supervised the League’s legislative and public affairs program, developed policy, managed the League’s legislative and public affairs teams, drafted and reviewed legislation, reviewed and analyzed ballot measures and testified before the Legislature. Dan offers RPPG clients a deep policy background and strong political acumen on state housing policy, including understanding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, issues affecting transit-oriented development, tax increment financing, SB 375, Cap and Trade and other policies. Dan is also familiar with CEQA and the political challenges associated with past streamlining efforts and has a practical understanding of public contracting and construction projects. Prior to taking on the role as the League’s housing and land use lobbyist, Dan worked as a senior consultant for the California State Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee from 1991-1996. Throughout his career, Dan has worked on many high-profile issues, including representing the League as part of the transportation coalition to pass SB 1. In the past, Dan led the League’s successful negotiations on the Lowenthal/Mullin RHNA reform measures of 2004, that resulted in reduced controversy over this process for over a decade. He was directly engaged in the effort to protect local property tax, sales tax and (Vehicle Licensing Fee) VLF funding via the VLF-property tax swap with the passage of Proposition 1A of 2004. Later, he advocated to secure revenue for local governments in Prop 1B, the 2006 transportation bond, and defeat a legislative effort to take nearly $1 billion in city and county road maintenance funds. He also worked to preserve local authority during the legislative 498 wrangling leading to the enactment and implementation of SB 375 of 2008, which coordinates transportation and land use planning. More recently, in 2019, Dan worked closely with the Newsom Administration to draft critical elements, including the Local Government Planning Support Grants Program, that offers funding assistance for regions to assist with local housing planning and was incorporated into AB 101, a 2019 housing budget trailer bill. Prior to his work with the League, Dan drew on his background in construction to represent the Department of General Services and the Division of the State Architect on state real estate, construction and public contracting from 1996-1998, including working to enact design-build contracting authority for state office projects. His career began with a fellowship on the Assembly Desk during the term of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Itzel Becerra— Legislative and Grants Assistant RPPG proposes that Itzel Becerra, serve as Legislative and Grant Assistant for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. Under direction from the Project Manager, Itzel will attend all necessary public hearings and meetings in and around the Capitol as necessary to advance the interests of the Joint Cities. She will track relevant legislation and amendments for the Joint Cities and monitor all relevant legislative hearings. Additionally, Itzel will organize calls and meetings with the Joint Cities, Legislators and legislative staff, the Governor’s Administration, and other stakeholders. She will also draft and provide position letters, briefs, and updates in a timely manner. Itzel will also work with the Joint Cities’ staff to ensure all Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) quarterly filings are processed. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • Local Government Association Experience • State Legislative Process Experience More About Itzel: Prior to joining RPPG, Itzel most recently worked for the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) as a Professional Development Assistant. There she worked directly with CSDA member agencies to connect them with educational resources and trainings. In addition, she oversaw registration for all association events and manage the promotion of upcoming events. Prior, she served as a Public Affairs Intern with CSDA, where she assisted the Advocacy and Public Affairs team tracking legislation, conducting research, and drafting articles for the association’s weekly electronic newsletter. Itzel also contributed to CSDA’s public outreach campaign “Districts Make the Difference.” Itzel gained knowledge and experience of the California legislative process while participating in the Sacramento Semester Program. Offered through CSU’s Department of Political Science, the program allows students to immerse themselves in California politics. As Legislative intern for Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D, Sacramento), Itzel staffed measures and executed various legislative duties during her tenure. 499 Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Organizational Chart Sharon Gonsalves Director of Government Affairs Dane Hutchings Managing Director Dan Carrigg Senior Advisor, Policy and Legislative Strategy Itzel Becerra Legislative and Grants Assistant 500 Firm Qualifications Below are narrative examples directly attributed to RPPG advancing the interests of local government along with details of related work performed. These examples illustrate our team’s approach, tenacity, and political acumen. Examples include but are not limited to: Client: City of Redwood City (Demonstrated Skills: Legislative and Executive Branch Advocacy, Coalition Building, Client Communications, Advancing Priority Legislation) AB 2553 (Ting) Shelter Crisis (2019/2020 Legislative Session) AB 2553 is a statewide expansion of a limited pilot program (AB 932, Chapter 786, Statutes of 2017) set to expire that would allow all local agencies upon the declaration of a shelter crisis build temporary shelters for their homelessness population. At introduction, the measure was very limited—simply expanding the current program statewide and did not address concerns specific to Redwood City’s community needs. In response, RPPG was successful in working with the Author’s office to expand the measure to include language that permits 24 hour “safe parking” programs for cars and recreational vehicles on land owned or leased by the City without the risk of creating a tenant/landlord relationship. RPPG also worked directly with the Assembly and Senate Housing committee staff as well as the Republican Caucus and the Newsom Administration to garner bipartisan support to include an urgency clause. This increased the vote threshold from a simple majority vote to a two-thirds vote. However, this allowed the legislation to take effect immediately upon the Governor signing the bill. Given the issue was so critical to Redwood City and the surrounding community, RPPG worked with City staff to engage the community—drafting template “request for signature” letters for different constituencies who were supportive of the bill. These included sample letters customized for specific for local businesses, homeless rights advocates, and community activists. On September 25, AB 2553 was signed by Governor Newsom. Years Performed: 2019-Ongoing work Client: City of Belmont (Demonstrated Skills: Developing sponsored legislation, legislative and Executive Advocacy, Coalition Building) SB 640 (Becker) Transportation Financing: Joint Projects (2021/22 Legislative Session) Since the enactment of Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1) cities have a new dedicated source of revenue to address their local streets and roads projects. However, under current law, two or more jurisdictions are unable to issue a single bid to address a project of mutual interest (e.g., a throughway that stretches between multiple cities/counties). On behalf of the City of Belmont, both Dane and Sharon worked with Senator Becker’s office to carry a piece of legislation that would enable more local flexibility of “SB 1” monies by allowing for a joint project submittal as well as a streamlined reporting requirement to ensure accountability and transparency remained intact. 501 RPPG strategic Advisor, Dan Carrigg drafted the proposed legislation—working with the client directly to ensure the language addressed their needs. Sharon worked with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), developed the talking points, fact sheet and other support materials and Dane worked to build a coalition of support consisting of the League of California Cities, the American Public Works Association, California Asphalt Pavement Association, and dozens of municipalities across the state to support the measure. Together our team was successful in garnering bi-partisan support for the bill as it moved swiftly through the process. On July 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 640 into law. Years Performed: 2020 – Ongoing work Client: Town of Hillsborough and Town of Atherton (Demonstrated Skills: Non-Lobbying Consulting, Client Communication, Document Creation, Council Engagement). Given RPPG’s reputation for expert policy analysis and council engagement, our firm was approached by the Towns of Hillsborough and Atherton to help provide legislative consulting services (non- directly lobbying work) on the issues of housing, land use and wildfire as it pertains to development. The distinction between lobbying and non-lobbying is specific to RPPG’s ability to legally interact with any State legislative, regulatory, or administrative official on any piece of state policy with the intent to influence. Non-lobbying work is centered specifically around educating the client directly and providing direction for them to engage on their own should they choose to do so. Over the past 6 months, RPPG has met with key staff from each agency to develop customized messaging documents used to communicate effectively with constituents, walked them through the State Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process and how current legislation will have an impact on process. Moreover, we provided policy-based educational study sessions, bill tracking documents and specific legislative analysis for each Client to ensure they were up to date on the flurry of land use legislative proposals advancing through the legislature. Staff from both Town’s saw value in helping educate their respective councils and constituents on the “Sacramento” rapidly shifting (political) realities in these incredibly important policy areas. As of July 1, the Town of Atherton renewed their consulting agreement for an additional 12 months, while the Town of Hillsborough moved to increase their scope of service and are now a full lobbying client with RPPG—enabling RPPG to being formal engagement with the Town’s legislative delegation and other stakeholders. Years Performed: 2021 – Ongoing work 502 Fee Proposal for State Lobbyist on Legislation Relating to Local Control and Housing Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills 503 Due to the fluctuating demands of the legislative calendar as well as strategy and planning for the following legislative cycle, RPPG does not bill clients on an hourly basis for direct legislative consulting and support work. Based on the anticipated scope of work, RPPG proposes a flat retainer fee for all services outlined in the RFP. This proposed pricing includes all items outlined in the work plan (detailed above), work performed by RPPG primary staff, advisors, and operational/administrative support – including all costs associated with all quarterly (required) FPPC filings. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION FEES 1 Legislative advocacy as outlined in scope of work. $9,750.00/monthly flat fee retainer agreement ($3,250 per month per agency - $117,000 total annually) 2 As needed travel budget not to exceed $5,000.00. Costs associated with travel include, milage at federal per mile rate and overnight expenses if requested to attend in-person council meeting. Note: No expense shall be incurred without direct authorization from client $5,000.00 annual 504 Professional Services Agreement RPPG has reviewed the Professional Services Agreement provided with the Request for Proposal and do not have any questions or concerns. RPPG does not take exception or request any changes to the requirements and conditions outlined in the RFP. 505 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com March 9, 2021 To: Ann Ritzma Town Manager, Town of Hillsborough From: Dane Hutchings Managing Director, Renne Public Policy Group Re: Governor’s Wildfire Preparedness and Response Efforts Dr. Ms. Ritzma: Yesterday, March 8, Governor Newsom held a press conference at Shaver Lake in Fresno County to discuss the State’s Wildfire Preparedness and Response Efforts. Joined by Tom Porter, Director of CalFire and Wade Crowfoot, Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, he outlined financial investments that will be made as California prepares for another dry year and potentially devastating fire season. When elected Newsom charged Chief Porter with doing a 45-day report which identified 35 priority projects to protect California, five of which were completed prior to the Creek Fire and all were key to the improved response. The State is looking to mirror what Shaver Lake and Fresno County are doing throughout the entire state in terms of at regional collaborative approach to meet the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. Secretary Wade Crowfoot of California Natural Resources Agency emphasized in the past 2 1/2 years, Governor Newsom has directed over $700 million in additional funding to build CalFire’s response capacity. Although California has the most sophisticated Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fighters in the country, warming temperatures are creating more challenging and dangerous wildfire conditions. Last year, five of the six biggest fires happened at the same time. As a result, Newsom developed a taskforce, creating the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action plan, released in January, which contains a suite of things the State needs to do in three major categories: • Increase resources for infrastructure hardening within communities. • Investment and protection around communities • More forest management and reintroduce controlled fires. Governor Newsom reminded everyone that he proposed in January to reinvest a record amount, $1B, in the initiatives outlined in the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action plan. He then took the opportunity to formally announce a deal with legislative leadership to draw down $536M to get the ball rolling now, and he is confident this will be signed by Tuesday, April 13, 2021. A chart outlining the breakdown is attached. 506 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com Two weeks ago, the State pushed almost $81M to support CalFire to hire 1400 firefighters to start preparing for wildfire season. Although the State can’t make up for 50 years of lacking wildfire preparedness, they have a plan to connect tribes, private, state and regional plans with the US government. The State doesn’t want to spar with US forest service, even though they cut budgets while the state increased theirs. The state of California only owns 3% of forested land, but they are still willing to partner and collaborate as evidenced by: • Signed MOU with US Forest Service committing to double forest management, 1M acres minimum. • Will do more C130s, have more Blackhawk helicopter crews. • Promises more suppression, prevention-, regional-, short- and long-term strategies. Reporter Q & A 1400 jobs, who is getting them? Are there local recruitment efforts? Newsom: To be exact 1399 positions. Budget that includes additional $143M is in front of the legislature for 30 more fire crews, have added new engines in the last year, there will be local, state, etc. components. Chief Porter: Those jobs are going to be local throughout the state. Will be adding the jobs throughout California as part of strategy that they had already been moving on. There will be permanent, seasonal, and corps members jobs throughout the state. Newsom: We want Helitack teams (team of firefighters who are transported by helicopter to wildfires) to be operational by May 1 because fire season has already started. Why are you making this announcement in Fresno County specifically? When you said the Central Valley is disproportionately impacted, bipartisan lawmakers from the Central Valley sent a letter asked you to declare a state of emergency, are you prepared to do that? Newsom: We are prepared to do all sorts of things, not necessarily declare the state of emergency, but every commensurate part of that letter. Coming back here in particular, I attach a lot of emotions to these fires and I’ve been to too many. Especially with the Creek Fire, we ran into federal, state, private and county jurisdiction issues? Are efforts being made to make preventative efforts uniform throughout the state? Newsom: Because of the patchwork of jurisdictions, the funding we’re putting out supports regionalism in order to do just that, to knit these pieces together, but you just heard the Chief say that the efforts to do that have been underway for some time. ### 507 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27/21 Statewide Rezoning of Single-Family Neighborhoods & Urban Parcel Splits Prepared by RPPG Senior Policy Advisor, Dan Carrigg** Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) as amended (04/27) proposes to rezone by state statute, virtually all parcels within single-family residential zones i in California allowing for the creation of (when combined with state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law) at least four units, and under several scenarios up to six ii units (see endnote below). Further, the measure authorizes urban lot splits, without any local discretionary public hearing or review iii—including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)iv, as follows: • Single-Family Residential Zones: Permits the division, partial or full tear down of an existing single-family home to create two separate residential units, eligible to be sold separatelyv. Since the measure also operates in conjunction with ADU law, it will allow at least two more units to be built on the parcel without public review. All local ordinances vi that would physically preclude construction of the two units cannot be enforced. ADU law has separate authority enabling the construction of additional units. Parking is limited to one space per unitvii, and must be eliminated entirely if within one-half mile of transit or if there is a car share vehicle within one block. • Urban Parcel Splits: Permits urban lot splits in residential zones to create two new viii parcels no smaller than 1,200 square feet, provided that one parcel shall not be less than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision ix. Prohibits the application of local requirements that would physically preclude the construction of two units to be built on each split lot x. Authorizes a local government to impose a one-year owner occupancy requirement to utilize the lot-split provision. However, as drafted there is a sunset date which eliminates the owner-occupancy provision in five yearsxi. Note: This is the only sunset provision in the measure. • Area Limitations: Parcels must be located in a US Census designated urban area or urban cluster xii. Parcels within the Coastal Zone are also included xiii. Limitations apply for hazardous waste sites, land designated for conservation, or within a historic district, as those various terms are defined. If a parcel is located in an earthquake fault zone, floodplain or regulatory floodway, the development shall be constructed in compliance with applicable state and local requirements. • High Fire Hazard Zones: Units can be built under SB 9 within a fire hazard zone if they comply with state fire hazard mitigation measures and applicable building standards xiv. • Parcel Occupancy Limitations: The development cannot affect units occupied by a tenant within the prior three years xv, units subject to local rent control, units that have been withdrawn (Ellis Act) from rental housing within the prior 15 years, or units restricted by covenant for low- and moderate-income households. • Single-Family Home Demolishing: A single family home may be demolished entirely if a tenant has not lived in the home during the prior three years, otherwise only 25 percent may be demolished, unless a greater percentage is allowed by local ordinance. 508 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com • Setbacks: Provides that local building setbacks cannot be greater than what is applied to an existing structure and requires those same setbacks to be applied to a structure constructed in the same location and the same dimension as the existing structure xvi. Related conditions include: o Stipulates that a proposal shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures that meeting building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow a separate conveyancexvii. o Permits local governments to require four-foot setbacks from the rear and side lot lines in other circumstances xviii. o Requires units that are proposed to be connected to an on-site waste treatment system to have a percolation test completed within the prior five years, or if percolation has been recertified, within 10 years. • Parking: Authorizes a local agency to require parking of one space per unit, but prohibits a parking requirement if: o The project is within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit stop, as defined xix. o There is a car-share vehicle xx located within one block of the parcel. • Zoning: Authorizes the proposed development to comply with local “objective” zoning, subdivision and design standards, but states that such standards cannot have the effect of precluding xxi the development of two units. Defines these terms to mean standards that are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion and involve no personal and subjective judgement by a public official. Stipulates that local agency shall require that any units constructed under this provision that are to be rented shall be for a term longer than 30 days. (Avoids vacation rentals)xxii o Prohibits a local agency from being required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels where an applicant constructs units in compliance with this section and also subdivides the lot into two separate parcels.xxiii o Authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions but stipulates that the adoption of the ordinance shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).xxiv Comments: 1) Voters Deserve a Voice on Proposed Elimination of Single-Family Zoning: It is difficult to conceive of a more aggressive law the Legislature could attempt to pass affecting the nearly seven million California homeowners who have scrimped and saved to acquire and maintain their piece of the California Dream, a single-family home. The Legislature should not leap to the enactment of a sweeping statewide law without the proper reflection, due diligence and true public transparency on what such a proposal really means for millions of Californians and the state’s future economy. SB 9 deserves much more public sunshine than is permitted in the COVID-impacted Legislature where public transparency and access has become even more limited. Enacting such a law without broader transparency and consultation with the voters would be reckless. The origin of this bill supposedly is based on recent experiments in Minneapolis and Oregon. A primary narrative being used in support of this measure is centered around the characterization that all single-family home development is derived from racially motivated biases that tie back to the abhorrent practice of “redlining” tactics. Polarizing and divisive messaging such as this often overshadows the rationale policy-based arguments being expressed by local agencies. If such a proposal has merit, then all affected Californian’s 509 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com deserve an opportunity to fully understand it and weigh in via an advisory ballot measure put to the voters in November 2022. 2) Inequitable Impacts: A March 2021 nationwide study found that the share of single- family rentals owned by institutional investors rose to 24.5% in 2015 from 17.3% in 2001. Combined across all housing types, institutional investors now own a majority (52%) of the country’s 47.5 million rental units and their share has been growing xxv. It is likely that the disruption caused by SB 9 will have inequitable impacts depending on wealth. Flipping homes to duplexes and splitting parcels down to 1,200 square feet are likely to affect middle/low-income neighborhoods and homeowners more than wealthier individuals— creating more market rate rental units and less new home ownership opportunities. 3) Lack of Due Process and Transparency: Much is made in the Legislature of the value of public engagement and transparency when local governments make decisions. Local officials must comply with rigorous transparency requirements under the Brown Act. The benefits of CEQA are also strongly defended, to ensure that both the public and decision makers are fully informed and have the opportunity to mitigate environmental impacts. Yet, SB 9 discards public transparency and environmental principles. Without any due process for those affected, including an opportunity for local hearings, community input, or even compliance with CEQA, the Legislature will allow most single-family neighborhoods to become the target of “buy, flip and split” speculators who are free to demolish homes and replace them with units jammed up against four-foot setbacks, with little to no parking, while avoiding compliance with local laws and ordinances that apply to others. It is inequitable to upend single family zoning and destabilize existing neighborhoods without adequate due process to those locally affected. 4) What about New Subdivisions, and State Policy to Preserve Homeowner Equity? The premise behind SB 9 is to eliminate single family zoning. But then why does SB 9 not specifically address new subdivisions? It is inconsistent to upend existing single-family neighborhoods, while allowing new subdivisions to be created under the one home per parcel model. Developers and home sellers should also be required to disclose whether the provisions of SB 9 apply to a neighborhood. State housing policies that mention single- family homes in a positive way, would also need to be revised or repealed, such as Section 50007 (HSC) : The Legislature finds and declares that the large equities that the majority of California residents in most economic strata have now accumulated in single-family homes must be protected and conserved.” 5) Upends State Housing Element Planning: The state already has numerous housing laws in place that ensure that the California’s housing needs are incorporated into local plans, via local zoning. Recent changes in laws governing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have drastically increased housing allocations in the 6th Cycle to most communities. Local housing plans (elements), in turn, must be approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Over 98 percent of cities and counties have obtained such approvals, and the state recently significantly strengthened enforcement provisions to ensure full accountability. The expanded zoning of single- family parcels in SB 9 is completely disconnected from the local housing element planning process. Uncoordinated development will create strains on local infrastructure, impact response times, and create distrust among the public in the validity of local housing plans. 6) Destabilizing Economic Impacts: The purchase of a home is typically an individual’s largest investment. Establishing a state policy that permits 4-6 multi-unit development on 510 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com adjacent single-family parcels with no public process will destabilize single-family neighborhoods. Developers focused on market opportunities will out-bid average families and drive-up prices in desired areas. Those families concerned about protecting the value of their investment, and/or seeking to obtain/preserve the traditional benefits of single- family neighborhoods (less noise, traffic, etc.) will opt to move to more rural settings exempt from SB 9—contributing to additional sprawl--or add to economic and social divisions by increasing demand for living in homeowner’s associations where such activities would be prohibited via CC&R’s. Business location and retention decisions may be affected as well, since local quality-of-life for those making the decision is a major factor. 7) Governor’s Position on SB 9 Will Likely Determine Outcome: Governor Newsom holds the power on this measure. Last year, SB 1120, a virtually identical bill, made it all the way through the Legislature. It passed both the Senate and the Assembly, and only stalled from being taken up on the last night of session because of a midnight procedural deadline had passed. SB 9 is authored by the Senate Pro Tem Atkins; it already made it through the Legislature once, as SB 1120, and is anticipated to do so again. That means the fate of this measure will likely come down to a decision by Governor Newsom. While the Governor clearly supports additional housing production, he has opted–so far--to do so in a measured way, by increasing accountability for cities and counties to adopt state approved housing element plans and allocating billions in state funding to address homelessness and support affordable housing development. In his most recent budget proposal, he also proposed a special unit at the Department of Housing and Community Development to monitor local housing activities. Furthermore, the Governor has already addressed this policy issue area by signing (AB 725 (Wicks), Ch. 193 of 2020) which requires metropolitan jurisdictions to zone for at least 25 percent of allocated units for moderate and above moderate-income housing on parcels allowing at least four units in the next (7th) RHNA Cycle, which allows for such requirement to be incorporated into local planning. Moreover, the Governor’s own life choices support the referral of the SB 9 proposal for an advisory vote by California voters. When Governor Newsom was inaugurated, he opted to purchase a single-family home on several acres in the suburbs, reported to be the most expensive home ever sold within the region, rather than living in the Governor’s mansion in downtown Sacramento. California voters deserve a similar opportunity to decide whether they want to continue to have the opportunity to achieve and maintain benefits of single-family home and associated quality of life for their own families. Citations and Additional Comments i US Census data indicates there are nearly 6.9 million detached homes in California. State and local historic zones are proposed to be exempted, but most other limitations are of relatively minor impact to the massive and sweeping scope of this bill. This ** Dan Carrigg is a Senior Policy Advisor with the Renne Public Policy Group. As the retired Deputy Executive and Legislative Director with the League of California Cities, Carrigg brings a wealth of experience to the firm in legislative analysis, policy development, strategy, and advocacy on a wide range of issues affecting local government. His expertise in California housing and land use policy is truly unmatched—having spent nearly 30 years as a land use legislative advocate and former Assembly Housing and Community Development Policy Committee Consultant. 511 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com measure is silent on how/if it applies to homes within common interest developments, or homeowner’s associations, where development is tightly regulated by codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R’s) that are agreed to by contract and administered by local association boards under the Davis-Stirling Act. California homeowners can take little comfort in the reliability of any potential exceptions in this bill. The Legislature’s objective of eliminating single-family zoning statewide is clear, so this law can be expected to be amended in the future to further its intent. The passage of multiple bills in recent years to expand ADU laws are an example of how the Legislature can be expected to quickly widen this law once it is established. ii While the bill continues to be represented as allowing a total of four units, the language fails to clearly impose such a cap, and does not recognize scenarios when more than one unit may already be on a parcel prior to using SB 9. All of these issues could be addressed with language added to SB 9 that clarified a hard cap of four units. Here are several scenarios where more than four units could be created on a parcel: 1) Getting to 5 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and a JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU laws), then seeks a lot split to build two more units under SB 9 Sec. 66411.7. Nothing in Sec. 66411.7 appears to prohibit a developer from building two more units as part of a lot split. The language in Sec. 65852.21 does not apply because in this case the developer did not apply to split the SF home into a duplex. 2) Getting to 6 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU laws), then uses SB 9 to split the SF home into a duplex. So far, so good. This would be a total of 4 units on the parcel. As this bill is represented, that would be it, and the lot-split section should not be used. But where in the bill is that clear? A close reading of the language does not appear to prohibit the developer from also applying for a lot spilt and building two more units. A weakness in the language referencing ADU’s in Sec. 65852.21 (e) is that it only appears to contemplate a developer proposing ADUs in concert with an application under SB 9. The language states that a local agency “shall not be required to permit…” ADUs if both sections in SB 9 are used. But what if the ADUs were previously approved several years earlier and are already on the parcel? This is a problem created by not having a hard cap of four units in the bill. Since all such interpretations are ministerial, disputes over vague language will have to be settled in court. 3) Duplex and ADU/JADU Wildcard: Because there is not a hard cap of four units in SB 9, another scenario presents itself involving interpretations of ADU/JADU Law and duplexes. A developer buys a SF home and applies to convert it into a duplex under SB 9. Each duplex unit under SB 9 is eligible to be separately sold. So…how will ADU and JADU law be interpreted to apply to each individual duplex unit? This is not clear either in the law or in SB 9. If ADU and JADU law interpreted to allow for two units for each unit in a duplex, then that would be another way to get to six units. Under this scenario, however, SB 9 (Sec. 65852.2 (e)) does appear to prohibit adding both ADUs and using the lot split section. All this confusion could be addressed with amendments imposing a hard 4-unit cap. iii SB 9 prohibits local agencies from requiring the dedication of a right of way to a newly created parcel created in a backyard. Easements for public services and facilities, or access to a public right of way may be required. Presumably, for a parcel with no access to the street, the residents would park on the street and cross the front parcel on a path along the property line. Section 66411.7 (a) (3) (A) in SB 9, limits lot splits to parcels within single-family zones. iv It is hard to imagine a bigger CEQA exemption than proposed by SB 9. If a city or county proposed such zoning changes locally CEQA analysis would apply. SB 9 is designed to work around environmental analysis by dictating specific zoning criteria in state statute and requiring locals to approve applications “ministerially” without public review. Thus, the state Legislature is avoiding environmental reviews in a proposal that rezones virtually all of the single-family lots in the state v It is not legally necessary to formally divide the parcel to create two units. Condominiums or townhouses could be created that can be sold separately. It is unclear how ADU/JADU law will be applied in this circumstance. vi Many local ordinances that can be ignored by developers under this law can result in significant environmental and community impacts. Applying such an edict statewide with no understanding of the myriad of conditions that may apply to an individual existing parcel makes no sense. For example, some communities have ordinances seeking to preserve heritage trees, maintain views, or allow space for a community bike path. SB 9 preempts the application of such any such ordinances that physically preclude the development of units. viii SB 9 has been represented and understood as allowing for an existing single-family parcel to be split to allow one new parcel where two units can be built. The problem is, however, that the language does not quite say that. Sec. 66411.7 (a) (1) says: “ The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create “two new parcels” …provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.” In the following paragraph (2) it refers to “both newly created parcels.” This language leaves room for a future dispute over whether a developer could maintain that a total of three parcels can be created: the existing/original parcel, plus two new parcels. This language should be tightened up. ix Major social equity issues are raised with this provision. 1,200 square foot parcels are shockingly small, and will be further limited by four-foot setbacks for ingress and fire access. This will result in units crammed together with no green space, areas for children to play and certainly no parking. This small square footage will likely have the most impact in poorer 512 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com neighborhoods with small lots that are already densely developed. Executive homes on larger parcels, however, will be less impacted. For instance, a half-acre parcel that is split would have more room for greenspace and parking. x SB 9 prohibits a lot that has been split pursuant to its provisions from being split again. It also prohibits an owner of a parcel, or, and any person acting in concert with the owner, to split adjacent lots. These provisions are of no comfort to those concerned about retaining neighborhood integrity. Unlike a local city or county, the Legislature is removed from any direct implications from what this bill actually means to a neighborhood or a homeowner. If SB 9 is allowing parcels as small as 1,200 square feet, why wouldn’t legislators entertain changes next year to this provision on behalf of developers who have their eyes on larger lots? Also, for those who think that 1,200 square feet is a minimum, consider that SB 9 requires locals to allow two 800 sq. ft. units on that lot. Also, the limitation on a developer splitting adjacent lots enables multiple work arounds for savvy investors and attorneys who can maintain separate ownership of adjacent parcels, and nothing stops an investor or development corporation from freely targeting every other parcel on a block for this activity. The prohibition in the bill on converting properties that are/have been occupied by tenants within three years, will focus investor attention on acquiring owner-occupied properties to convert into rentals, thus accelerating the conversion of a neighborhood from ownership to rental housing. xi The homeownership provision is touted as an improvement on the bill from last year’s version, but such a provision is of little value since it sunsets on January 1, 2027, while the law itself has no such sunset date. Savvy investors can simply buy a desired property, build a duplex and wait-out this short timeline before applying for a lot split. xii This exception will increase demand for living on rural parcels outside of these urban census tracts and contribute to further sprawl. Those that have more resources will likely pay a premium to live on parcels not subject to the uncertainties of SB 9. Realtors will likely have to disclose whether a property is within an SB 9 zone. xiii It is surprising that the Coastal Act is included in this bill. How this measure interacts with the application of the Coastal Act, approved by the voters, deserves additional examination. xiv At a time of increasing wildfire dangers, this provision makes little policy sense. Fire hazard areas often have narrow roads with limited ingress and egress. Allowing between four to six units on parcels in these areas with limited parking may impede equipment access and increase public safety hazards. Here is the cross-referenced language: “Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” xv This limitation is of minor relevance. The economic potential offered by SB 9, far exceeds the impacts of purchasing a desired property and living in for several years, while plans to develop it are prepared. Still given the delay, developers will likely avoid a rental occupied home in a neighborhood and focus on owner-occupied homes, which will accelerate the conversion of a neighborhood to rental properties. xvi This allows for the full teardown, including the garage. xvii “Conveyance” in real estate terminology means “sale.” xviii This allows the entire back half of the property to be used without any open space, other than walking paths. This also will create privacy issues when windows look onto adjoining properties, or other disputes when building remove heritage trees and block views. xix Corridor with bus service at 15 minute intervals during peak commute hours, and includes existing rail or bus transit stations, ferry terminals served by bus or rail transit, or major transit stops included in regional transportation plan. These distances bear no real correlation with reality. Most residents living in units subject to SB 9 will have cars. Most Californian’s need cars to get to work, take children to school, shop, visit doctor’s offices etc. In most areas of California, outside of urban core areas, transit is insufficient for the variety of most needs. Many also consider transit to be unsafe, and (more recently with COVID) unhealthy. xx This reference in the bill only mentions a “car share vehicle” within one block but does not mention a car share parking space. A clever developer could park a car share vehicle permanently on the property, or on the street in front of it, and argue that no other parking is required. xxi There is no way of fulling knowing what this exemption from applicable local ordinances really means. Such an exemption means that the laws of a community will apply unequally. For instance, a family that wants to add more room to an existing house cannot do so because of a view ordinance, but a developer who buys the property next door is free to use SB 9 to split the lot and put multiple units on the property blocking the views of others in violation of the ordinance. How is this equitable? xxii Likely difficult to enforce with numerous tenants inhabiting properties. xxiii Footnotes 2 describes ways this can be worked around. xxivLocals are provided little real authority in this measure. No doubt, they will be heavily blamed by residents for the widespread impacts of SB 9 and the absence of any due process for those affected. 513 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com xxv Myklebust et al. Cashing in on Our Homes: Billionaire Landlords Profit as Millions Face Eviction (Mar. 2021) Bargaining for the Common Good; Institute for Policy Studies; Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund https://ips-dc.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/03/Cashing-in-on-Our-Homes-FINAL-revised.pdf (as of Aug. 5, 2021) at p. 7 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 Agenda Item No.: 11.A Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:REPORT BY THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE ON THE DECEMBER 15, 2021 COMMITTEE MEETING; APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD A SECOND COMMUNAL BIN EVENT PROPOSED FOR JANUARY 24, 2022 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2022; AND APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: At the Fire Fuel Committee meeting on December 15, 2021, the Committee reviewed the locations and dates for the second communal bin event. The Committee also reviewed proposals from interested parties to review the draft vegetation management in the canyon ordinance and to provide educational workshops in the community to showcase appropriate vegetation management measures in the canyons. The Committee recommended to the City Council to engage the services of Wildland Resource Management. The Committee spent most of the meeting deliberating on the two hour public comments received at the November 17, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting. The comments were related to the draft vegetation management in canyon ordinance. To systematically process the community input, the Committee decided to divide the comments into five categories: (1) applicability, (2) environmental, (3) appropriate standards for mitigation, (4) cost, and (5) mandatory versus voluntary. The Committee will continue deliberation at the next meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:30pm. DISCUSSION: The following summarizes the Committee's focus on the draft vegetation management in the canyon ordinance from the December 15, 2021 meeting: Vegetation near a structure on an adjacent property, clarifying which resident has responsibility to a canyon. Applicability of canyon management on a property, determining how far into the canyon 548 residents need to reduce fuel and what the slope should be. Environmental concerns and regulations, which is determining CEQA regulations, types of vegetation species, wildlife habitat, etc. Costs to residents for performing canyon management City Council consideration of using technology use for wildfire detection Defining appropriate measurement for mitigation: Considering whether to use tons per acre, distance/space between mitigation and the development of other standards FISCAL IMPACT: Costs for Wildland Resource Management Assistance with Ordinance Development- $7,500 Canyon Management Education and home inspections $13,690 GRAND TOTAL $21,930.00 There is available budget in Emergency Preparedness account if the City Council decided to engage Wildland Resource Management for services. The communal bin event will be provided by Republic Services via the franchise agreement, at no extra charge to the city. RECOMMENDATION: Receive report, consider Committee's recommendations and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: Agenda FF Committee Meeting 12.15.21.pdf Proposal from Wildland Res Mgt-City of RH.pdf Communal Bin 1st Event & 2nd Event Placement.pdf 549 1.PARTICIPANTS 2.ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 2.A.RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL REPORT ON THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE'S PREVIOUS EVALUATION OF STORMHILL PARK WITH RESPECT TO FIRE FUEL REMOVAL. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file verbal report. 2.B.REVIEW AND APPROVE LOCATIONS FOR THE NEXT COMMUNAL BINS EVENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, 2021 TO JANUARY 31, 2021. RECOMMENDATION: Review and approve communal bin locations. 2.C.CONSIDER ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO ASSIST WITH REVIEW OF DRAFT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYON ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PROPER WAYS TO MANAGE VEGETATION IN THE CANYONS. RECOMMENDATION: Engage Wildland Resource Management for services. 2.D.DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED AT THE NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING ON THE DRAFT VEGETATION ORDINANCE FOR 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 AGENDA Special Fire Fuel Management Committee Meeting FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 15, 2021 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6:30 PM Executive Order All Committee members will participate in-person wearing masks per Los Angeles County Health Department's Health Officer Order effective Saturday, July 17, 2021. The meeting agenda and live audio will be available on the City’s website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php Members of the public may come in to City Hall wearing masks, per the new Health Officer's Order. Zoom teleconference will not be available for this meeting, but members of the public can 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. Communal Bin 1st Event & 2nd Event Placement.pdf Proposal from Wildland Res Mgt-City of RH.pdf 1550 CANYON MANAGEMENT AND FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction to staff 2.E.CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL MEETING AND SET THE NEXT MEETING DATE. RECOMMENDATION: Consider agenda items and set next meeting date. 3.COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN BY EMAIL IN REAL TIME - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 4.ADJOURNMENT 2021-11-17-FFCommitteeStaffReport.pdf FF_Meeting_11.17.21-_Fire_Fuel_Management_Draft_Ordinance.pdf Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agendas 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. 2551 Agenda Item No.: 2.A Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL REPORT ON THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE'S PREVIOUS EVALUATION OF STORMHILL PARK WITH RESPECT TO FIRE FUEL REMOVAL. DATE:December 15, 2021 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file verbal report. ATTACHMENTS: 3552 Agenda Item No.: 2.B Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVE LOCATIONS FOR THE NEXT COMMUNAL BINS EVENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, 2021 TO JANUARY 31, 2021. DATE:December 15, 2021 BACKGROUND: During the last fire fuel committee meeting on November 17, 2021, Staff was still in discussion with Republic services for dates of the communal bin event designed to support and motivate residents for vegetation trimming and reduction in the community. During the previous event between August 20, 2021 and August 28, 2021 Republic Services collected a total of 15.64 tons which is equivalent to 31,280 pounds of green waste. The first Phase of these bins were placed at the following locations: 1. Quail Ridge North just north of Crest Road West. 2. On the Corner of Crest Road West and Quail Ridge North adjacent to 1 Crest Road West. 3. On Spur Lane just West of Cinchring Road on Cal Water’s- Water Tank Property 4. On Portuguese Bend Road across the street from 52 Portuguese Bend on the West-side of the street. 5. On Portuguese Bend Road just North of Ranchero on the East-side of the street. DISCUSSION: The City's next scheduled communal bin event will take place Monday January 24, 2022 to Monday January 31, 2022. The bins will be dropped off in the morning and in place by noon on January 24th and picked up Monday the 31st sometime between 8:00am-5:00pm. The plan for placement of the communal bins going forward will be a consistent rotation for the East section, West Section, and Northern sections of the city. The previous phase was conducted in the western section of the city. Staff has already coordinated with RHCA & Republic Services regarding locations for placement of these bins. 4553 This second phase will be placed in the eastern section of the city at the following locations: 1. On Crest Road E. Right before 30 Crest Road on the Eastside of the street 2. On Caballeros Road at the intersection of Crest Road E. on the Eastside of the street 3. On Eastfield at the corner of Open Brand Road (after the mail box of 79/81) after the Stop sign 4. On Eastfield Drive right after the intersection of Chuckwagon Road across the street from 28 Eastfield on the Westside of the street. 5. On Chuckwagon Road next to Upper Willow Spring Trail FISCAL IMPACT: These communal bins were negotiated with Republic Services as a part of the City's franchise agreement with the vendor at no additional cost to the community. RECOMMENDATION: Review and approve communal bin locations. ATTACHMENTS: Communal Bin 1st Event & 2nd Event Placement.pdf 5554 COMMUNAL BIN EVENTS 8/20/2021 - 8/28/2021 & 1/24/2022- 1/31/2022 Red Pin 2021: Quail Ridge North just north of Crest Road West Blue Pin 2021: On the Corner of Crest Road West and Quail Ridge North adjacent to 1 Crest Road West. Green Pin 2021: On Spur Lane just West of Cinchring Road on Cal Water’s- Water Tank Property Yellow Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road across the street from 52 Portuguese Bend on the West-side of the street. Purple Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road just North of Ranchero on the East-side of the street Red Diamond 2022: On Caballeros Road at the intersection of Crest Road E. on the Eastside of the street Blue Diamond 2022: On Crest Road E. Right before 30 Crest Road on the Eastside of the street Green Diamond 2022: On Eastfield at the corner of Open Brand Road (after the mail box of 79/81) after the Stop sign Yellow Diamond 2022: On Eastfield Drive right after the intersection of Chuckwagon Road across the street from 28 Eastfield on the Westside of the street. Purple Diamond 2022: On Chuckwagon Road next to Upper Willow Spring Trail 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 6555 Agenda Item No.: 2.C Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDER ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO ASSIST WITH REVIEW OF DRAFT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYON ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PROPER WAYS TO MANAGE VEGETATION IN THE CANYONS. DATE:December 15, 2021 BACKGROUND: In May and June 2021 the Fire Fuel Committee considered the 11 prioritized canyons based on directional winds. These Canyons were considered at risk from wind driven from the southwest and northeast conducted by the Los Angeles Fire Department. Based upon this assessment the community has brought up several issues of concern regarding which canyons to focus on first and the lack of education, proper procedures, safety, and expert opinion. The Fire Fuel Committee requested staff to research potential consultants & fire experts that could assist in supporting the community for education, training, and assessment similar to the hardening the home visits Deputy Forrester Trevor Moore conducts on a monthly basis but specifically for the canyons. DISCUSSION: On August 30, 2021 at the 7th Fire Fuel Committee meeting the Fire Fuel Committee tasked staff with conducting research to find fire experts who could assist in the development of the new vegetation ordinance, potential training, and conducting site visits and education for residents on canyon management. Staff received information from 3 different consultants: Wildfire Planning International, Wildland Resource Management, and Firewise 2000. Fire Wise 2000 Fire Wise 2000 was founded by Retired Forresters and is comprised of a team of certified CEQA land- use consultants and Registered Professional Forresters (RPF). They specialize in the development of Wildland Fire Protection Plans for residential and commercial properties in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). 7556 Wildfire Planning International Wildfire Planning International helps communities find creative ways to address their wildfire risk in the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) through land use planning tools and strategies. They conduct master plans to perform community hazard and risk assessments providing insight into questions about evacuations, species of risk, topography, and providing tips and resources to help implement risk reduction activities. Wildland Resource Management (Carol Rice) & Retired Forester Jay Lopez Wildland Resource Management & Retired Forester Jay Lopez plan to provide services by assistance with expertise knowledge of what constitutes a nuisance based upon fire science standards, CEQA procedures, and local regulations. For Canyon Management they plan to conduct research on canyons to develop BMPs (Best Management Practices) that will generate a curriculum to perform site visits/home inspections and train staff if needed for enforcement. Lastly, they will provide spot check inspections for any changes to the scope of work or environment that require updates for new evaluation and evaluation materials. Firewise 2000 was not able to construct a specific cost estimate based on scope of work for this project and did not have the capacity to take on the scope of work presented and requires a site visit to provide a cost estimate. They will be available to conduct a site visit and have better availability starting January 2022. Wildfire Planning International also did not have the capacity based on current project commitments to provide all necessary scope of work the committee has requested but they were willing to provide services for site visits/education for residents and staff training. For projects they have performed previously, similar to what the city is requesting they have estimates of between $10,000-30,000. This estimate is dependent upon whether a site visit is required to look at existing conditions, how much initial content is required for drafting, and if a final in-person presentation is requested during the final presentation/adoption phase. Wildland Resource Management is willing to provide services on all scope of work required and is still forming a more specific cost estimate that reflects site visits for residents on an as needed basis. FISCAL IMPACT: Assistance with Ordinance Development- $7,500 Canyon Management Education and home inspections $13,690 GRAND TOTAL $21,930.00 Wildland Resource Management is removing the $740 charge and adding cost on a per visit basis for resident property inspection for canyons. (Please see the attachment with the cost estimates for reviewal of the $740 charge) RECOMMENDATION: Engage Wildland Resource Management for services. ATTACHMENTS: Proposal from Wildland Res Mgt-City of RH.pdf 8557 1 Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737 316 California Ave. #68, Reno NV 89509 carollrice@aol.com November 5, 2021 Ashford Ball Senior Management Analyst 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Sent via email to aball@cityofrh.net Dear Mr. Ball: Thank you for this opportunity to submit a proposal for services that advance the wildland fire safety of the City of Rolling Hills. I appreciate the background provided from our virtual meetings and telephone conversations that builds a foundation of this proposal. The services will focus on two different types of activities. The first is to guide code and ordinance development, primarily to assist the determination of what constitutes a nuisance. Tasks would include the description of a nuisance in terms of fuel volume, or arrangement of type (include possibly plant species). For this activity we propose an arrangement based on responding to the questions of the city and offering clarification and guidance. The need for clarification regarding CEQA can also be anticipated. Because of the uncertainty involved in this activity, an arrangement based on time and materials (with a set not-to-exceed ceiling of $7,500) makes the most sense. The second activity would be to offer consultations regarding canyon management. The overall goals would be to (1) provide guidance to the community about best practices and CEQA, (2) conduct canyon evaluations, and (3) train staff regarding how to evaluate the compliance and fuel management of canyons. Based on the tasks associated with site visits, meetings, and consultation, we estimate a cost of $14,430, We would be pleased to expand the description of services and deliverables in following discussions. These services would be provided by Carol Rice, with Wildland Res Mgt and J. Lopez, Los Angeles County Fire Department (retired). Both have been working in the wildland urban interface for decades, and are familiar with the environs and community of the City of Rolling Hills. Both J. and Carol are both natural resource managers and wildland fire managers. Our combined experience enables our ability to offer recommendations that minimize wildland fire hazards and environmental impacts. The initial work can begin in as soon as agreements are reached. On the following pages please find a description of services and costs estimated for each task. Please let me know if adjustments should be made so that we can better support the City of Rolling Hills. Sincerely, Carol L. Rice 9558 2 Task Cost Guide code development Time and Materials, NTE $7,500 Work aimed at determining what constitutes a nuisance E.g., fuel volume, fuel arrangement, species Discussion of CEQA procedure and local regulations Canyon Management Identify/select good example of canyon mgt Site visit to identify/select canyon where lessons can be learned $4,440 Design event and demonstration $740 Assumes City videos and produces youtube product Develop BMPs for canyon management, considering local regulations $1,480 Assumes work doneby other entities, per BMP Develop a checklist for evaluations $2,220 Site visits to inspect 2 canyons, while training others $3,700 Spot check other inspections next year $1,110 Subtotal (Canyon Management only) $14,430 10559 Agenda Item No.: 2.D Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED AT THE NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING ON THE DRAFT VEGETATION ORDINANCE FOR CANYON MANAGEMENT AND FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT. DATE:December 15, 2021 BACKGROUND: The Fire Fuel Committee received nearly two hours of comments on the draft vegetation ordinance for canyon management and fire fuel abatement at the November 17, 2021 meeting. DISCUSSION: The community provided feedback on potential considerations, amendments and the need for a fire expert to review the ordinance. The community spoke on concerns of additional property regulations and expressed that a distance of 500 feet from structures may not stretch into the canyon on all properties. At the November 17, 2021 meeting, the Committee decided to review the public comments and discuss the feedback at the December 15, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The preparation of the draft ordinance by the City Attorney's office is included in the operating budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the public input received and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: 2021-11-17-FFCommitteeStaffReport.pdf FF_Meeting_11.17.21-_Fire_Fuel_Management_Draft_Ordinance.pdf 11560 Agenda Item No.: 2.A Mtg. Date: 11/17/2021 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE DRAFT VEGETATION ORDINANCE FOR CANYON MANAGEMENT AND FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT DATE:November 17, 2021 BACKGROUND: On June 30, 2021 the Fire Fuel Committee discussed ideas regarding mitigating fuel in the canyons after discussing an annual project for long term goals to resolve fire fuel in the canyons. From the discussion the idea of developing a new vegetation ordinance was prompted. At the next Fire Fuel Committee meeting on July 21, 2021 Councilmember Mirsch presented a draft recommendation intended for the City Council about fire fuel reduction in the canyons to discuss with her fellow committee member Mayor Pro Tem Black. The recommendation consisted of the following: Property owners with hazardous levels of vegetation would be given the option of: A) Performing the abatement work themselves, to be completed by the xx/xx/xx date B) Joining a city-lead effort where the city would: - obtain scope of work specifications - obtain bids for entire job (by property) and select the vendor(s) to perform the work - provide the cost of the work to each property owner - determine start date - ensure quality of work meets contractual specifications C) Do nothing If a property owner with hazardous levels of vegetation decides to do nothing, fails to authorize the city to work on their property, fails to remit payment due for remediation work, or does not perform their own abatement work by the specified date, then the property would be declared a nuisance, and the city would begin nuisance abatement process (Chapter 8.24). This process would be one time only, in each of the canyons specified as High Risk by the Fire Dept. Going 12561 forward, all required maintenance will be the total responsibility of the property owner. If unsafe conditions re-occur on the property and a nuisance is declared, the city will begin the nuisance abatement process From this recommendation Staff was then given direction to assist with the development of the ordinance before presentation to City Council. At the August 30, 2021 Fire Fuel meeting the Committee discussed defining a nuisance and amendments to the current dead vegetation ordinance. City staff and Councilmember Mirsch met with legal counsel on September 2, 2021. City staff, legal counsel, and Councilmember Mirsch discussed development of the ordinance and the details involved to construct it. On September 13, 2021 at the City Council meeting the Fire Fuel Committee presented a report from the August 30, 2021 Fire Fuel Committee meeting regarding the recent work the fire fuel committee had performed thus far and the Council provided feedback. The feedback from the City Council was discussed during the September 29, 2021 Fire Fuel meeting. The feedback and details from this meeting lead to more research which resulted in a meeting with the Fire Department and Sheriff's department on November 4, 2021 to talk about more specifics for the draft ordinance. DISCUSSION: The City Attorney’s office drafted the ordinance and the ordinance was provided to Los Angeles Fire Department Acting Assistant Chief for review and comment on Friday, October 29, 2021. The Assistant Chief circulated the draft ordinance to the Forestry Division and the Forestry Division provided feedback. The feedback is summarized as follows: • Defensible space is an area where firefighters may safely operate and may extend to 200 feet from structures. • Areas beyond 200 feet from structures should not be characterized as defensive space. • Defensible space is focused primarily on structure survival and does not identify distances for personnel safety. • Defensible space of 200 feet is the standard for LA County and this is clear is the Fire Code. • Fuel treatment beyond 200 feet should not be called defensible space; it could be called habitat enhancement, invasive species removal or visual quality improvement. Defensible space should always be related to structures, fire access and firefighter safety. During the November 10, 2021 Fire Fuel meeting Staff reported to the committee that the ordinance was being reviewed by the Fire Department and that staff may have a draft ready by next week to present to the Fire Fuel Committee. The Committed received and filed the report. The Fire Department also noted that they will not be enforcing defensible space beyond 200 feet from structures. The City Attorney’s office provided an updated version of the draft ordinance on Friday, November 12, 2021. Updates were made to areas that the City Attorney’s office was still researching from the initial draft. Today the committee will discuss the the purpose and details of the draft ordinance to decide whether they will make a recommendation to City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: None. 13562 RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and Consider the draft vegetation ordinance to make recommendation to City Council. ATTACHMENTS: FF Meeting 11.17.21- Fire Fuel Management Draft Ordinance.DOCX 14563 - 1 - EXHIBIT A Chapter 8.30 Abatement and Management of Certain Vegetation and Waste Matter Section 8.30.010 Purpose and Intent Section 8.30.020 Definitions Section 8.30.030 Minimum General Requirements for Parcel Maintenance Section 8.30.040 Creating Additional Defensible Space Section 8.30.050 Increased and Decreased Defensible Space Section 8.30.060 Defensible Space Near Adjacent Property Improvements Section 8.30.070 Fire Extinguishers Section 8.30.080 Grading Section 8.30.090 Exemptions Section 8.30.100 Violation Section 8.30.010 Purpose and Intent A.Uncontrolledwildfires pose a seriousthreat to the health, welfare, and safety of the City of Rolling Hills residents and their animals and property. B.The City is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is almost an entirely residential community of large one+ acre parcels. It is characterized by California ranch style homes and an abundance of equestrian facilities. Early landscaping on these large parcels matured, rendering the City a heavily wooded setting. C.The City values the wooded setting and recognizes the benefits that vegetation offers to the community, such as maintaining soil stability, fostering wildlife, and providing shade and privacy. The City also recognizes the inherent danger in allowing such vegetation to grow unchecked without maintenance recommended by fire officials and experts based on the unique characteristics of the City and environmental changes, which have resulted in hotter and dryer weather. D.The topography of the City also increases the risk of fire transmission. The City contains canyons and steep slopes, which influence how fires behave. Canyons provide narrow openings that accelerate winds, making fires spread more quickly and easily. Further, when a fire ignites at the bottom of a steep slope, it spreads more quickly upwards because it can preheat the upcoming fuels with rising hot air. E.The City Council has taken action to address this threat of uncontrolled wildfires through the adoption of the Fire Fuel Abatement Ordinance in Chapter 8.30 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which prohibits the maintenance of dead and alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds, and other plants. F.Despite these efforts, the accumulationof other flammable vegetation within the City continues to endanger the lives of the residents, animals, and property. G.The California Legislature has found and declared that site and structure defensibility is essential to reduce the risk of structure ignition and for effective fire suppression 15564 - 2 - by firefighters. (California Government (“Gov.”) Code Section 51189.) California law currently requires property owners and others in control of property in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of a structure. (Gov. Code Section 51182.) California law also authorizes local agencies to require a greater distance than 100 feet of defensible space. (Gov. Code Section 51182.) California allows local agencies to declare a violation as a public nuisance, cause correction of violations to be made when a property owner fails to correct the condition causing the violation, and record a lien against the property to cover the expenses incurred in correcting the violation itself. (Gov. Code Sections 51187 and 51186.) H.The County of Los Angeles Fire Code, which the City of Rolling Hills adopts by reference, requires property owners and others in control of property in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to maintain such defensible space. (See Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 4907.1; Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.010.) It further authorizes a fire code official to notify all property owners of extra hazardous conditions which require removal of flammable vegetation up to 200 feet from any structure or building. (Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 325.2.2.) Due to the extra hazardous conditions within the City, the Los Angeles County Fire Department currently enforces a defensible space of up to 200 feet from any structure or building within the City. I.Due to the conditions described above and the City’s large lots, additional defensible space is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of flame or heat transmission sufficient to ignite structures and buildings within the City. Requiring an expanded defensible space around improvements within the City from 200 feet to 500 feet of any improvement will ultimately protect the City’s valued wooded setting, increase community safety, and give fire suppression personnel sufficient area to conduct operations in the event of a wildfire. J.This Chapter will allow for public nuisance abatement when property owners allow flammable vegetation to accumulate in violation of this Chapter. Section 8.30.020 Definitions The following words and phrases, for the purposes of this chapter, are defined as follows: “Flammable Vegetation” shall mean material that in its natural state will readily ignite (i.e., burn and transmit fire from native or landscape plants to any Improvement or other vegetation). Flammable Vegetation includes the following plants or vegetation: 1.Dead and dry grass, brush, Weeds, and leaf litter, dead and dying trees, and other flammable vegetation that endanger public safety by creating a Fire Hazard in any portion of the City. 2.Sagebrush, chaparral, and any other brush or vegetation, which attain such large growth so as to become, when dry, a fire menace upon premises or to adjacent property. 3.Plants and vegetation otherwise considered a Noxious Weed or dangerous, including, but not limited to, oleander, castor bean, and poison oak and poison ivy. 16565 - 3 - 4.Trees, if determined to increase the Fire Hazard due to mortality, insect infestation, disease, or lack of maintenance. 5.Dead and dying groves and forests. 6.Palm trees and all palm fronds with older leaves that persist on the tree, forming a “skirt” of brown thatch. 7.Any other vegetation that in its natural state will readily ignite as determined by the Fire Chief or his or her designee. “Combustible Mulch” shall mean any layer of material applied to the surface of soil that will, in its natural state, ignite, burn, or be capable of transmitting fire to landscape or to any Improvement. Combustible Mulch shall include, but not be limited to, the following as defined: 1.“Composted Mulch” is defined as screened or refined composted wood chips and other organic materials. 2.“Chipped or Shredded Vegetation Waste, Wood Products, Bark, and Nugget Mulch” shall mean coarsely chipped or shredded organic materials that have been recently produced and have not undergone the composting process. Examples include chipped or shredded vegetation waste and wood products, logging waste, bark or wood nuggets, and needles. 3.“Rubber Mulch” shall mean chipped or shredded mulch coming from 100 percent recycled rubber. “Dying or Diseased Trees” shall mean pest or pathogen infested trees, abandoned or neglected groves, and other trees which are in a dying condition. “Defensible Space” shall mean an area, either natural or man-made, where material capable of allowing a fire to spread unchecked has been abated, treated, removed, or modified to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire. “Fire Hazard” shall mean any condition or conduct which, in the opinion of the Fire Chief or his or her designee, (a) increases or may increase the threat of fire to a greater degree than customarily recognized as an acceptable condition or conduct by individuals in the public service regularly engaged in preventing, suppressing or extinguishing fire; or (b) may obstruct, delay, hinder, or interfere with the operations of the fire department or the egress of occupants in the event of fire. “Green Waste” includes organic material including but not limited to yard trimmings, plant waste, untreated wood wastes, paper products, natural fiber products, mulch, and compost. “Improvement” shall mean any building or structure, permanent or temporary, erected for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind located in the City. For purposes of this term, "Improvement" shall not include fences or any similar barriers enclosing or separating areas of land. “Noxious Weed” shall mean any species of plant that is, or is liable to be, troublesome, aggressive, intrusive, detrimental, or destructive to agriculture, silviculture, or important native 17566 - 4 - species, and difficult to control or eradicate, as defined in Section 5004 of the California Food and Agricultural Code. “Parcel” shall mean any contiguous quantity of land in the possession of, owned by, or recorded as the property of, the same person or entity, and which is located in the jurisdiction of the City. “Responsible Party” includes, but is not limited to, any person, firm, or entity owning, renting, leasing, or otherwise controlling any Parcel located in the City. The responsible parties for a property that is leased or rented by a person or entity other than the owner of the property includes the person or entity who is on record with the County Assessor as the owner of that property. “Weeds” shall mean any vegetation growing upon streets or private property in the City, and may include any of the following, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 14875: 1.Vegetation that bears seeds of a downy or wingy nature; 2.Vegetation that is not pruned or is otherwise neglected so as to attain such large growth as to become, when dry, a fire menace to adjacent improved property; 3.Vegetation that is otherwise noxious or dangerous; 4.Poison oak and poison ivy when the conditions of growth are such as to constitute a menace to the public health; and 5.Dry grass, stubble, brush, or other flammable material which endangers the public safety by creating a Fire Hazard. Section 8.30.030 Minimum General Requirements for Parcel Maintenance A.Dead and alive tumbleweeds and dead trees, shrubs, palm fronds, grasses, or other plants located on any Parcel in the City are prohibited. B.Exception: Slope area approximated to be steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (fifty percept slope). Section 8.30.040 Creating Additional Defensible Space A.In addition to the requirements of Section 8.30.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and the requirements of Section 4907.1 of the Los Angeles County Fire Code, which the City adopts by reference, Responsible Party for Improvements or controlling land adjacent to Improvements, shall at all times maintain an effective additional Defensible Space from two hundred (200) feet to five hundred (500) feet from any Improvement. B.The Defensible Space zone from two hundred (200) feet to five hundred (500) feet from an Improvement shall be subject to the following requirements: 1.Flammable Vegetation must be removed by methods such as uprooting, mowing, disking, thinning and trimming. Mowing is preferred when it is desirable to leave the plant root structure intact to stabilize the soil. 18567 - 5 - 2.Invasive Species.Anynoxiousorinvasiveweedor plantdesignated byaFederal, State, County, or City government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property shall be removed. Due to their flammable characteristics, potential to increase fuel density, and their ability to degrade natural and plantedlandscapes, invasive plants are prohibited. 3.Any Weeds or grasses shall be cut to a height not less than four (4) inches and no more than six (6) inches. This section does not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any Improvement. 4.All trees and shrubs shall be properly maintained free of deadwood, litter, and dying palm fronds. 5.Accumulated leaf litter and any Combustible Mulch may not exceed three (3) inches in depth. 6.Create horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees using the “Fuel Separation” method, the “Continuous Tree Canopy” method, or a combination of both to achieve Defensible Space requirements. Selection of the appropriate method should be done by reference to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s “General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space” (Feb. 8, 2006), incorporated herein by reference. a.The Fuel Separation method is focused on horizontal spacing and accounts for slope as well as type and size of shrubs or trees. For slopes up to 20%, shrubs are to be horizontally separated by a distance equal to two times the height of the shrub and trees should be 10 feet apart measured at the widest part of their canopy. For slopes measuring 20%-40%, shrubs are to be horizontally separated by four times the height of the shrub and trees should be 20 feet apart measured at the widest part of their canopy. For slopes greater than 40%, shrubs are to be horizontally separated by six times the height of the shrub and trees should be 30 feet apart measured at the widest part of their canopy. b.The Continuous Canopy Method eliminates ladder fuels by requiring a minimum vertical clearance of tree branches to 6 feet or 1/3 of the tree height, whichever is less. If shrubs are beneath the tree, the tree branches are to be removed providing clearance of at least three times the height of the shrub. 7.Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) storage tanks shall have the following minimum clearance: ten feet (10 ft.) of clearance to bare mineral soil and no Flammable Vegetation for an additional ten feet (10 ft.) around their exterior. C.Exception: Slope area approximated to be steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (fifty percept slope). Section 8.30.050 Increased and Decreased Defensible Space A.The City Manager or his or her designee may require an increase of Defensible Space due to topographical or geographical concerns. If a Parcel is required to maintain a 19568 - 6 - Defensible Space clearance greater than the required five hundred (500) feet from all Improvements, a notice to abate hazard shall be issued in accordance with Chapter 8.24. B.The City Manager or his or her designee may allow a decrease of Defensible Space to less than the amount required by this Chapter due to topographical or geographical constraints on the Parcel upon a written finding. Section 8.30.060 Defensible Space Near Adjacent Property Improvements No Responsible Party shall permit any accumulation of Flammable Vegetation, Dying or Diseased Trees, Green Waste, or other combustible materials within five hundred (500) feet of Improvements on an adjacent property. Section 8.30.070 Fire Extinguishers Any person conducting brush abatement or mitigation with a mechanical device must have a fire extinguisher directly located on hand when working with dead or dry vegetation. Section 8.30.080 Grading The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to authorize grading which does not comply with the rules of the City. Section 8.30.090 Exemptions This Chapter shall not apply to land or water area acquired or managed for purpose or use of the following: A.Habitat for endangered or threatened species, or any species that is a candidate for listing as an endangered or threatened species by the state or federal government. B.Riparian (stream side) zones or vernal pool depressions as recognized by the state or federal government. Section 8.30.100 Violation Any violation of this Chapter is deemed a public nuisance and shall be abated in compliance with Chapter 8.24. 20569 Agenda Item No.: 2.E Mtg. Date: 12/15/2021 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL MEETING AND SET THE NEXT MEETING DATE. DATE:December 15, 2021 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Consider agenda items and set next meeting date. ATTACHMENTS: 21570 1 Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737 316 California Ave. #68, Reno NV 89509 carollrice@aol.com November 5, 2021 Ashford Ball Senior Management Analyst 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Sent via email to aball@cityofrh.net Dear Mr. Ball: Thank you for this opportunity to submit a proposal for services that advance the wildland fire safety of the City of Rolling Hills. I appreciate the background provided from our virtual meetings and telephone conversations that builds a foundation of this proposal. The services will focus on two different types of activities. The first is to guide code and ordinance development, primarily to assist the determination of what constitutes a nuisance. Tasks would include the description of a nuisance in terms of fuel volume, or arrangement of type (include possibly plant species). For this activity we propose an arrangement based on responding to the questions of the city and offering clarification and guidance. The need for clarification regarding CEQA can also be anticipated. Because of the uncertainty involved in this activity, an arrangement based on time and materials (with a set not-to-exceed ceiling of $7,500) makes the most sense. The second activity would be to offer consultations regarding canyon management. The overall goals would be to (1) provide guidance to the community about best practices and CEQA, (2) conduct canyon evaluations, and (3) train staff regarding how to evaluate the compliance and fuel management of canyons. Based on the tasks associated with site visits, meetings, and consultation, we estimate a cost of $14,430, We would be pleased to expand the description of services and deliverables in following discussions. These services would be provided by Carol Rice, with Wildland Res Mgt and J. Lopez, Los Angeles County Fire Department (retired). Both have been working in the wildland urban interface for decades, and are familiar with the environs and community of the City of Rolling Hills. Both J. and Carol are both natural resource managers and wildland fire managers. Our combined experience enables our ability to offer recommendations that minimize wildland fire hazards and environmental impacts. The initial work can begin in as soon as agreements are reached. On the following pages please find a description of services and costs estimated for each task. Please let me know if adjustments should be made so that we can better support the City of Rolling Hills. Sincerely, Carol L. Rice 571 2 Task Cost Guide code development Time and Materials, NTE $7,500 Work aimed at determining what constitutes a nuisance E.g., fuel volume, fuel arrangement, species Discussion of CEQA procedure and local regulations Canyon Management Identify/select good example of canyon mgt Site visit to identify/select canyon where lessons can be learned $4,440 Design event and demonstration $740 Assumes City videos and produces youtube product Develop BMPs for canyon management, considering local regulations $1,480 Assumes work doneby other entities, per BMP Develop a checklist for evaluations $2,220 Site visits to inspect 2 canyons, while training others $3,700 Spot check other inspections next year $1,110 Subtotal (Canyon Management only) $14,430 572 COMMUNAL BIN EVENTS 8/20/2021 - 8/28/2021 & 1/24/2022- 1/31/2022 Red Pin 2021: Quail Ridge North just north of Crest Road West Blue Pin 2021: On the Corner of Crest Road West and Quail Ridge North adjacent to 1 Crest Road West. Green Pin 2021: On Spur Lane just West of Cinchring Road on Cal Water’s- Water Tank Property Yellow Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road across the street from 52 Portuguese Bend on the West-side of the street. Purple Pin 2021: On Portuguese Bend Road just North of Ranchero on the East-side of the street Red Diamond 2022: On Caballeros Road at the intersection of Crest Road E. on the Eastside of the street Blue Diamond 2022: On Crest Road E. Right before 30 Crest Road on the Eastside of the street Green Diamond 2022: On Eastfield at the corner of Open Brand Road (after the mail box of 79/81) after the Stop sign Yellow Diamond 2022: On Eastfield Drive right after the intersection of Chuckwagon Road across the street from 28 Eastfield on the Westside of the street. Purple Diamond 2022: On Chuckwagon Road next to Upper Willow Spring Trail 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 573 Agenda Item No.: 11.B Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:REVIEW THE ADOPTED COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM AND CONSIDER ADJUSTMENTS PER LATEST CHANGES TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY HEALTH ORDERS (MAYOR PRO TEM BLACK). DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: On June 17, 2021, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) took effect through an executive order signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The ETS required employers to develop and maintain a written COVID-19 Prevention Program that would address the revised standards codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 3205(c). At the direction of the City Manager, the City Attorney drafted a City operations COVID-19 Prevention Program and the City Council adopted the program on July 12, 2021. The adopted program was and continues to be distributed to employees and contractors who work at City Hall. On December 16, the OSHA Board readopted the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention ETS for the second time. These emergency standards include important revisions to make the workplace rules consistent with the latest requirements and recommendations from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The emergency standards take effect on January 14, 2022, and apply to most workers in California not covered by the Aerosol Transmissible Diseases standard. Some important requirements that remain unchanged in the COVID-19 ETS: Employers must establish, implement, and maintain an effective written COVID-19 Prevention Program that includes: o Identifying and evaluating employee exposures to COVID-19 health hazards. o Implementing effective policies and procedures to correct unsafe and unhealthy conditions. o Allowing adequate time for handwashing and cleaning frequently touched surfaces and objects. Employers must provide effective training and instruction to employees on how COVID-19 is spread, infection prevention techniques, and information regarding COVID-19-related benefits 574 that affected employees may be entitled to under applicable federal, state, or local laws. Important revisions to the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards include: Investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases in the workplace Employers must continue to properly notify employees, employee representatives and any other workers at a worksite of possible COVID-19 exposures within one business day. This section was updated to give employers more clear instructions on how to notify workers who were at the same worksite as the COVID-19 case during the high-risk exposure period. Face Coverings Employees who are exempted from wearing a face covering due to a medical or mental health condition, or disability and cannot wear a non-restrictive alternative must physically distance at least six feet from others and either be fully vaccinated or tested at least weekly for COVID-19. Note: The testing must be during paid time and at no cost to the employee. Testing and Exclusion Employers are now required to make COVID-19 testing available at no cost and during paid time to employees who were fully vaccinated before the “close contact” with a COVID-19 case occurred, even if they are asymptomatic. During outbreaks and major outbreaks, employers must now make weekly testing (outbreaks) or twice-weekly testing (major outbreaks) available to asymptomatic fully vaccinated employees in the exposed group Employees who have recently recovered from COVID-19 and those who are fully vaccinated are not required to be excluded from the workplace after “close contact” but must wear a face covering and maintain six feet of physical distancing for 14 calendar days following the last date of contact. Return to Work Criteria The period of time before an employee can return to work after “close contact” or COVID-19 illness has been revised to be consistent with current CDPH guidelines. These time frames will automatically update if CDPH updates their guidelines pursuant to the Governor’s executive order. Definitions “Worksite” now specifically excludes the employee’s personal residence, locations where an employee works alone, and remote work locations chosen by the employee. Definitions revised to be more consistent with federal OSHA, including: o “COVID-19 test” now includes specific instructions for workers using a test at home with self- read results. The employer or a tele-health professional must observe the test results. o “Face coverings” was updated to include more specific detail on the different types of acceptable face coverings. o “Fully vaccinated,” now mentions the minimal amount of time workers need to wait between the first and second shot of a two-dose vaccine. On December 27, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new guidance, shortening the time for isolation and quarantine. On December 29th and 31st, 2021 the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) issued updated best practices for office-based businesses, vaccination recommendations, as well as health orders regarding isolation and quarantine requirements. (See attachments A, B, C & D) 575 On January 5, 2022, the County Health Officer released a new order requiring employers, effective January 17, 2022, to provide and require employees to wear a well-fitted medical grade mask, surgical mask, or higher-level respirator, such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, or KN95 at all times while indoors at the worksite. Also updated to add recent changes to the Cal/OSHA ETS requirements, effective January 14, 2022. (See attachments E, F & G) DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tem Jim Black suggested to have the City Council review the latest CDC guidelines and direct the City Attorney to revise the program language and follow Los Angeles County DPH current guidelines and as modified in the future. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to review the current prevent program or adjusting the provisions of the program to be aligned with current Los Angeles County DPH Health Orders. RECOMMENDATION: Review and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachA_BestPracticesOffices.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachB_HOO_SaferReturnWorkCommunity.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachC_HOO_Coronavirus_Blanket_Isolation.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachD_HOO_Coronavirus_Blanket_Quarantine.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachE_PressRelease_AddMaskin Requirements.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachF_01-05-22_HOO_SaferReturnWorkCommunity.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_AttachG_Continuing_Safety_Measures .pdf 576 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health http://publichealth.lacounty.gov 12/29/21 Best Practices: Offices (English) - 1 - Best Practices to Prevent COVID-19 Guidance for Office-Based Businesses For the latest version of this guidance, please check http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/ncorona2019/BestPractices/Offices/. Given the ongoing increase in community transmission of COVID-19 and the presence of new and emerging variants, a layered approach to prevention that includes masking indoors, full vaccination with a booster dose if eligible, and good ventilation, is essential to slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the community. Per published reports, factors that increase the risk of infection, including transmission to p eople more than 6 feet away, include: • Enclosed spaces with inadequate ventilation or air handling that allow for build-up of exhaled respiratory fluids, especially very fine droplets and aerosol particles, in the air space. • Increased exhalation of respiratory fluids that can occur when an infectious person is engaged in physical exertion or raises their voice (e.g., exercising, shouting, singing). • Prolonged exposure to these conditions. Below is a summary of requirements and best practices for businesses that operate out of offices to enhance safety for their workers, customers, and communities, and lower the risk of COVID-19 transmission within their office-based businesses. In addition to this information, please remember: • Employers must follow the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) and the County Health Officer Order. Please note that the directives in the LA County Health Officer Order must be followed when they are more stringent than the Cal/OSHA temporary standards. Follow mask rules for employees and visitors ✓ Visitors: Require all visitors, regardless of vaccination status to bring and wear masks when they are indoors. Make masks available for those who arrive without them. ✓ Employees*: Require all employees, regardless of vaccination status, to wear masks when working indoors and in shared vehicles. Masks need not be worn indoors if the employee is alone in a room or actively eating or drinking at a seated or stationary location. If employees must eat indoors, they should be distanced at least 6 feet from other persons. ✓ Upon request, employers are required to provide employees who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with the correct-size N95 respirator along with basic instructions on how to use the N95 respirator. Respirators must be replaced if they get damaged, deformed, dirty, or difficult to breathe through. For more information about free and low-cost PPE for businesses and organizations see: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/docs/FreeAndLowCostPPE.pdf. Please be sure to read and follow the general guidance for businesses and employers. The specific best practices below are intended to supplement the general guidance. Updates 12/29/21: Updated to reflect the current state of the pandemic and recommendations related to masking. 577 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health http://publichealth.lacounty.gov 12/29/21 Best Practices: Offices (English) - 2 - Best Practices: Guidance for Office-Based Businesses ✓ Employees who work in a setting where they are in close contact with people who may not be fully vaccinated should be encouraged to wear a higher level of protection, such as “double- masking” (wearing a cloth mask OVER a surgical mask) or an N95 respirator. This is particularly important if the employee is not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and is working in an indoor setting, in a crowded outdoor setting, or in a shared vehicle. ✓ Consider also offering staff eye protection (e.g., a face shield) in addition to a respirator if they are not fully vaccinated and have significant close contact with others who may be unvaccinated. ✓ See the Los Angeles County Health Officer Order and the Cal/OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards page for more information about mask requirements. Please note that the directives in the LA County Health Officer Order must be followed when they are more stringent than the Cal/OSHA ETS. * Some independent contractors are considered as employees under the State Labor Code. For more details, check the California Department of Industrial Relations’ Independent contractor versus employee webpage. Screen customers, vendors, and delivery people ✓ Post signage to remind everyone who enters your establishment that they should NOT enter if they have symptoms of COVID-19 or if they are under isolation or quarantine orders. Reduce crowding, especially indoors ✓ Continue, where feasible, to offer telework options for employees. Given increased community transmission of COVID-19, wherever possible, continue those teleworking arrangements that do not interfere with business operations, particularly for those employees with medical risks. Telework significantly reduces the risk of exposure for employees. ✓ If possible, maintain an outdoor break area for employees so they can take their breaks and eat or drink outdoors. Encourage employees to eat outdoors, alone in a closed office space or distanced by at least 6 feet from others if eating in a shared indoor area. ✓ Remind employees who must eat indoors that when they are actively eating or drinking, they need to be seated at a table, counter, or other stationary location. ✓ Control access to self-service areas, such as beverage service stations, by keeping them closed or limiting access to them as self-service areas encourage employees to congregate and require use of common utensils and dispensers. ✓ Consider use of partitions between cubicles to protect staff who are not fully vaccinated and have frequent close contact with other employees or visitors. Ventilate ✓ Make sure your building’s HVAC system is in good, working order. ✓ Increase ventilation as much as possible. Consider installing portable high-efficiency air cleaners, upgrading the building’s air filters to the highest efficiency possible, and making other modifications to increase the quantity of outside air and ventilation in all working areas. 578 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health http://publichealth.lacounty.gov 12/29/21 Best Practices: Offices (English) - 3 - Best Practices: Guidance for Office-Based Businesses ✓ When weather and working conditions allow, increase fresh outdoor air by opening windows and doors. Consider using fans to increase the effectiveness of open windows - position window fans to blow air outward, not inward. ✓ Decrease occupancy in areas where outdoor ventilation cannot be increased. ✓ See State Interim guidance for Ventilation, Filtration, and Air Quality in Indoor Environments. Support handwashing ✓ Place handwashing stations or hand sanitizer at entry and outside communal bathrooms with signage promoting use. ✓ Encourage frequent handwashing. ✓ Posters in multiple languages that remind people to wash or sanitize their hands and show how to wash their hands are available in the signage section of the Best Practices for Businesses and Employers webpage. Communicate ✓ Post signage so that visitors who are entering your office building are aware of your policies, including the requirement for all visitors and employees to wear a face mask while indoors. ✓ Use your online platforms to communicate your COVID-19 safety policies to the public. 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 Media Contact: media@ph.lacounty.gov - (213) 240-8144 For Immediate Release: January 5, 2022 Public Health Modifies Health Officer Order to Add Additional Masking Requirements for Indoor Employees 26,754 New Positive Cases and 27 New Deaths Due to COVID-19 in Los Angeles County As cases continue to surge as a result of the increased circulation of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, Public Health has modified its Health Officer Order to include additional safety measures to reduce transmission risks knowing that vaccinations alone are not sufficient to prevent spread of Omicron. As soon as possible, but no later than January 17th, employers are required to provide their employees who work indoors in close contact with others with well -fitting medical grade masks, surgical masks, or higher-level respirators, such as N95 or KN95 masks. These upgraded masks are better at blocking virus particles from going through the mask. The new modifications include an alignment with the State Public Health Officer Order changing attendance thresholds at mega events; for outdoor mega events, the new attendance threshold has been lowered to 5,000 attendees, and for indoor mega events, the new threshold is 500 attendees. Operators of mega events, performance venues, movie theaters, and entertainment venues are responsible for the messaging, signage, and compliance of masking requirements unless spectators or customers are actively eating or drinking. Additionally, Public Health recommends that food and drink be consumed in designated dining areas. Lastly, food and drinks are prohibited at card room gaming tables and masks must always be worn while indoors at card rooms, except for when actively eating or drinking in designated dining areas. These modifications recognize the importance of wearing well -fitting, high-quality masks that do the best job filtering out virus when in close contact with others. “I send my heartfelt condolences to everyone mourning the loss of a loved one due to COVID -19,” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer, PhD, MPH, MEd, Director of Public Health. “Given the explosive spread of the virus, activities that put us in close contact with many other people now have an increased risk. As such, everyone needs to be sensible about how to protect themselves and those they love by layering on protections whenever around non -household members. At work, this means upgrading your mask if you work indoors and you are in contact with other workers or members of the public. At entertainment venues, this means limiting the time you spend without wearing your upgraded mask. And for other activities, this may mean postponing your participation until community transmission is much reduced.” Today, Public Health confirmed 27 additional deaths and 26,754 new cases of COVID-19. Of the 27 new deaths reported today, one person was between the ages of 18 and 29, three were between the ages of 30 and 49, six were between the ages of 50-64, seven were between the ages of 65-79, and six were over the age of 80 years old. Of the 27 newly reported deaths, 18 had underlying conditions. To date, the total number of deaths in L.A. County is 27,698. Information on the three deaths reported by the City of Long Beach and the one death reported by the City of Pasadena are available at: www.Longbeach.gov and www.Cityofpasadena.net Public Health has identified a total 1,806,828 positive cases of COVID-19 across all areas of L.A. County. Today’s positivity rate is 22.4%. There are 2,240 people with COVID-19 currently hospitalized. Testing results are available for more than 10,159,295 individuals, with 16% of people testing positive. Public Health is reminding residents to avoid visiting the emergency room unless they need emergency medical care. Residents should not be visiting the emergency department solely to get a COVID test or for minor complaints that could be resolved through their primary care physician. Emergency room visits should be reserved for those patients who are 608 feeling severely ill – for example, those who are short of breath – or who have serious concerns about their health and who require immediate emergency care. To keep workplaces and schools open, residents and workers are asked to: • Get tested to help reduce the spread, especially if you traveled for the holidays, have had a possible exposure, or have symptoms, or are gathering with people not in your household • Adhere to masking requirements when indoors or at crowded outdoor spaces, regardless of vaccination status Residents are legally required to be isolated if they have a positive COVID test result and th at vaccinated close contacts with symptoms and unvaccinated close contacts need to be quarantined. For updated isolation and quarantine guidance, please visit www.publichealth.lacounty.gov COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and are recommended for everyone 5 years old and older to help protect against COVID-19. Vaccinations are always free and open to eligible residents and workers regardless of immigration status. Appointments are not needed at all Public Health vaccination sites and many community sites where first, second, and third doses are available. To find a vaccination site near you, or to make an appointment, please visit: www.VaccinateLACounty.com (English) or www.VacunateLosAngeles.com (Spanish). If you need assistance, you can also call 1-833-540-0473 for help: Finding an appointment Connect to free transportation to and from a vaccination site, or Schedule a home visit if you are homebound. For more information regarding COVID-19 in LA County you can also visit the Public Health website at www.publichealth.lacounty.gov here you will find information on: COVID-19 sector protocols & best practices, COVID-19 Vaccine Dashboards, and COVID-19 Surveillance Interactive and, Recovery Dashboards Please see additional information below: Cases through 6:00pm 01/04/2022 Total Cases NEW Laboratory Confirmed Cases 1806828 26754 -- Los Angeles County (excl. LB and Pas)* 1713051 25391 -- Long Beach 76,543 1088 -- Pasadena 17,234 275 Deaths 27698 27 -- Los Angeles County (excl. LB and Pas) 26247 23 -- Long Beach 1078 3 609 -- Pasadena 373 1 Age Group (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) - 0 to 4 45968 - 5 to 11 100311 - 12 to 17 110217 - 18 to 29 415716 - 30 to 49 577235 - 50 to 64 303758 - 65 to 79 118139 - over 80 40664 - Under Investigation 1043 Gender (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) - Female 866963 - Male 804137 - Other 821 - Under Investigation 41130 Race/Ethnicity (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) - American Indian/Alaska Native 2951 - Asian 90286 - Black 89766 - Hispanic/Latino 825331 - Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 7234 - White 229689 - Other 157988 - Under Investigation 309806 Hospitalization (Los Angeles County Cases Only-excl LB and Pas) 610 - Hospitalized (Ever) 111719 **DATA Under reported Deaths Race/Ethnicity (Los Angeles County Cases Only -excl LB and Pas) - American Indian/Alaska Native 62 - Asian 3384 - Black 2348 - Hispanic/Latino 13865 - Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 97 - White 6253 - Other 203 - Under Investigation 35 CITY / COMMUNITY** Cases Case Rate City of Agoura Hills 2066 9893 City of Alhambra 10552 12167 City of Arcadia 4617 7994 City of Artesia 2788 16600 City of Avalon 39 1008 City of Azusa 9014 18014 City of Baldwin Park 16642 21678 City of Bell 8501 23398 City of Bell Gardens 9895 22974 City of Bellflower 15339 19732 City of Beverly Hills 5430 15730 City of Bradbury 46 4303 City of Burbank 14584 13607 City of Calabasas 2533 10414 City of Carson 15055 16042 611 City of Cerritos 5099 10184 City of Claremont 3780 10361 City of Commerce* 3071 23498 City of Compton 22312 22333 City of Covina 9700 19783 City of Cudahy 6068 24923 City of Culver City 4378 10982 City of Diamond Bar 5335 9276 City of Downey 24200 21179 City of Duarte 3394 15416 City of El Monte 21800 18590 City of El Segundo 1763 10503 City of Gardena 9716 15847 City of Glendale 31073 15048 City of Glendora 7675 14546 City of Hawaiian Gardens 2925 19930 City of Hawthorne 15333 17269 City of Hermosa Beach 2231 11342 City of Hidden Hills 195 10317 City of Huntington Park 13810 23216 City of Industry 227 51945 City of Inglewood 20336 17904 City of Irwindale 375 25703 City of La Canada Flintridge 1726 8341 City of La Habra Heights 136 2493 City of La Mirada 6731 13571 612 City of La Puente 8617 21174 City of La Verne 4717 14173 City of Lakewood 11818 14706 City of Lancaster* 34029 21061 City of Lawndale 5287 15729 City of Lomita 2518 12147 City of Lynwood* 16871 23417 City of Malibu 1203 9282 City of Manhattan Beach 3228 8967 City of Maywood 6364 22689 City of Monrovia 5099 13142 City of Montebello 13553 21053 City of Monterey Park 7005 11251 City of Norwalk 21781 20238 City of Palmdale 34915 21964 City of Palos Verdes Estates 978 7233 City of Paramount 12947 23110 City of Pico Rivera 14604 22718 City of Pomona 34378 22047 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3027 7081 City of Redondo Beach 6148 8949 City of Rolling Hills 126 6495 City of Rolling Hills Estates 630 7765 City of Rosemead 6675 12060 City of San Dimas* 5136 14880 City of San Fernando 6986 28385 613 City of San Gabriel 4640 11330 City of San Marino 829 6244 City of Santa Clarita 35552 16129 City of Santa Fe Springs 4104 22348 City of Santa Monica 10647 11517 City of Sierra Madre 917 8345 City of Signal Hill 1856 15733 City of South El Monte 4383 20986 City of South Gate 24014 24465 City of South Pasadena 2470 9481 City of Temple City 3632 9963 City of Torrance 13351 8944 City of Vernon 165 78947 City of Walnut 2851 9338 City of West Covina 18887 17450 City of West Hollywood 5519 14936 City of Westlake Village 191 2285 City of Whittier 15736 17998 Los Angeles 735837 18193 Los Angeles - Adams-Normandie 1583 19300 Los Angeles - Alsace 2223 17863 Los Angeles - Angeles National Forest 5 12500 Los Angeles - Angelino Heights 423 16906 Los Angeles - Arleta 8989 26154 Los Angeles - Atwater Village 2242 15287 Los Angeles - Baldwin Hills 4521 14525 614 Los Angeles - Bel Air 925 10974 Los Angeles - Beverly Crest 1489 11888 Los Angeles - Beverlywood 1909 14492 Los Angeles - Boyle Heights* 21473 24715 Los Angeles - Brentwood 3529 11400 Los Angeles - Brookside 68 11704 Los Angeles - Cadillac-Corning 1093 15349 Los Angeles - Canoga Park 12743 19518 Los Angeles - Carthay 1936 13479 Los Angeles - Central 9197 23587 Los Angeles - Century City 1318 10303 Los Angeles - Century Palms/Cove 8313 24619 Los Angeles - Chatsworth 5828 15725 Los Angeles - Cheviot Hills 1000 10904 Los Angeles - Chinatown 1235 15397 Los Angeles - Cloverdale/Cochran 2438 16753 Los Angeles - Country Club Park 2254 14875 Los Angeles - Crenshaw District 2358 17051 Los Angeles - Crestview 1858 16344 Los Angeles - Del Rey 3740 12493 Los Angeles - Downtown* 7313 26586 Los Angeles - Eagle Rock 5649 14269 Los Angeles - East Hollywood 4558 15563 Los Angeles - Echo Park 2174 15250 Los Angeles - El Sereno 8564 20484 Los Angeles - Elysian Park 869 15214 615 Los Angeles - Elysian Valley 1770 17402 Los Angeles - Encino 6436 14248 Los Angeles - Exposition 543 16326 Los Angeles - Exposition Park 8564 19066 Los Angeles - Faircrest Heights 532 14778 Los Angeles - Figueroa Park Square 1901 21798 Los Angeles - Florence-Firestone 11800 24871 Los Angeles - Glassell Park 5044 15960 Los Angeles - Gramercy Place 2135 19835 Los Angeles - Granada Hills 10113 17379 Los Angeles - Green Meadows 5122 23818 Los Angeles - Hancock Park 2094 12289 Los Angeles - Harbor City 3972 13664 Los Angeles - Harbor Gateway 7143 16383 Los Angeles - Harbor Pines 276 11457 Los Angeles - Harvard Heights 3258 18065 Los Angeles - Harvard Park 9442 24890 Los Angeles - Highland Park 8313 17179 Los Angeles - Historic Filipinotown 2744 19784 Los Angeles - Hollywood 10561 15473 Los Angeles - Hollywood Hills 3479 11820 Los Angeles - Hyde Park 5645 19779 Los Angeles - Jefferson Park 1574 19497 Los Angeles - Koreatown 7560 14625 Los Angeles - Lafayette Square 757 16605 Los Angeles - Lake Balboa 7824 18538 616 Los Angeles - Lakeview Terrace 3123 23780 Los Angeles - Leimert Park 2608 17118 Los Angeles - Lincoln Heights 6673 20471 Los Angeles - Little Armenia 1544 19240 Los Angeles - Little Bangladesh 3903 13771 Los Angeles - Little Tokyo 631 20140 Los Angeles - Longwood 832 19331 Los Angeles - Los Feliz 2331 10788 Los Angeles - Manchester Square 1532 17948 Los Angeles - Mandeville Canyon 315 10083 Los Angeles - Mar Vista 4402 10365 Los Angeles - Marina Peninsula 408 9358 Los Angeles - Melrose 13029 16769 Los Angeles - Mid-city 2065 13739 Los Angeles - Miracle Mile 2182 12132 Los Angeles - Mission Hills 6063 25133 Los Angeles - Mt. Washington 4097 16968 Los Angeles - North Hills 12503 20305 Los Angeles - North Hollywood 30236 19968 Los Angeles - Northridge 11584 16597 Los Angeles - Pacific Palisades 1906 8952 Los Angeles - Pacoima 21582 28036 Los Angeles - Palisades Highlands 337 8762 Los Angeles - Palms 4927 11229 Los Angeles - Panorama City 17206 22865 Los Angeles - Park La Brea 1309 9639 617 Los Angeles - Pico-Union 8766 20950 Los Angeles - Playa Del Rey 280 8761 Los Angeles - Playa Vista 1386 12661 Los Angeles - Porter Ranch 4343 12204 Los Angeles - Rancho Park 847 12912 Los Angeles - Regent Square 425 15288 Los Angeles - Reseda 15990 20870 Los Angeles - Reseda Ranch 934 20147 Los Angeles - Reynier Village 480 11353 Los Angeles - San Pedro* 11850 15185 Los Angeles - Shadow Hills 660 14858 Los Angeles - Sherman Oaks 11776 13496 Los Angeles - Silverlake 5882 13343 Los Angeles - South Carthay 1488 14044 Los Angeles - South Park 9179 24180 Los Angeles - St Elmo Village 899 19612 Los Angeles - Studio City 2854 12718 Los Angeles - Sun Valley 12568 23947 Los Angeles - Sunland 3405 16685 Los Angeles - Sycamore Square 75 11592 Los Angeles - Sylmar* 21962 26654 Los Angeles - Tarzana 5173 16754 Los Angeles - Temple-Beaudry 6944 17588 Los Angeles - Thai Town 1426 14538 Los Angeles - Toluca Lake 1071 12305 Los Angeles - Toluca Terrace 240 18377 618 Los Angeles - Toluca Woods 207 11141 Los Angeles - Tujunga 4416 15879 Los Angeles - University Hills 446 13007 Los Angeles - University Park 5054 18408 Los Angeles - Valley Glen 5667 18880 Los Angeles - Valley Village 3881 15700 Los Angeles - Van Nuys* 19436 20855 Los Angeles - Venice 4284 12643 Los Angeles - Vermont Knolls 3896 22651 Los Angeles - Vermont Square 1999 26107 Los Angeles - Vermont Vista 9797 23787 Los Angeles - Vernon Central 13430 25828 Los Angeles - Victoria Park 1385 16490 Los Angeles - View Heights 439 11884 Los Angeles - Watts 9761 22873 Los Angeles - Wellington Square 834 16968 Los Angeles - West Adams 5381 19475 Los Angeles - West Hills 5290 13047 Los Angeles - West Los Angeles 4824 12818 Los Angeles - West Vernon 13065 24355 Los Angeles - Westchester 5434 10530 Los Angeles - Westlake 10026 16892 Los Angeles - Westwood 5484 10135 Los Angeles - Wholesale District* 10375 28717 Los Angeles - Wilmington 11345 20084 Los Angeles - Wilshire Center 7769 15485 619 Los Angeles - Winnetka 9500 18345 Los Angeles - Woodland Hills 9143 13435 Unincorporated - Acton 981 12307 Unincorporated - Agua Dulce 505 12145 Unincorporated - Altadena 5321 12199 Unincorporated - Anaverde 206 13660 Unincorporated - Angeles National Forest 50 4016 Unincorporated - Arcadia 933 11690 Unincorporated - Athens-Westmont 8955 21099 Unincorporated - Athens Village 1380 28181 Unincorporated - Avocado Heights 1489 21978 Unincorporated - Azusa 3293 20681 Unincorporated - Bassett 3327 22454 Unincorporated - Bouquet Canyon 99 9226 Unincorporated - Bradbury 54 50000 Unincorporated - Canyon Country 1590 20575 Unincorporated - Castaic* 5273 19392 Unincorporated - Cerritos 96 16354 Unincorporated - Charter Oak 1 5000 Unincorporated - Claremont 63 8974 Unincorporated - Covina 3337 19841 Unincorporated - Covina (Charter Oak) 2291 17430 Unincorporated - Del Aire 584 13294 Unincorporated - Del Rey 56 17610 Unincorporated - Del Sur 324 13416 Unincorporated - Desert View Highlands 508 20377 620 Unincorporated - Duarte 1067 24097 Unincorporated - East Covina 55 16717 Unincorporated - East La Mirada 785 14834 Unincorporated - East Lancaster 20 17544 Unincorporated - East Los Angeles 31162 24876 Unincorporated - East Pasadena 255 3983 Unincorporated - East Rancho Dominguez 3485 22766 Unincorporated - East Whittier 713 13438 Unincorporated - El Camino Village 1218 13855 Unincorporated - El Monte 30 20690 Unincorporated - Elizabeth Lake 142 8549 Unincorporated - Florence-Firestone 16507 25511 Unincorporated - Franklin Canyon 1 8333 Unincorporated - Glendora 109 16515 Unincorporated - Hacienda Heights 7459 13337 Unincorporated - Harbor Gateway 0 0 Unincorporated - Hawthorne 409 16269 Unincorporated - Hi Vista 84 7650 Unincorporated - Kagel/Lopez Canyons 347 24575 Unincorporated - La Crescenta-Montrose 1917 9681 Unincorporated - La Habra Heights 17 2515 Unincorporated - La Rambla 397 19133 Unincorporated - La Verne* 279 13676 Unincorporated - Ladera Heights 820 11597 Unincorporated - Lake Hughes 87 13024 Unincorporated - Lake Los Angeles 2206 16977 621 Unincorporated - Lake Manor 213 12964 Unincorporated - Lakewood 0 0 Unincorporated - Lennox 4519 20047 Unincorporated - Leona Valley 198 11308 Unincorporated - Littlerock 759 18876 Unincorporated - Littlerock/Juniper Hills 192 14803 Unincorporated - Littlerock/Pearblossom 694 19445 Unincorporated - Llano 67 7640 Unincorporated - Marina del Rey 1130 12007 Unincorporated - Miracle Mile 0 0 Unincorporated - Monrovia 543 13991 Unincorporated - Newhall 72 32727 Unincorporated - North Lancaster 228 19032 Unincorporated - North Whittier 1579 18888 Unincorporated - Northeast San Gabriel 2468 10268 Unincorporated - Padua Hills 17 7907 Unincorporated - Palmdale 144 17102 Unincorporated - Palos Verdes Peninsula 40 6441 Unincorporated - Pearblossom/Llano 217 11094 Unincorporated - Pellissier Village 214 34572 Unincorporated - Placerita Canyon 7 1522 Unincorporated - Pomona 97 5005 Unincorporated - Quartz Hill 2093 16217 Unincorporated - Rancho Dominguez 583 21909 Unincorporated - Roosevelt 130 13963 Unincorporated - Rosewood 256 19907 622 Unincorporated - Rosewood/East Gardena 247 20704 Unincorporated - Rosewood/West Rancho Dominguez 696 20708 Unincorporated - Rowland Heights 5163 10119 Unincorporated - San Clemente Island 0 0 Unincorporated - San Francisquito Canyon/Bouquet Canyon 27 3147 Unincorporated - San Jose Hills 4357 21547 Unincorporated - San Pasqual 48 2359 Unincorporated - Sand Canyon 28 9091 Unincorporated - Santa Catalina Island 350 131086 Unincorporated - Santa Monica Mountains* 1555 8351 Unincorporated - Saugus 213 137419 Unincorporated - Saugus/Canyon Country 61 17135 Unincorporated - South Antelope Valley 63 13846 Unincorporated - South El Monte 456 25404 Unincorporated - South San Gabriel 1280 14467 Unincorporated - South Whittier 11301 19082 Unincorporated - Southeast Antelope Valley 131 16773 Unincorporated - Stevenson Ranch 2501 11929 Unincorporated - Sun Village 1217 20162 Unincorporated - Sunrise Village 259 19985 Unincorporated - Twin Lakes/Oat Mountain 183 11037 Unincorporated - Val Verde 537 16228 Unincorporated - Valencia 420 13672 Unincorporated - Valinda 5052 21617 Unincorporated - View Park/Windsor Hills 1468 12617 Unincorporated - Walnut Park 3834 23750 623 Unincorporated - West Antelope Valley 88 5824 Unincorporated - West Carson 3378 15295 Unincorporated - West Chatsworth 4 33333 Unincorporated - West LA 269 28256 Unincorporated - West Puente Valley 2293 23315 Unincorporated - West Rancho Dominguez 274 20162 Unincorporated - West Whittier/Los Nietos 5648 20977 Unincorporated - Westfield/Academy Hills 92 7077 Unincorporated - Westhills 84 10012 Unincorporated - White Fence Farms 487 13223 Unincorporated - Whittier 468 12368 Unincorporated - Whittier Narrows 57 475000 Unincorporated - Willowbrook 9074 25990 Unincorporated - Wiseburn 884 14667 - Under Investigation 29665 These numbers are subject to change based on further investigation. * Means that case numbers include cases associated with correctional facility outbreaks located in the city/community. **Rate is crude and is per 100,000. This represents the number of cases per 100,000 people and allows for the proportional comparison of cities of different sizes. 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 Ongoing Requirements for Employers Los Angeles County Department of Public Health www.publichealth.lacounty.gov Requirements for Employers 1/5/22 (English) - 1 - COVID-19 This document summarizes ongoing requirements that employers must continue to follow in accordance with state, County, and local rules. Please see the links below for more detailed information about the requirements, including FAQs. REQUIREMENTS: Employers with locations in Los Angeles County are required to adhere to: The County Health Officer Order (HOO) at ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/reopening-la.htm#orders and the Business Toolkit for Ensuring Safety and Compliance with Health Officer Orders at ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/business-verification.htm. Cal/OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) at dir.ca.gov/covid. Employers with locations in the City of Los Angeles may also be required to adhere to: Los Angeles City Vaccination Ordinance at ewddlacity.com/index.php/recovery/safepassla. FAQs are available at ewddlacity.com/index.php/safepassla-faqs. Please note that where the requirements differ, the more stringent directives apply. COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER ORDER REQUIREMENTS: Reporting of COVID-19 Cases at the Worksite: • When any business knows of three (3) or more cases of COVID-19 among their employees (or onsite independent contractors or temporary workers) within 14 days, the employer (owner/manager/operator of the business) must report this outbreak to the Department of Public Health at (888) 397-3993 or (213) 240-7821, or online at http://www.redcap.link/covidreport. Face Masks: • Face masks are required for all individuals (including employees) in indoor public settings and businesses and 1/5/22: Updated to reflect that the County Health Officer Order now requires employers, effective January 17, 2022, to provide and require employees to wear a well-fitted medical grade mask, surgical mask, or higher-level respirator, such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, or KN95 at all times while indoors at the worksite. Also updated to add recent changes to the Cal/OSHA ETS requirements, effective January 14, 2022. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONTINUES TO PUT WORKERS AND THE COMMUNITY AT RISK. Employers must be vigilant and continue to protect their workforce and the community by following infection control measures and reporting COVID-19 cases to Public Health. When one or more employees, assigned or contracted workers, or volunteers of the business has tested positive for, or has symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (case), the employer must have a protocol to require the isolation of case(s) at home and require the immediate self-quarantine of all employees who are close contacts of the case(s) unless exempt. 643 Ongoing Requirements for Employers Los Angeles County Department of Public Health www.publichealth.lacounty.gov Requirements for Employers 1/5/22 (English) - 2 - at outdoor Mega Events (events with more than 5,000 attendees). Examples of settings where masks must be worn includes (but is not limited to) retail, restaurants, theaters, outdoor concerts, family entertainment centers, meetings, and state and local government offices serving the public. Please note that these requirements are more stringent than Cal/OSHA requirements and State Guidance and must be followed. • As soon as practicable, but no later than January 17, 2022, employers must provide and require employees to wear a well-fitting medical grade mask, surgical mask, or higher-level respirator such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator or KN95, at all times while indoors at the worksite. Vaccination for locations with low-risk food permits: • Employees at nightclubs, lounges, and bars, breweries, distilleries and wineries that have a low-risk food permit must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Customers utilizing the indoor portions of these businesses must also present proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 prior to entry. Vaccination/Testing for Mega Events: • Customers at indoor Mega Events (indoor events with more than 500 attendees) and outdoor Mega Events (outdoor events with more than 5,000 attendees) must show that they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or show a negative viral test result taken within 2 days prior to entry (PCR) or 1 day prior to entry (antigen). CAL/OSHA COVID-19 EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARDS: Employers must have a written COVID-19 Prevention Program, which includes: • Employee training and instruction on COVID-19 hazards; • Employee symptom screening process; • Employee access to COVID-19 testing; • Plan to respond to COVID-19 cases in the workplace; • Employee face mask protocol; • Plan for excluding COVID-19 cases from the workplace until the return-to-work criteria requirements are met. Face Masks: • Employers must provide unvaccinated employees with face masks with at least two layers. PLEASE NOTE that per the County Health Officer Order, all employees, regardless of vaccination status, must wear a face mask when working indoors, in a shared vehicle, or at an Outdoor Mega Event. • Employers must not retaliate against or discourage any employees from wearing a face mask. Personal Protective Equipment: • Use of N95 respirators is voluntary but employers must provide them to any employee who is not fully vaccinated upon request. N95 respirators must fit the employee, and the employee must receive basic instruction on how to get a good “seal,” or fit. • N95 respirators must be replaced if they get damaged, deformed, dirty, or difficult to breathe through. • The CDC recommends that N95 respirators be replaced after 5 uses. Hand Hygiene: • Encourage and allow time for employee handwashing. Provide approved hand sanitizers for employees to use. Ventilation: • Employers must evaluate ventilation systems to maximize outdoor air and increase filtration efficiency, and evaluate the use of additional air cleaning systems. COVID-19 Testing Protocol and Notification of Workplace Exposures: • Offer testing free of charge and during work hours to any workers who might have been exposed to COVID - 19 at work, including fully vaccinated workers. • Notify employees, employee representatives, and any other workers at the worksite of possible COVID-19 exposures within one business day. 644 Ongoing Requirements for Employers Los Angeles County Department of Public Health www.publichealth.lacounty.gov Requirements for Employers 1/5/22 (English) - 3 - Pay and Leave Rights of Workers: • Maintain and continue the wages, earnings, and the rights and benefits of employees while they are required to be away from the worksite because they are either a COVID-19 case or were exposed to COVID-19 in the workplace. COVID-19 Outbreak Reporting and Mitigation Requirements: • Report information about COVID-19 cases and outbreaks at the workplace to the local health department and provide any COVID-19 related outbreak information requested by the local health department. o When there are 3 or more employee COVID-19 cases at the worksite, evaluate the need to implement physical distancing and partitions between and among employees and the public. o When there are 20 or more employee COVID-19 cases, which constitutes a major outbreak, employers must immediately: ▪ Make testing available to all employees in the exposed group, regardless of vaccination status, twice a week or more frequently if recommended by the local health department. ▪ Use physical distancing and barriers for all employees, regardless of vaccination status. ▪ Offer respirators for voluntary use to all employees, regardless of vaccination status, and without waiting for a request from the employee. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES VACCINATION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: Vaccination verification: • Certain businesses (see below) with locations in the City of Los Angeles are required to verify that customers entering the indoor portions of their business are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The vaccination requirement does not apply to employees. Signage: • Businesses that are subject to the Vaccination Ordinance must post signage to make customers aware of the vaccination requirement. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Cal/OSHA: For information about COVID-19, heat illness prevention and wildfire smoke protections in the workplace or to speak with a bilingual Cal/OSHA representative during normal business hours, please call 833-579-0927. LA County Department of Public Health: For any questions, please contact our Industry Engagement program at (626) 430–5320. City of Los Angeles: For questions, concerns or assistance, email EWDD's Business Response Unit at mailto:labusinessresponse@lacity.org. Please review the list of Frequently Asked Questions for common concerns and inquiries. Businesses subject to the LA City Ordinance The Vaccination Ordinance applies to the following types of businesses located in the City of Los Angeles: • Food and beverage establishments including restaurants, bars, fast food establishments, coffee shops, cafeterias, food courts, banquet halls, and hotel ballrooms • Gyms and fitness venues • Entertainment and recreation venues including shopping centers, movie theaters, bowling alleys, arcades, card rooms, family entertainment centers, play areas, live performance venues, commercial event and party venues, sports arenas, convention centers and exhibition halls and museums • Personal care establishments • Indoor City facilities including City Hall, senior centers, recreation centers and service centers 645 Agenda Item No.: 11.C Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:DISCUSS PROPOSED CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) DECISION REVISING NET ENERGY METERING TARIFF AND SUBTARIFFS (MAYOR DIERINGER). DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Kelly A. Hymes issued a proposed decision on the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) Rulemaking 20-08-020 revising Net Energy Metering Tariff (NEM 2.0) and Subtariffs "to balance the multiple requirements of the code and the needs of the grid, the environment, participating ratepayers, as well as all other ratepayers." This item may be heard, at the earliest, at the Commission’s January 27, 2022 Business Meeting. Parties of record may file comments on the proposed decision as provided in Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Recent news articles and opponents have stated that the proposed decision and other components of the CPUC’s proposal, are a near-carbon copy of what PG&E and the other investor-owned utilities (IOU's) have lobbied for. If accepted and finalized on January 27th, they will go into effect this spring. Some concerns expressed are as follows: 1. $57 per month solar penalty fee for putting solar panels on the roof. The more solar panels, the larger the fee. This includes apartment buildings, new homes built with solar per the state mandate, and solar-powered batteries. The fee would be the largest in the U.S.A. 2. 80% cut to the credit solar users get for sharing surplus solar energy with the grid. The credit would drop from an average of twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour to about five cents. This cut happens immediately and could have serious impacts on the solar market. 3. Rollback of protections for existing solar users. Existing solar users are currently protected from changes to net metering rules for 20 years from the date their system turned on. The CPUC is now proposing to reduce that protection to 15 years, and eliminate the protection altogether if you accept their battery rebate. Staff has also provided Attachments A, B, & C for further background information. 646 DISCUSSION: This matter is on the January 6, 2022 South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Legislative Committee agenda. Mayor Bea Dieringer is the City's representative to the SBCCOG. Mayor Dieringer expressed that the CPUC's consideration of revising the Net Energy Metering program could impact the City Hall Campus Emergency Power Project. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact in reviewing the CPUC's consideration of revisions to the Net Energy Metering program. RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation from Mayor Dieringer and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_SRA__AttachA.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_LAT2_AttachB.pdf CL_AGN_220110_CC_NetMetering_LAT1_AttachC.pdf 647 Fact Sheet 8WLOLWLHVOLNH3* (ZDQWWRVWRS&DOLIRUQLD¶VVRODUSURJUHVV 'RQ¶WJLYHXS\RXUVRODUSRZHU California is a solar state where the sun belongs to everyone. Popular policies like net metering are helping millions of middle and working class Californians save money and clean up our air. Big utilities like PG&E, are standing in the way of future prog ress. They are lobbying the CA Public Utilities Commission to add a monthly solar penalty fee to ratepayer bills and drastically reduce the credit solar consumers receive for selling excess power back to the grid. -JXLI]KIXXLIMV[E]'EPMJSVRMERWƅEGGIWs to solar power will be blocked. On December 8th, the CPUC released a proposed decision that gives the utilities almost everything they asked for. If the CPUC approves their proposal at their scheduled January XLQIIXMRK'EPMJSVRMERWƅEGGIWWXSWSPEVTower will be blocked. Take action! Visit www.solarrights.org/SaveCaliforniaSolar to sign the petition to Governor Newsom. The Sun Belongs To Everyone x Over 2,000 schools, 1,000 farms, 300 apartment buildings and over a million homes are powered directly by the sun. [1] x Every day, 400 new consumers plug into the sun to save money and do their part to reduce air pollution and stop climate change. [2] Keep the Lights On With Sun-Charged Batteries x Increasingly, consumers are adding a battery to their solar system to provide reliable energy for their home or business. x California has more than 30,000 sun-charged batteries that can instantaneously provide pollution-free electricity when California needs it most ± late summer afternoons and early evenings when our electric grid is most stressed. [3] x Rolling blackouts like those that occurred on August 14 and 15, 2020 are avoidable if California builds more sun-charged batteries where people live, work, pray and play. Attachment C 648 Rooftop Solar Reduces Utility Bills For Everyone x Maximizing rooftop solar could save ratepayers $120 billion over the next thirty years. [4] x In 2018 alone, rooftop solar and energy efficiency prompted the state to scale back more than 20 power line projects, saving $2.6 billion. This trend has continued since. [5] The Big Utility Profit Grab Hurts Working Families the Most 8LI'49'ƅWTVSTSWEPMWERIEVGEVFSR-copy of the one PG&E, So Cal Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric lobbied for. It would effectively put solar out of reach for nearly everyone. [6] x $57 per month solar penalty fee for putting solar panels on the roof. The more solar panels, the larger the fee. This includes apartment buildings, new homes built with solar per the state mandate, and solar-powered batteries. The fee would be the largest in the U.S.A. x 80% cut to the credit solar users get for sharing surplus solar energy with the grid. The credit would drop from an average of twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour to about five cents. This cut happens immediately; we predict it will end the solar market overnight. x Rolls back protections for existing solar users. Existing solar users are currently protected from changes to net metering rules for 20 years from the date their system turned on. The CPUC is now proposing to reduce that protection to 15 years, and eliminate the protection altogether if you accept their battery rebate. x A step backward for equity. The CPUC falsely claims they are helping more low-income households by exempting them from the solar penalty fee, and with a ³0DUNHW7UDQVLWLRQ&UHGLW´RISHUPRQWKIRUHOLJLEOH3* (FXVWRPHUVDQG per month for eligible Southern California Edison customers. In reality, the &38&¶VGHDOZRXOGPDNHVRODUPRUHH[pensive for low-income. For example, low- income households going solar with PG&E would pay $24 to $50 per month more WKDQXQGHUWKHVWDWXVTXR7KDW¶VEHFDXVHVODVKLQJWKHQHWPHWHULQJFUHGLWE\ 80% destroys the bill savings that make solar pencil. [7] x This will make solar unaffordable for most people, right when just under half of all new solar is going into working and middle class neighborhoods, serving both homeowners and renters. [8] Over 150,000 solar roofs serve customers in the CARE discount program. [9] This year, an additional 30,000 rental units serving more than 100,000 people at multifamily affordable housing projects are under development due to net metering, and another 200,000 families in affordable multi-family homes are projected to get sol ar by 2030. [10] x This will also ruin thousands of small, locally-owned solar businesses and threaten over 60,000 jobs. [11] 649 The Utility Profit Grab Impedes Getting To 100% Clean Energy x The California Energy Commission estimates California will need three times as much solar ± both large-scale and rooftop ± to meet its goals and help fight climate change. [12] x By building solar panels on roofs, instead of converting open space to utility-scale solar farms, California can also help protect open space. For every gigawatt of rooftop solar built on rooftops, almost 5,200 acres of land can be protected. [13] x 7RGD\¶VRQHPLOOLRQVRODUV\VWHPVSURGXFHQHDUO\ELOOLRQNLORZDWWKRXUV N:K of clean energy each year, avoiding 5 million metric tons of CO2 ann ually ± the equivalent of two coal-fired power plants. [14] Utilities Care About Profits, Not Equity x Long-GLVWDQFHSRZHUOLQHVDQG³ZLOGILUHPLWLJDWLRQ´DUHZKDW¶VDFWXDOO\GULYLQJXS our electricity bills. Consumers pay an estimated $9 billion a year rel ated to long- distance power lines.[15] x Utilities get a guaranteed profit of 8-10% from every dollar they spend building and maintaining those power lines. [16] x Utilities have lobbied against every major proposal to help more working communities adopt solar and battery storage. [17] We should keep solar growing, and make it more equitable We are pushing to keep rooftop solar and battery storage growing, and to make it more equitable so that millions of working class households and communities including renters have access to solar in the next few years. [18] Endnotes [1] California Solar & Storage Association: Shovel Ready for Recovery [2] California DG Stats. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov. [3] See note 1 [4] Vibrant Clean Energy: Role of Distributed Generation in Decarbonizing California by 2045 [5] See Utility Dive summary of this CA Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) 2018 report, with link to the actuEPVITSVX'%-73ƅW most recent 2020-2021 report continued to GVIHMXVSSJXSTWSPEVERHIJJMGMIRG]JSVVIHYGMRKXVERWQMWWMSRPMRIWTIRHMRKƈ Load 650 forecast growth continues to remain relatively flat, resulting in part from continued statewide emphasis on energy efficiency and behind-the-QIXIVKIRIVEXMSRƏ'SRWMWXIRX with past studies, this transmission planning cycle did not reveal the need for major transmission expansion XSEGLMIZIXLITIVGIRX647KSEPWIXSYXMR7&JSVƉ (p.1) [6] CPUC Proposal for NEM3 released December 13, 2021. Solar Penalty Fee: PG&E: $8 per kW of installed solar capacity. This is $48 per month for a customer with a typical solar system size of 6 kW; SCE: $8 per kW of installed solar capacity plus $12 per month. This is $60 per month for a typical customer; SDG&E: $8 per kW of installed solar capacity plus $16 per month. This is $64 per month for a typical customer. [7] California Solar & Storage Association, Under NEM-3 Proposal, Solar & Storage Become More Expensive, Even for Low-Income. [8] Neighborhood level adoption data: The Berkeley Lab: Solar Demographics Tool and Income Trends among U.S. Residential Rooftop Solar Adopters [9] CARE data [10] See note 2. [11] The Solar Foundation: National Solar Jobs Census [12] California Energy Commission: SB 100 Joint Agency Report Summary, p. 10 [13] Environment California Research & Policy Center: The Environmental Case for Rooftop Solar [14] See note 1 [15] CA Public Utilities Commission: Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future $4B in transmission costs in 2021 on p. 3; $5B in wildfire mitigation costs in 2019 on p. 60; $4.336 in 2021 transmission spending and rate of increase p. 36 ?A'49'ƅWƈ9XMPMX]'SWXWERH%JJSVHEFMPMX]SJXLI+VMHSJXLI*YXYVI 8LI%ZIVGL- .SLRWSRIJJIGXHIWGVMFIHSRTEKI 8LIWXEXIƅWMRZIWXSV-owned utilities charged ratepayers nearly $20 billion in transmission line projects between 2010 and 2019 (pp. 39, Table 11); Utilities collected more than $20 billion in profits over a similar time period (utility 10-K filings, itemized here). 651 [17] Partial list of initiatives utilities lobbied to kill or defang: Affordable housing solar incentives (AB 693 Ɓ Eggman, 2015); Low-income feed in tariff (AB 1990 Ɓ Fong); Community solar (SB 843 Ɓ Wolk, 2013; SB 43 Ɓ Wolk, 2013; CPUC implementation); Microgrids (SB 1339, CPUC implementation) [18] Coalition for Environmental Equity & Economics, Equity Statement and Path for more solar equity 652 L ATIMES.COM MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2021 A 9 BUSINESS It’s been two years since Califor- nia reached 1 million solar roofs, a landmark in the fight against cli- mate change. Now the story of so- lar power in the Golden State may be approaching another turning point. The California Public Utilities Commission is poised to overhaul the state’s main solar incentive program, known as net metering. The agency’s proposal would, in ef- fect, make rooftop solar more ex- pensive and could be approved as soon as Jan. 27. Officials say the changes are needed to keep the lights on, pre- vent electricity rates from rising and encourage people to install batteries, while still growing the so- lar market. Solar executives say they would backfire and crater a thriving industry. Here’s what the utilities com- mission’s proposed decision would do: 8 Reduce payments to solar customers who send electricity to the power grid when their systems generate more than they need. In- stead of being compensated at the retail rate — the same rate they pay for electricity from the grid — newly enrolled net metering cus- tomers would be paid at the much lower “avoided cost” rate. That would amount to about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, down from 20 to 30 cents today, accord- ing to the California Solar & Stor- age Assn. 8 Add a monthly “grid partici- pation charge” of $8 per kilowatt for homes (but not businesses) that install solar. A home with a six-kilo- watt system would be charged $48 per month, or $576 per year. Low- income and tribal homes would be exempt. 8 Add a temporary “market transition credit” to lessen some of those higher costs for households that want to go solar. The credit would be available for four years, with homes that install solar pan- els locking in the savings for a dec- ade. In Southern California Edison territory, the credit would start at $5.25 per kilowatt of solar for low- income customers and $3.59 per kilowatt for everyone else, before decreasing each of the next three years. For Pacific Gas & Electric customers, the credits would start at $4.36 per kilowatt and $1.62 per kilowatt, respectively. San Diego Gas & Electric customers wouldn’t receive any credits, because the commission believes that solar is already cost-effective enough for them due to the utility’s especially high electricity rates. 8 Require homes that already have solar panels to switch from the existing net metering program to the new program described above — known as “net billing” — no later than 15 years after their systems were installed. Low-in- come homes could keep operating under the more favorable terms of the old program for 20 years after installation. 8 Create a “storage evolution fund” to encourage homes and businesses that already have solar to add batteries. Utility customers currently enrolled in net metering would receive rebates of $200 per kilowatt-hour for installing an en- ergy storage system — but only if they switch to the newly revised so- lar incentive program within four years. The rebate would drop the longer they wait. For a typical resi- dential battery system of 13 kilo- watt-hours, the rebate would start at $2,600. 8 Create an “equity fund” that would spend as much as $600 mil- lion over four years, bringing clean energy to low-income and polluted neighborhoods. The details would be worked out later. 8 Allow homes and businesses to install solar systems big enough to meet 150% of their energy de- mand, to help power electric cars or electric heating systems they might add later. That’s much big- ger than is currently allowed. Another key change: Homes and businesses that already have solar (or go solar under the new rules) would pay higher rates for electricity from the grid during some times of day and lower rates at other times. All monopoly utility customers are shifting to these “time of use” rates to encourage energy con- sumption when supplies are abun- dant and discourage it when sup- plies are tight. But solar homes would see an especially high differ- ence between “peak” and “off peak” rates. In Edison territory, they’d pay 48 cents per kilowatt-hour on summer weekday evenings and 19 cents on winter mornings. Only customers of Edison, PG&E and Sempra Energy subsid- iary SDG&E would be affected by the new rules. Solar homes served by publicly owned utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power wouldn’t see changes. If you’re served by a govern- ment-run “community choice” agency — such as the Clean Power Alliance in Los Angeles and Ven- tura counties, which uses Edison’s poles and wires to bring you elec- tricity — you’d have to pay the new monthly “grid participation fees.” But the compensation rate for your solar power would drop only if local elected officials decide it should. Here’s what many of the groups and people involved in the rooftop solar debate have to say: Environment advocates The Sierra Club isn’t happy with the proposed decision. Nei- ther are the Climate Center, Coali- tion for Community Solar Access, Environment California, Environ- mental Working Group and Vote Solar. The Save California Solar coali- tion— whose members include hundreds of groups focused on cli- mate action, public health, conser- vation and equitable housing — called the state agency’s proposal “a giveaway to investor-owned util- ities.” Especially interesting is the Si- erra Club’s position, which doesn’t align neatly with those of either the solar or utility industries. The club had proposed gradually lowering compensation payments to new solar customers. It had also joined with advocacy group Vote Solar and nonprofit installer Grid Alter- natives to propose higher compen- sation rates for low-income homes. The utilities commission’s plan wouldn’t do either of those things. Instead, it fully endorses the “cost shift” argument made by utility companies and others — that net metering leads to higher electricity rates for Californians who can’t af- ford solar. “The ‘cost shift’ narrative has been wildly overblown,” Sierra Club attorney Katherine Ramsey said. “We recognize that this pro- gram needs to be updated in order to reduce nonparticipant impacts. But at the end of the day, we need more rooftop solar.” One group’s stance At least one major environmen- tal group supports the decision. That would be the Natural Re- sources Defense Council, which largely agrees with the utility in- dustry that net metering is a mas- sive giveaway from the poor to the rich. NRDC senior scientist Mohit Chhabra said he’s especially pleased with the $600-million equi- ty fund, which he expects will help pay for solar panels for low-income homes. He sees that as a better model than the Sierra Club’s pro- posal, because it would make it easier for low-income families to buy solar systems rather than lease them, and thus reap more of the long-term savings. Chhabra said the primary goal of net metering shouldn’t be to add as much rooftop solar as possible —it should be to meet California’s overall climate goals, which will re- quire a lot of rooftop solar but also many other forms of clean energy. That includes large solar and wind farms that generate power at a lower cost than rooftop systems due to economies of scale. “Cheap, clean, pollution-free electricity for everybody is the first step. And then do your best to make sure solar is distributed equally,” Chhabra said. “Don’t flip those two things.” Utility industry In a statement, Edison called the proposal “a meaningful step” that will “reduce the financial bur- den on non-solar customers who have subsidized net energy meter- ing by significantly overpaying rooftop solar customers.” PG&E offered similar praise, saying the current system has “resulted in deep inequities between custom- ers with rooftop solar and those without.” SDG&E was more circum- spect, saying it would “reserve comment until our experts have an opportunity to review the 204-page proposed decision and evaluate its impact to our customers.” Then there’s the Affordable Clean Energy for All campaign, which lists more than 100 diverse supporters but whose sole funders are the utility companies. Cam- paign spokesperson Kathy Fair- banks said the proposed decision “recognizes we can grow rooftop solar in California while taking steps to reduce inflated subsidies that have put an unfair cost burden on renters, seniors, disadvantaged communities and other working Californians who don’t have the ability or means to install rooftop solar systems.” Solar industry Brad Heavner, policy director for the California Solar & Storage Assn., said one of the utilities com- mission’s biggest mistakes is as- suming that rooftop solar costs $2.34 per watt, based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He pointed to a differ- ent data set from Lawrence Berke- ley National Laboratory showing that installed system costs hit $3.87 per watt in California last year. He also said new solar homes would be hit with higher fees than the commission is letting on, pay- ing an additional $12 per month in Edison territory and $16 per month in SDG&E territory, because of their time-of-use electric rates (with PG&E customers getting off scot-free, at least initially). That would bring new monthly fees for non-low-income homes to $38 for typical Edison and PG&E custom- ers and $64 for typical SDG&E cus- tomers, after accounting for the new “market transition credit.” Then there’s the reduced pay- ment rate for electricity exported to the grid. Heavner estimated that a typical new solar customer would see this compensation drop by $675 per year in Edison territory, $985 in PG&E territory and $1,290 in SDG&E territory. Heavner estimated that those changes would lengthen the typi- cal payback period — how long it takes solar customers to make back their upfront investments through lower bills — to 19 years for Edison customers and 16 years for PG&E customers — far short of the 10 years the commission said it is targeting (except for an esti- mated nine-year payback in SDG&E territory). For low-income homes, paybacks would be 11 or 12 years regardless of the utility. For comparison, payback peri- ods currently hover around five years. Consumer watchdogs The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, spends much of its time fighting the util- ities on rate increases — but it largely agrees with them on net metering. TURN attorney Matthew Freedman thinks a 10-year pay- back is a good target, and he’s open to increasing the “market transi- tion credit” if the commission used flawed data, to make sure 10 years is what consumers get. “I think 10 years is fair for people to get their money back,” Freed- man said. “Customers don’t need that subsidy forever to invest in so- lar.” Mike Campbell, a program manager at the commission’s Pub- lic Advocates Office, also likes the proposed decision. He called it “a positive step in addressing the in- equities in the current net energy metering program,” saying in an email that it would compensate so- lar customers fairly while advanc- ing the state’s climate goals — in part by encouraging battery instal- lation. Severin Borenstein, a UC Berkeley energy economist and net metering critic, said the com- mission’s plan does “a good job ad- dressing the cost shift inequity.” But he also emphasized that elec- tricity rates are far higher than they should be for monopoly utility customers, and fixing net metering is like a Band-Aid for this bigger is- sue. Right now, Borenstein said via email, Californians pay electric rates that cover all sorts of utility expenses that have nothing to do with generating power, including clean energy subsidies and proj- ects that reduce the risk of wild- fires. He thinks those “fixed” costs should be paid for differently, al- lowing for lower electricity rates overall. That might mean less mo- tivation to install solar, but it would also make people more likely to in- vest in electric vehicles and electric heating — key parts of California’s climate strategy. “If state leaders still want to pri- oritize rooftop solar, they could avoid shifting costs onto low and middle income households ... by subsidizing rooftop systems di- rectly, and transparently, with a program covered by the state budget,” Borenstein wrote in June. Home building industry In 2018, California became the first state to requiresolar panels on most new homes. But that require- ment was predicated on solar-pow- ered homes being “cost effective” —and the California Building In- dustry Assn., a trade group for home builders, says the proposed changes to net metering might jeopardize the legality of the man- date by making solar no longer cost effective. The group warned the Public Utilities Commission last month that fixed monthly charges for so- lar customers — as the agency has now proposed — would “severely impact the financial viability” of rooftop solar on new homes. The group recommended “a steady glide path with small increments on any additional fees to custom- ers.” Dan Dunmoyer, the group’s chief executive, agrees that some changes to net metering are war- ranted. But he also wants the solar mandate to succeed. Although his group is still analyzing the propos- al, his first impression is that it could be a recipe for failure. “If you’re paying $500 or $600 that you weren’t paying before this change [to net metering], what does that do to families that are trying to balance their family budgets?” Dunmoyer asked. The California Energy Commis- sion, which crafted the solar man- date, is “evaluating the impacts of the [net metering] proposal on the cost effectiveness of the energy code,” spokesperson Lindsay Buckley said in an email. Wall Street Within 12 hours of the utilities commission releasing its proposal, Morgan Stanley put out an analysis. The investment bank wrote that the net metering plan “would in our view be heavily damaging to near-term rooftop solar growth and margins.” Morgan Stanley analysts called the proposed monthly fees “surprisingly high,” saying they would “largely to com- pletely eliminate the economic benefits of rooftop solar in Califor- nia, absent the inclusion of stor- age.” At the same time, “storage can provide a longer-term offset,” they wrote. For Sunrun in particular — the nation’s largest rooftop solar installer, based in San Francisco — Morgan Stanley projected that by 2024, “the company will have suffi- cient storage volumes to offer all prospective California customers the ability to include storage with solar,” which would save custom- ers money. This article was originally published in Boiling Point, a weekly email newsletter about climate change and the environment. Go to latimes.com/boilingpoint to sign up. California’s plan to slash solar incentives O FFICIALS SAY changes are needed to keep the lights on, keep electricity rates from rising and encourage people to install batter- ies. Above, Juan Alcantara, left, Sal Miranda and Lee Kwok of Grid Alternatives, a nonprofit, install panels on a Watts home in June. Gary Coronado Los Angeles Times Want to install or already have rooftop panels? How the proposed changes would affect you. ‘We recognize that this program needs to be updated in order to reduce nonparticipant impacts. But at the end of the day, we need more rooftop solar.’ —KATHERINE R AMSEY, attorney for the Sierra Club By Sammy Roth Attachment E 653 A 8 T UESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021 LATIMES.COM BUSINESS Treasury investors are losing more money than they have in four decades, once inflation is taken into account. And if markets are right, they’re unlikely to come out ahead for years. The federal government’s debt has already lost about 2% over the last year as the Federal Reserve started re- moving pandemic-era stim- ulus from the economy and inched closer toward raising interest rates. But on top of that, the consumer price in- dex has surged 6.8%, putting investors even deeper in the hole. Taken together, that’s re- sulting in the worst real re- turns — or those adjusted for inflation — since the early 1980s, when then Fed Chair Paul Volcker was in the midst of fighting a wage- price spiral. What’s more, the dynam- ic isn’t expected to change: The bond market is project- ing that 10-year Treasury yields will hold below the in- f lation rate for the next dec- ade, meaning any invest- ment income will be more than wiped out by the rising cost of living. The persistently low level of long-term yields in the face of the steepest inflation in decades has been a major puzzle on Wall Street, since it defies the textbook expec- tation that investors would demand higher payouts in return. In 1982, the last time year-on-year inflation rose as much as it did in Novem- ber, the 10-year yield climbed as high as nearly 15%. It’s be- low 1.5% now. Some say that reflects the deluge of stimulus and rising household savings since the onset of the pan- demic, which has left a sur- feit of cash flooding into the Treasury market. For oth- ers, it reflects a pessimistic view of the economy, signal- ing that investors see the na- tion’s growth potential con- tinuing to slip. Either way, nearly two years of sub-zero real yields have penalized average sav- ers and bond investors to the U.S. government’s benefit. “People have accepted negative real returns for a long period of time,” said Greg Whiteley, portfolio manager at DoubleLine Group, which oversees $137 billion in assets. “De- spite the fact it may seem pe- culiar, maybe this is some- thing we have to adjust to as the new normal.” Ten-year yields on infla- tion-linked bonds fell to an all-time low of minus 1.25% last month before rebound- ing to about minus 1%. Tak- en at face value, that shows investors expect 10-year yields — trading at 1.44% on Monday — to trail inflation by about 1% annually over the next decade. “You may not want to own bonds because they are [a] negative-yielding securi- ty,” said Francis Scotland, director for global macro re- search at Brandywine Glob- al, which manages $67 billion in assets. “But that phenom- enon may exist for a long time because of this funda- mental disequilibrium be- tween saving and invest- ment, or spending and sav- ing.” Even so, there are some temporary factors at work. While the Fed has started paring its bond purchases, it’s still buying $60 billion worth of Treasurys a month. The supply-demand im- balances may change next year as central banks world- wide retreat from their quantitative easing, which would lead to higher bond yields. Bond traders are staring at worst real returns in decades bloomberg California officials want to slash payments for rooftop solar power, saying the changes would help the state achieve 100% clean en- ergy while keeping the lights on, preventing electricity rates from rising and en- couraging people to install batteries. But solar executives are furious with the changes, saying they would backfire and crater a thriving indus- try. The proposal from Martha Guzman Aceves, one of five members of the California Public Utilities Commission, would revamp an incentive program called net energy metering that has helped the state become a national solar power leader, with more than 1.3 million rooftop and other small-scale systems in- stalled. The solar industry and climate change advo- cacy groups are lobbying Gov. Gavin Newsom and his appointees on the utilities commission to keep the pro- gram’s basic tenets un- changed. In an interview, Guzman Aceves said net metering needs to evolve to reflect California’s changing energy needs. The Golden State’s power grid is increasingly flooded by solar energy dur- ing the afternoon but strained on hot summer evenings, when millions of people throttle up their air conditioners. Reducing demand for planet-warming fossil fuels such as diesel and natural gas during that “net peak” period in the evening, Guz- man Aceves said, is her over- riding goal. She and her staff crafted a plan to phase out net me- tering that will encourage new and existing solar cus- tomers to add battery stor- age systems that can bank clean energy for after dark, she said. Among other provi- sions, a new “storage evolu- tion fund” would offer pay- ments for homes that al- ready have solar panels to add storage. “There’s a huge opportu- nity here for us to get more out of these customers to contribute to the net peak,” Guzman Aceves said. Other elements of the commissioner’s proposal would prompt Californians to switch from gasoline to electric vehicles, and from natural gas furnaces and stoves to electric appliances fueled by solar and wind en- ergy, Guzman Aceves said — key pieces of California’s war on climate change. For in- stance, homes and busi- nesses that add solar panels would be allowed to build much bigger systems than is currently allowed under net metering, to support life- styles that are increasingly powered by electricity. “I think the proposal is strong,” Guzman Aceves said. “It’s focused on what we collectively need, to get off of fossil fuels.” Solar executives and cli- mate activists, though, said the proposal would only im- pede California’s aggressive climate goals. Walker Wright, vice presi- dent of public policy at San Francisco-based Sunrun, the nation’s largest rooftop solar installer, was similarly displeased, saying in a writ- ten statement that Guzman Aceves’ proposal would “im- pose the highest discrimi- natory charges on solar and energy storage customers in the U.S., putting rooftop so- lar and batteries out of reach for countless families.” Wright also said the pro- posed changes are “contrary to the state’s objectives of addressing climate change and eliminating frequent blackouts” — a reference to the utility industry’s prac- tice of shutting down the electric grid in certain places during dry, windy conditions to prevent wild- fire ignitions. Solar support- ers see those “public safety power shutoffs” as a power- ful argument for encourag- ing rooftop systems paired with batteries that can serve as a backup power source when the grid goes down. “Only the wealthiest Cali- fornians will be able to afford rooftop solar, shutting out schools, small businesses, and the average family from our clean energy future,” Ab- igail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Indus- tries Assn., said in a state- ment. “The only winners to- day are the utilities, which will make more profits at the expense of their ratepayers.” Guzman Aceves’ pro- posed decision, which was released Monday, endorses the argument made by the state’s largest investor- owned utility companies — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and Sempra Energy — that net metering subsidizes richer households that can afford rooftop solar at the expense of lower-income households that can’t. The utilities estimate that “cost shift” at $3.4 bil- lion annually, a figure hotly disputed by the solar indus- try and climate activists, who say rooftop panels cre- ate many public benefits that aren’t included in the calculation, including the health benefits of less air pollution from fossil fuels and the cost savings from limiting the need for new power plants and transmis- sion lines. Rooftop solar also doesn’t require paving over undisturbed land, unlike sprawling desert solar farms that can tear up sensitive ecosystems. Utility companies have led the charge for lower rooftop solar incentives, alongside politically power- ful labor unions represent- ing their employees, who have a vested interest in pro- tecting the monopoly utility business model. But they’re not alone. Two influential con- sumer watchdog groups, the Utility Reform Network and the state’s Public Advocates Office, have joined the util- ities in arguing for reduced incentives for rooftop solar. A handful of prominent envi- ronmental groups, includ- ing the Natural Resources Defense Council and the California Environmental Justice Alliance, have also argued the program is not equitable. Mohit Chhabra, a senior scientist at NRDC, called the proposed decision “a strong North Star.” He was especially pleased with a plan to spend $600 million over four years to bring clean energy to low-income and polluted neighborhoods, possibly through incentives for batteries or locally built “community solar” facilities that serve households un- able to install their own so- lar. The Utility Reform Net- work praised the commis- sioner’s proposal too, with staff attorney Matthew Freedman describing it as “a step in the right direction” that prioritizes low-income households “who have been left behind under the cur- rent program.” Southern California Edi- son offered similar praise, calling the decision “a mean- ingful step toward modern- izing California’s rooftop so- lar program” that will “re- duce the financial burden on non-solar customers who have subsidized net energy metering.” Guzman Aceves thinks the $3-billion cost shift esti- mate is “on the low side” of what non-solar ratepayers are actually paying for net metering. If, instead, the state were to spend the same amount building large solar farms — which generate electricity more cheaply than rooftop systems — it could triple its solar capac- ity, a comparison that helps illustrate “how much we’re spending and how much we’re getting” from the rooftop program, Guzman Aceves said. The commissioner wants to make several seismic changes to net metering. First, she would slash the payments that newly enrolled solar customers re- ceive for the electricity they send to the power grid when their systems generate more than they need. Instead of being compensated at the retail rate — the same rate they pay for electricity from the grid — they would be paid at a much lower rate known as the “avoided cost.” That would amount to about 5 cents per kilowatt- hour of electricity, down from 20 to 30 cents today, ac- cording to the California So- lar & Storage Assn., an in- dustry trade group. Second, new solar cus- tomers would pay a monthly “grid participation charge” of $8 per kilowatt of solar power per month to help cover the costs of maintain- ing the grid, such as safety projects to reduce the risk of wildfire ignitions. Net me- tering critics say that type of “fixed charge” can ensure that crucial utility expendi- tures aren’t just paid for by lower-income households. A home with a six-kilo- watt system would be charged $48 per month, or $576 per year. Low-income homes would be exempt. The proposed decision responds to concerns raised by solar companies by cre- ating a “market transition credit” of up to $5.25 per kilo- watt per month for homes that add solar panels within four years of the new pro- gram taking effect. The size of the available credit would drop each of those four years, but customers who add solar — with or without batteries — would lock in the savings for a decade. Guzman Aceves said the credits are designed to cre- ate a “payback period” of 10 years for new solar custom- ers, meaning that’s how long it would take them to make back their upfront invest- ment through lower electric bills. Payback periods cur- rently hover around five years. Solar executives, though, aren’t convinced the com- missioner’s proposal would actually result in 10-year paybacks — and even if it did, they say, that’s far long- er than the seven years or less that is needed to per- suade most people to invest in solar. Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the Cal- ifornia Solar & Storage Assn., said in an email that she was “shocked at how bad” the proposed decision is. The idea that it’s pro-bat- teries, she said, “couldn’t be further from the truth,” with new monthly fees applying to all solar-powered homes and businesses, whether or not they have energy stor- age. Del Chiaro also pointed out that many of the changes could take effect as soon as May. She said that’s not nearly enough time for the industry to reorient itself around energy storage. “We need to ramp up the battery market, but making solar more expensive in the next five months is how you kill the entire distributed generation market, not how you drive a storage market,” she said. Homes and businesses that already have solar would be switched from net metering to the new “net billing” program envisioned by Guzman Aceves 15 years after their systems were in- stalled. Existing solar customers that switch to the new pro- gram — as well as new solar customers — would also pay higher rates for power from the grid during times when the utility system is strained and lower rates at other times. All customers are shift- ing to those “time of use” rates, whether or not they have solar. But under Guz- man Aceves’ proposal, the difference between “peak” and “off peak” charges would be even greater for solar homes, to prompt them to add batteries. The proposed decision would only affect customers of Edison, PG&E and Sem- pra subsidiary San Diego Gas & Electric. Customers of publicly owned utilities such as the Los Angeles De- partment of Water and Power wouldn’t see their so- lar incentives change. The earliest the Public Utilities Commission could vote on the proposal would be Jan. 27, after a public com- ment period. By then the agency will have a new president, with Marybel Batjer stepping down and being replaced by Newsom’s energy advisor, Alice Reynolds, on Dec, 31. Guzman Aceves will also be leaving the commission at the end of this week, after be- ing appointed by President Biden to lead the southwest- ern region of the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency. Especially if Newsom moves quickly to replace Guzman Aceves, he could have a lot of sway over the fi- nal decision — if he wants to. The governor’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment about his position on net metering. The Save California Solar campaign which includes more than 600 organizations ,released a statement from Pastor William Smart Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Con- ference, who described the proposed decision as a “util- ity profit grab,” saying it would “take California back to a time when solar was a luxury for the wealthy and out of reach for our commu- nities.” A big cut in rooftop solar incentives? Proposed net metering policy change would put brakes on shift to clean energy, critics fume By Sammy Roth A PUC PROPOSAL would slash the payments that newly enrolled solar customers receive for electricity they send to the grid when their systems generate an excess. Above, installers work at a home in Watts in June. Photographs by Gary Coronado Los Angeles Times B ACKERS of the change say current rules shift costs to ratepayers who don’t have solar. Above, Juan Alcantara, left, Sal Miranda and Lee Kwok install a panel. Attachment D 654 Agenda Item No.: 12.A Mtg. Date: 01/10/2022 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVER (CAL-RECYCLE) BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING CITY PAYMENT PROGRAM. DATE:January 10, 2022 BACKGROUND: CalRecycle has an annual Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program and will distribute $10,500,000 in fiscal year 2021-22 to eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. Cities are eligible to receive a minimum of $5,000 and counties are eligible to receive a minimum of $10,000 per grant award. The City of Rolling Hills is eligible for a $5,000 grant award upon completion of the funding application due January 18, 2022. A resolution authorizing submittal of application is necessary to complete the application. CalRecycle has granted the city an extension of 12 days to submit an executed resolution and will accept a draft resolution with the funding application submission. The Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program has an Expenditure Period of two years after awarding and will not close until April 2024. The Program has a variety of eligible activities and options to allow jurisdictions to utilize the funds most appropriately. DISCUSSION: The City of Rolling Hills can use grant funds towards replacing existing public trash receptacles with dual bin receptacles at the following locations: City Hall Parking Lot, 2 Riding Ring areas, Tennis Courts, Crest Gate, Eastfield Gate, and the Crest Lookout Point. These are eligible for 100% reimbursement through the grant. For examples of dual bins see Attachment A. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant has no fiscal impact to the general fund. RECOMMENDATION: Approve participation in the program and direct City Attorney to draft multi-year resolution authorizing submittal of application for the January 24, 2022 City Council meeting. 655 ATTACHMENTS: PW_REF_220118_CRC_BevGrant_DualBinExamples_AttachA.pdf 656 Examples of dual bin solutions 657